Forums
Forum Tools
|
 |
14:44:46 - 04/26/2024
General Dakota Board
| From | Message |
Riq
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/13/2004
13:29:29
|
 Subject: Heres the proof....
IP: Logged
Message:
I had complained to the national highway traffic safety admin. about my front end. 4 months later this is some of what I recieved back. DC admits water intrusion allows the breakdown, yet im still not getting any compensation on under 2000 daks. They plainly admit the problem is on 98up. I bet they get sued a lot soon.
Action: This Preliminary Evaluation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis.
Engineer: Peter Kiyett Date: 11 19 2003
Div. Chief: ,Ze&ey L. Quandt Date: 11/19/2003
Office Dir.: xathfeen C. De9lleter Date: 11 19 2003
Summary: In July 2003, ODI opened PE03-032 based on 4 consumer complaints alleging separation
of an upper ball joint. Complaints alleged an unexpected collapse in the front end and in some
occasions the ball joint separation is alleged to have resulted in the wheel, brake rotor, and steering
kriuckle separating from the vehicle. Since opening the PE, ODI has received 23 additional
complaints related to ball joint separation.
DaimlerChrysler has identified a wear-out concern in the subject ball joints that is believed to
occur after water intrusion evacuates the joint lubricant. DaimlerChrysler does not believe the
condition poses an unreasonable risk to safety because the suspension design in the subject vehicles
significantly reduces the likelihood of joint separation. Over 99 percent of the failures are related to
worn ball joints (e.g., noise complaints). DaimlerChrysler revised the repair procedure in August
2003 to allow the upper ball joints to be serviced separately from the upper control arm and reduce
repair costs.
DaimlerChrysler changed the supplier of the subject ball joints from TRW to New Castle
Machining & Forge for MY 2000 vehicles. MY 2000 Durango vehicles account for 25 of the 37
separation complaints. The upper ball joint was redesigned in MY 2003. This investigation has been
upgraded to an Engineering Analysis to further assess the alleged defect in MY 2000-02 Durango
vehicles.
|
Ron
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/13/2004
16:30:10
|  RE: Heres the proof....
IP: Logged
Message:
So here's the deal guys. I have been in phone contact with Peter Kivett, the lead engineer at NHTSA in charge of this investigation, off and on for the past couple of years and just spoke with him this morning. His story is that DC changed ball joint suppliers from TRW to Newcastle Manufacturing at the start of the 2000 model year. It's supposedly at this point that the reports of bad ball joints went through the roof. Now anyone who owns a pre-2000 Dakota knows that the earlier trucks had plenty of front end problems as well. I've replaced all 4 ball joints as well as inner tie rod ends on my '98 2WD and now I'm finally getting normal tire wear on the front. Prior to all this work I went through 4 sets of tires in 80K miles while DC maintained that all was well mechanically with the front end. But the truth of the matter may well be that the 2000-2003 parts were even worse that the TRWs and that the real culprit (at least on my truck) may have been the worn inner tie rod ends which wouldn't allow the front end to maintian proper toe in once off the alignment rack and driving down the road. In any case, DC has really done all owners of Dakotas and Durangos a major disservice by not being straight about this from the git-go and waranteeing any and all parts that needed to be replaced to maintain safety and alignment. They've lost me as a future customer and I'm sure a lot of others feel the same. So sooner or later this kind of deception has got to show up in their bottom line.
|
Bob L
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
12/14/2004
08:41:35
|  RE: Heres the proof....
IP: Logged
Message:
I agree, Ron.
As a Mechanical Engineer, many people ask me for advice on what cars to buy. I will never, ever set foot in any DaimlerChrysler dealership as long as I walk this earth and neither will the 40 or 50 other people who I've directed AWAY from purchasing a new Magnum, Ram, Durango, etc.
AND, it isn't the fact that DC had a design problem -- that wouldn't be so bad if their Customer Service group would have just admitted the problem early on and TAKEN CARE OF THEIR CUSTOMERS. Period.
They just left us hanging out there, not knowing what to do about this problem that EVERYONE knew about, even them.
I bought a 2000 Quad Cab (2WD) and one upper BJ was replaced at 34,000 miles under warranty and now the driver's side is starting to pop and groan in slow turns at 70,000 miles.
And, BTW, that northern states and salt corrosion statement is a line of BS, I live in North Carolina!
|
| | P 1 |
|
Post a reply to this message:
Username Registration: Optional
All visitors are allowed to post messages
|
|
