[Zagnut27]

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.

 

[GasAxe]

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

 

[Mike V.]

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.

For reference, the recall was issued long ago

Recall Date : FEB 04, 2003
BUILD DATES : January 1, 1997 - March 31, 2002
MAKE : PLYMOUTH / CHRYSLER
MODEL : PROWLER
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 03V034000
Component: SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER ARM

The ball joints were replaced with a revised version under the recall.

Mike

 

[Mike V.]

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

 

[Mike V.]

. 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

 

[Mike V.]

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

 

[dana44]

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?

 

[voiceofstl]

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.

 

[valiant67]

I am seriously @prowlerThere is a Prowler forum. I am disapointed that the moderators didn't move this thread immediate to the proper page.
.

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

But yet neither of you reported the post with a request to move it to another forum.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I read the forums from the New Posts link and not from browsing the forums so I don't pay attention to where posts are located. USE THE REPORT BUTTON rather than complaining in a thread.

 

[AC TC]

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.

 

[sickboy]

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.

 

[valiant67]

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.

 

[prowler]

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!

 

[valiant67]

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.

 

[Mike V.]

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!

For the record I moved your original post to the correct forum area. Please post in the correct areas of the forum for this point forward.

You stated in another post that you simply want FCA to continue stocking the parts yet you have continually claimed the parts supplied are faulty and not an actual fix... so which is it?

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

If the part is faulty, as you claim, then why are you satisfied if FCA imply continues to supply a faulty part? Again, this is where the aftermarket comes in.

Start contacting aftermarket companies that supply replacement suspension components for older Mopars and/or Vipers and ask them to investigate supplying you with an aftermarket component to replace the ones that have become obsolete. It may be that you and your Prowler friends may need to make an investment to move forward with a new supplier for the parts you need.

Further, there are many many aftermarket companies that supply dust boots in various sizes and materials. Do some research and you will probably find there is a close replacement for both the dust boot and/or the ball joint may already be available in the aftermarket.

Unfortunately, that is your best course of action. Contacting a company like TRW directly and/or being argumentative with them or members of this forum is not going to solve your problem.

Last option... If you are concerned that driving the vehicle is life threatening then maybe you should consider selling it.

Other than that, good luck and I hope you find the replacement parts your are looking for.

Mike

 

[Mike V.]

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.

Absolutely, but I doubt it would get much traction at this point.

Best bet is to simply start contacting aftermarket suspension supply companies and begin the process of working with them to analyze a good OEM ball joint and boot to find a proper aftermarket replacement.

More than likely there is already a similar ball joint and dust boot available but people simply are not aware that it can be used for this application.

Mike

 

[85lebaront2]

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?

 

[prowler]

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

 

[prowler]

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.

 

[valiant67]

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.