Uhhh... FCA didn't make the Prowler. The company that did (Plymouth, Chrysler Corp. or DCX, take your pick) is defunct. It may seem unfair, but the sins of the past are not of concern to the new company.

 

Are there not any sort or lower ball joints in terms of aftermarket support? Either way it's not fca issue anymore and be glad they were made for so long since support could have been cut long ago.

 

I put this under this section because thought it would point out a sense of decision making within the company and how it can effect people that have been loyal and supportive.

The Prowler. Most know of the car but I sure quite a few don't know of the cars quirks. There are three problems that will develop with EVERY Prowler. Two are minor and correctable. The third can be a life altering event if a failure occurs and you are at speed.

First- At some time the speakers, usually the doors first, will have the foam ring deteriorate. It can be fixed or replaced. Second- The door window mechanisms. Part of the window raising plastic tubing will crack or outright fall apart. They can be fixed or replaced.

Third- Possible life threatening. The front steering lower a-arm ball joints. This is a BAD problem that many have experienced and all will at some time. The car as innovative as it is has a design problem that was not evident during it's initial design and showed itself in real world driving. Because of how the suspension controls road shock, the lower ball joints take a tremendous pounding. Depending on terrain and miles driven will to an extent determine the life of the ball joints. Here's what can(will) happen. First, the ball joint boot will tear at some point and if not caught at a reasonable time will allow the grease to become an abrasive and grind the internal stem and ball end to eventually tighten and at some point snap off. That's only the first part of the problem. Because of the pounding the joint takes regardless of the boot condition, the ball joint stem ball end, will pound clearance between the ball and housing that will at some time pop right out of the housing and disable the cars steering. The wheel at what ever speed your traveling, will tuck usually inward scraping the tire across the pavement with no steering control. The factory issued a TSB years back that specified the torn boots as the focal point of ball joint failure. Replacement ball joints were at the time" the fix". But all that did was to install a new ball joint and start the clock again because eventually the boots will fail again or if they don't the ball joint will stem will snap off or pull itself out of the housing as pointed out. Were starting to see failures from the TSB recalls done several years ago. And the boots are still in tact.

Ball joint recall kits have been available and installed as needed either from torn boots or clearance found in the joint before failure. At this point this possible life threatening problem will not be going away.

So I'm writing this to get your opinions on what FCA has now decided to do regarding the Prowler. Unfortunately the recall kits have been depleted. Recent communication with the company(FCA), has produced this answer as to when the kits will be back in stock. "They won't. At this time the company has no plans to re-stock these ball joint kits". There has been no other option at this point.

Since this can be a life threatening environment and I would assume that FCA knows this and has decided to ignore it, what do you think of their answer? Exceptable or not?? I think it's horrendous.

Unfortunately, ball joints are wear items and the Prowler is a specialty vehicle, not an appliance. If FCA is choosing to no longer offer service parts, then it is time for the aftermarket to seize the opportunity and market.

I understand you are clearly passionate about the Prowler, but FCA is not obligated to continue to provide service parts for a 20 year old car, even if you feel it is “life threatening”. I’m sorry but that’s just the way it is.

The ball joints on the Prowler are a standard press in design. It you have an original you can probably find a replacement by simply measuring it and digging through Moog or Altrom catalogs.

Mike

 

Even though the car was pre-FCA, FCA would be liable if there was a recall-worthy issue.
The issues should be documented to the NHTSA if you feel that FCA is not taking the problem seriously. However, given the age of the car plus the fact ball joints are a wear product, it will be an uphill battle. But cars have been recalled for ball joint issues before usually with failures that occured much earlier in the vehicle's life.
If the aftermarket produced ball joints, I'd go with Moog, but I'm not sure anyone did and the Chrysler part carries a huge price tag.

 

Their not breaking because of age. There not wearing out because of age. There breaking because of a design flaw that won't go away no matter how many ball joints are replaced. That's why we need a supplier. We can live with the design flaw as long as we have a fix. FCA has basically said the fix is now on you.

 

Do you have a pic of these kits? What do they do? Are they a failsafe that keeps the ball joint "locked in" if there is a failure. Like the little chain you use if your trailer ball falls off on your trailer hitch>?

 

You obviously aren't familiar with the front suspension of these cars. The ball joint housing remains in place. It's the stem that either breaks off or pops out of the housing at speed or from simply turning. Either was.....all FCA has to do is keep a stock of these. Not too complicated.

 

I must say that I’m shocked that FCA has supported my Liberty for recalls as long as they have, the last one being the air bag recall IIRC last year or the year before. I’m always happy to get free parts, but I certainly wouldn’t expect it at this point. It’d be like expecting Microsoft to still support Windows 95 IMO. Honestly, I wish they were still willing to buy it back from me because of the gas tank issue...instead of the pity money I MIGHT get when I trade it in. I may have to pay them to take it.

Useless fun fact. The console on the old driver for the artificial heart that we used until just recently was powered by Windows 95. It was just a simple display screen that displayed the information coming from the driver and the heart itself, so it really didn’t need to be updated. We retired that driver (it was the size of a portable dishwasher), so that was the demise of Windows 95 for us. Cue sad trumpet.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

Who in the world uses a Prowler as a daily driver? How many miles is it taking to wear out these ball joints?

I know several Prowler owners and none use theirs as a daily driver. Same thing with Vipers, driven occasionally on nice days.

 

Thanks for replies........HOWEVER.....I know that ball joints are a wear item, but in this case wear on them isn't wear, it's destruction due to a design flaw. And correct... that these aren't daily drivers but don't compare how things work between a Viper and Prowler. These ball joints are coming apart due to the road terrain and miles driven over such. And Mike......IF I feel their life threatening????? Are you kidding me?? What else can you conclude when part of your steering breaks off and you got no control of the car?

 

Any car can suffer a ball joint failure at any time. It’s not unique failure that only occurs on Prowlers, it can happen on any car, especially if moisture gets into the joint. The dust boot can suffer a crack due to UV degradation, excessive heat exposure, sitting for long extended periods of time, or even road debris especially on a Prowler since the A arms are fully exposed to the elements and they do not get driven that much.

Can you prove there is still a design flaw despite a recall and revised components being installed? If so, take it up with the NHTSA and/or discuss your evidence with a lawyer, but odds are you won’t get far because Chrysler handled their obligations to revise and repair the joints per the NHTSA. Unfortunately, it has been 15 years since the recall was issued, you cannot expect FCA to continue to offer service parts for the vehicle this many years later, that is what the aftermarket is for.

You are better off contacting an after market supplier, cross referencing the ball joint dimensions to find an alternate aftermarket component, or buy up as many of the remaining ball joints as you feel necessary. Various size ball joint dust boots are readily available in the aftermarket. If you are concerned about ball joint life you could simply replace the dust boot with a similar aftermarket replacement as soon as you see them crack or every X,XXX amount miles to be proactive if the car sits and doesn’t get used much. Unfortunately, parts dry up for older cars and the owner of the specialty vehicle needs to be proactive in servicing the vehicle.

Mike

 

Wow...
I’m sorry you are upset by this. But as stated before, well outside of what Plymouth was required to provide replacement parts for.you are now to the point any classic car owner is in for, finding parts. I’d say you are in TVR territory- cool ca4, but good luck.
As far as wanting fca to take care of this, I’m pretty sure you don’t have a leg to stand on

 

Wow...
I’m sorry you are upset by this. But as stated before, well outside of what Plymouth was required to provide replacement parts for.you are now to the point any classic car owner is in for, finding parts. I’d say you are in TVR territory- cool ca4, but good luck.
As far as wanting fca to take care of this, I’m pretty sure you don’t have a leg to stand on

First of all being "upset" is not an issue here. The issue(s) is having a part on this car that fails from a design standpoint. And it has two. The boot tearing and the ball joint itself either failing from the boot or because the joint can't take the pounding and eventually pulls apart. Either way when one or the other fails, we're just all going to park our cars and never drive them again????????????? Or take a chance the the next time you go out go out for a nice summer spin and that's the time your steering snaps off and sends you in the front of a semi. Good luck is right!!!

 

Parts are still available:

2002 Plymouth Prowler Front Suspension (at https://www.factorychryslerparts.com/showAssembly.aspx?ukey_assembly=567510&ukey_make=1065&ukey_model=15543&modelYear=2002&ukey_category=20317 )

Plymouth Prowler Suspension parts (at http://theprowlerstore.com/Products_Page_Parts_Upgrades_Replacement_Parts_Suspension.htm )

Plymouth-Chrysler Prowler Parts - Prowler Parts (at http://www.prowler-parts.com/ )

 

I put this under this section because thought it would point out a sense of decision making within the company and how it can effect people that have been loyal and supportive.

The Prowler. Most know of the car but I sure quite a few don't know of the cars quirks. There are three problems that will develop with EVERY Prowler. Two are minor and correctable. The third can be a life altering event if a failure occurs and you are at speed.

First- At some time the speakers, usually the doors first, will have the foam ring deteriorate. It can be fixed or replaced. Second- The door window mechanisms. Part of the window raising plastic tubing will crack or outright fall apart. They can be fixed or replaced.

Third- Possible life threatening. The front steering lower a-arm ball joints. This is a BAD problem that many have experienced and all will at some time. The car as innovative as it is has a design problem that was not evident during it's initial design and showed itself in real world driving. Because of how the suspension controls road shock, the lower ball joints take a tremendous pounding. Depending on terrain and miles driven will to an extent determine the life of the ball joints. Here's what can(will) happen. First, the ball joint boot will tear at some point and if not caught at a reasonable time will allow the grease to become an abrasive and grind the internal stem and ball end to eventually tighten and at some point snap off. That's only the first part of the problem. Because of the pounding the joint takes regardless of the boot condition, the ball joint stem ball end, will pound clearance between the ball and housing that will at some time pop right out of the housing and disable the cars steering. The wheel at what ever speed your traveling, will tuck usually inward scraping the tire across the pavement with no steering control. The factory issued a TSB years back that specified the torn boots as the focal point of ball joint failure. Replacement ball joints were at the time" the fix". But all that did was to install a new ball joint and start the clock again because eventually the boots will fail again or if they don't the ball joint will stem will snap off or pull itself out of the housing as pointed out. Were starting to see failures from the TSB recalls done several years ago. And the boots are still in tact.

Ball joint recall kits have been available and installed as needed either from torn boots or clearance found in the joint before failure. At this point this possible life threatening problem will not be going away.

So I'm writing this to get your opinions on what FCA has now decided to do regarding the Prowler. Unfortunately the recall kits have been depleted. Recent communication with the company(FCA), has produced this answer as to when the kits will be back in stock. "They won't. At this time the company has no plans to re-stock these ball joint kits". There has been no other option at this point.

Since this can be a life threatening environment and I would assume that FCA knows this and has decided to ignore it, what do you think of their answer? Exceptable or not?? I think it's horrendous.

I suggest you read up on the recall history of the Plymouth (Chrysler) Prowler before you come on here (in the wrong forum of course) and bash the current FCA US management. You can read about it here...

Plymouth Prowler Recalls | RepairPal (at https://repairpal.com/plymouth/prowler/recalls )

I suggest you take a good look at this recall that was put in place in April of 2003 (Damn, I was still in high school).

Plymouth Recall 03V034000: (at https://repairpal.com/recall/03V034000 )

Second of all, the Prowler had a few purposes. One was for Chrysler Corporation to experiment with aluminum back in 1994. Second was to create a halo car for Plymouth. Which ended up outlasting the brand and inspired a ton of concepts and the Chrysler (planned to be Plymouth) PT Cruiser.

 

. I am disapointed that the moderators didn't move this thread immediate to the proper page.

I got busy at work and did not get a chance to move it.

Mike

 

JUCBBTC030-SO

Plymouth Prowler Front Lower Ball Joints - Improved latest version (Set of 2)
Discontinued by Chrysler - only a few left!

Improved ball joints from Chrysler specifically for the lower front control arm. These were designed by Chrysler to replace the factory ones on 1997 & 1999 Prowlers that we defective. Included as standard from 2000-2002.
Will fit all 1997-2002 Prowlers.

Bushings not sold separately.

$289.00 Set of Two

 

At what point does a manufacturer become no longer responsible for providing replacement parts for a vehicle, either for recall or otherwise? I certainly have no idea, but I wouldn’t expect it for my 16 year old Liberty...despite the crappy front suspension components that have been recalled multiple times over the years, and the gas tank issue.

What I would expect at this point, is if FCA does not have the parts I seek, I’d look at the aftermarket or through a pick and pull. Especially if it’s a vehicle that FCA never manufactured in the first place. My brother restores old Jeeps, his earliest being a 43 Ford GPW. Does he expect FCA to provide replacement parts for design flaws inherent in his vehicles because they are loosely associated with FCA (through lineage)? An extreme example, perhaps. But as someone stated above, at some point it becomes an issue of finding replacement parts for an older vehicle...something every classic car owner lives with.

I do know that lashing out at other members here, simply because they offer their opinion (something you asked for) which differ from yours, is probably not the best avenue for one to take. Just sayin. I’ve interacted with these members for a few years now, and they’re not lying to you nor will they blow smoke up your exhaust port.

 

At what point does a manufacturer become no longer responsible for providing replacement parts for a vehicle, either for recall or otherwise? I certainly have no idea, but I wouldn’t expect it for my 16 year old Liberty...despite the crappy front suspension components that have been recalled multiple times over the years, and the gas tank issue.

What I would expect at this point, is if FCA does not have the parts I seek, I’d look at the aftermarket or through a pick and pull. Especially if it’s a vehicle that FCA never manufactured in the first place. My brother restores old Jeeps, his earliest being a 43 Ford GPW. Does he expect FCA to provide replacement parts for design flaws inherent in his vehicles because they are loosely associated with FCA (through lineage)? An extreme example, perhaps. But as someone stated above, at some point it becomes an issue of finding replacement parts for an older vehicle...something every classic car owner lives with.

I do know that lashing out at other members here, simply because they offer their opinion (something you asked for) which differ from yours, is probably not the best avenue for one to take. Just sayin. I’ve interacted with these members for a few years now, and they’re not lying to you nor will they blow smoke up your exhaust port.

Pleeeeeaaaaase.......There has certainly been NO lashing out at anybody!

 

The only question that remains is, why hasn’t this thread been locked or moved?

 

Geez, I worked 10 hours at my real job today, dropped off a check to the accountant for filing my taxes after work, and had to feed and put my 2 kids to bed.

I’ll try harder next time.

Mike

 

And yes, the Prowler has not been in production for well over a decade, the last year was badged Chrysler when Plymouth was dumped as a brand. Truthfully, and I've been here since 2002, one of the older members here, this is the first time I have ever heard of an issue. Think this is the first balljoint issue due to design? No, it isn't. Will it be the last? No, it won't.

Think of it this way: First indication of a problem with your balljoint will be a torn boot. Regular maintenance and service would now indicate you had best look at them a little more often than not, they are prone to fail, just like any other suspension part, if not maintained.

Now my question to you is, are you letting everyone know that this is an issue, expecting something for a 16 year old car for free, or looking to sue someone after being warned there is an issue?

 

And yes, the Prowler has not been in production for well over a decade, the last year was badged Chrysler when Plymouth was dumped as a brand. Truthfully, and I've been here since 2002, one of the older members here, this is the first time I have ever heard of an issue. Think this is the first balljoint issue due to design? No, it isn't. Will it be the last? No, it won't.

Think of it this way: First indication of a problem with your balljoint will be a torn boot. Regular maintenance and service would now indicate you had best look at them a little more often than not, they are prone to fail, just like any other suspension part, if not maintained.

Now my question to you is, are you letting everyone know that this is an issue, expecting something for a 16 year old car for free, or looking to sue someone after being warned there is an issue?

Neither...........we all know about the increased inspections at his point.

 

slightly off topic: From the early 60;s to the early 80's which is almost 20 years, many parts for the A,B and c bodys were interchangable. Since they made so many you can still go your corner auto parts store and get parts from suspencion parts alternators power steering pumps..almost evrything. With newer cars changing so much most folks will have problems in the future finding parts for their 2011 classic.

 

Theres not any fatal flaw or bad engineering in the setup, its basically "industry standard 1a".
- balljoints do wear and when its bad enough they separate, they have been doing like that from the first one ever used.
Its like any other car, you have to maintain it.
- When the joint is so worn that it separates it would have very noisy for a long time. And it should have been replaced a long time ago.
As for spares..well its way over ten years since they built the last one so the manufacturer doesnt have any obligations anymore and for such a low volume car theres no buisness case to sell parts.

 

For what’s its worth, a quick check on snopes says that auto manufactures are to provide replacement parts for as long as they are covered under warranty. The manufacturer may however, not do this and replace or buy back the vehicle.... if it is still under warranty. With most warranties being between 3-7 years, with 10 in some cases. And, it is not necessary to even provide a warranty in the first place.
While it was a quick search, and I may have mistranslated it, the info sounds about right. In the case of buying rare and specialty cars, I’d have to expect the possibility of scouring the globe for replacement parts.

 

Warranty is different than recalls, which he seems to want the recall to be ongoing and address a better fix. Cars can be recalled long after the warranty has expired, such as the recent Takata airbag recalls and the Jeep rear hitch/gas tank recalls. Vehicles can also be recalled again to fix issues after a previous recall has been performed.

The original poster needs to convince the NHTSA (not those of us on this forum) that a safety issue still exists. That's done by getting all the people he knows to file complaints with the NHTSA who will investigate them.

 

So just because it's an uncomfortable topic it should be locked or moved? The move I can see and that's fine.

Now lets get on with all your nonsense. First off comparing this ball joint problem to past environments is an excuse. We all know that ball joints can and do wear out. But this is not a "wear" problem. Some of you insist that the companies recall of replacement ball joints has "solved the problem"! Case closed! Well it DOESN'T. The only reason that has taken the time to become what will be a critical problem is because the infrequency that the majority of these cars are driven. Look at it like this.......you inspect your car and do indeed find torn boots or you jack up the cars and detect slight movement within the joints them selves. Do you continue to drive the car or park it? We now have no avenue to correct the problem so I guess we just look at it. Everybody's pretty cavil-ear about comparing this problem to others. I can get ball joints for a 1970 Challenger or any other Mopar but not for a Prowler??? And for the record there was a NHTSA report back in 2003. That's when us Prowler owners thought this problem was solved because of what was supposed to be causing the problem in the first place. Which was the torn boots. But guess what........it didn't. Installing the recall ball joints when ever they do, just starts the failure clock again. Were not looking to erase the design problem. That's probably never going to go away. I along with all the others didn't buy these cars to have them become worthless "garage art". Or worse yet....our demise while out for a summer drive. Now I'm sure without too much effort you can all understand that!

 

Just because there was an NHTSA case in 2003 doesn’t mean you can’t file new complaints now. That is your only real leverage. There were so few Prowlers sold that FCA isn’t going to be swayed by a few posts on message boards. Get everyone you know with this problem to file NHTSA complaints.

 

Damn, I thought ball joints popping apart stopped with the 1957 Chevies. I would see if anyone makes a good aftermarket replacement, maybe a stronger design. Ford had a similar issue around the introduction of the Mustang, based on the Falcon chassis, but a little longer and heavier and most having a V8 rather than a 6 the lower ball joints were not up to the job, the solution, and entire lower control arm for the Falcon and Comet V8 cars after June 1 1964 and all the V8 Mustangs. I found out most of the changes the hard way having a Falcon with a 260 built July 27 1964 and a whole lot of that car had Mustang part numbers.

Maybe the complete control arm replacement is a stronger part on the Prowler. Does it by any chance share any of it's front suspension with any other car of the same era?

 

Thanks for the comment..........No go on the replacement arm. The a-arms are fine. And unfortunately there are no other Chrysler product components from that time frame that were used on Prowlers. At least suspension wise.

 

Thanks for the input.

Let me clarify. The replacement ball joints aren't faulty. What IS faulty is unfortunately the design of the front suspension. Both the boot tearing and normal driving can lead to the same problem....ball joint failure. In 2003 when Daimler-Chrysler issued the recall, it was because several people reported ball joint failures. It had taken, do to the low amount of mileage these were being driven, that amount of time for ball joint problems to develop. Prowlers owners were sent notices regarding recall on the ball joints. Because the boot issue was addressed along with new ball joints it seemed like the fix was good. But.....as time went on some of the recall boots started to split again. The people that noticed this had another set of recall ball joints installed. Some that didn't have a boot issue or didn't pay attention to the newer recall ball joints, have had ball joint failures. Why?.......because the front suspension hammers the lower front ball joint regardless of what ball joint is in place. We have all developed easy procedures for inspecting and maintaining this area of the car. The plan was when there was a suspected ball joint problem, boot or joint, we would simply replace it with another ball joint. Problem solved until recently when FCA decided to not carry any more ball joint replacement kits. Due to the some what exotic nature of this car's suspension finding(at least so far) a replacement BJ or even a replacement boot has not produced any thing positive.

Now Mike........I'm almost aghast at your comment regarding my issue with the front steering. At speed ball joint separating from the A-arm and losing total control of the car as being something that "I'm" concerned with. The point was that it's a concern that ALL Prowler owners should be concerned with. This isn't a problem with "some" Prowlers. It's a problem with ALL Prowlers. How can you sell a car with a major factory defect and not disclose that? Unless we can come up with a fix, temporary or permanent, what do you think this will do to the value of Prowlers?

I would appreciate any one with a constructive comment to please make it. (letting FCA off the hook in this case is NOT constructive) Thanks

 

I would appreciate any one with a constructive comment to please make it. (letting FCA off the hook in this case is NOT constructive) Thanks

You have ignored the only course of action and that is to submit cases to the NHTSA. That's it. No amount of complaining about FCA on message boards is going to get their attention. If the NHTSA can be convinced it's a serious problem then FCA will have no choice but to work with the NHTSA.
I guess you don't like that this is the only way to pursue this. Other than suing, the NHTSA is about the only option.

 

Other than being completely exposed, the front suspension setup looks pretty conventional. What am I missing?

 

Other than being completely exposed, the front suspension setup looks pretty conventional. What am I missing?
View attachment 17139

Just a note, those are not factory control arms.

Looks like someone made custom control arms that probably have a common ball joint. Maybe the OP should try to find who supplied those replacement components.

Mike

 

I'm a bit surprised nothing is shared, I was under the impression they borrowed from the LH bins based on the press at the time. Admittedly that may have just been powertrain, it's been a year or two.

 

Powertrain and interior components. The chassis and suspension was fairly unique.

Mike

 

Makes sense about the boots (sunlight must be a real killer), but the OP also stated that the ball joints also self-destruct without damaged boots due to a faulty suspension design. Is it the lower ball joint or is it the joint that connects to the steering rack (tierod end?) that fails?

 

Actually he has stated multiple scenarios but the one he repeated more than once was that boot would crack allowing moisture and debris to get in the joint causing it to wear and break.

Perfect opportunity for the aftermarket to swoop in, but it is going to take some homework and maybe a small investment to help it along.

Mike

 

Well, first I looked at the design of the suspension, the ball joint on these actually carries the weight of the front of the car and like the 1955-1957 Chevrolets the ball joint is under tension and as a result the socket is much smaller then normal. This is the reason almost every vehicle uses a load bearing ball joint in compression not tension. The best thing FCA could do is recall every one of these left on the road and scrap them like they had to do with the 850 Spiders. Other than a complete redesign of the front suspension to a better setup, that would cost more than the cars are worth it would be the best solution.

 

I think you may be missing the push rod that is connected to the lower arm going up to the coil over shock is what is carrying the load.

Mike