This data is from the NHTSA — the US gov't agency tasked with vehicle safety. Complaints are spread across multiple & redundant categories, & are not organized by problem.
So how do you find out what problems are occurring? For this NHTSA complaint data, the only way is to read through the comments below. Any duplicates or errors? It's not us.
PE 03-032. Front suspension upper ball joint failure. Two sets of upper ball joints were replaced due to premature wear. When the vehicle was at the dealer for the first repair, they replaced the lower control arm and not the lower ball joint. This was covered under warranty. After the second failure, both upper and lower ball joints needed to be replaced. The vehicle was then out of warranty. Mepco refused to cover the work under warranty because they felt the upper joints were excessively worn. They believe they were bad before the warranty was purchased.
While changing the tire, the dealer informed the consumer the front upper ball joints were worn out and needed to be replaced. The right tie rod was found worn out as well.
- North Mankato, MN, USA
Search CarComplaints.com for these popular complaint phrases...
In March of this year (2003) my upper ball joints and lower ball joints all had to be replaced. I kept taking it back to the dealership (a total of 3 times), since it had not reached the 36,000/3yr end of warranty with the complaint that I kept hearing a popping sound when making sharp turns. They claimed not to be able to duplicate the problem. I then took my vehicle to clear lake auto service and they immediately told me it was worn upper/lower ball joints. By then my 36,000/3yr had expired. Luckily, I had purchased an extended warranty and that expensive repair was covered. I was told the joints should not have worn out that quickly, but at any rate it was a problem that should have been found when I took it to the dealership.
Both upper ball joints needed to be replaced on 3/11/02 and right upper ball joint again in May 2003. Read an article stating the ball joints were prematurely going bad and wanted to lodge our complaint at having to replace them twice already. We also would like to be notified if this becomes a recall.
Consumer stated the truck failed state vehicle inspection due to excessive wear and looseness of the front upper ball joints. The ABS light illuminated on the dashboard and the center brake lights was inoperative. The dealer replaced the anti-lock brake sensor and the light bulb had burned out.
Consumer was hearing "knocking" noise from vehicle when driving or making turns. Dealer diagnosed excessive wear of the front and rear upper and lower ball joints and replaced them.
I purchased new tires and asked the tire dealer to check the alignment on my 1999 Dodge Durango and they told me they could not do it due to the fact the front end ball joints and control arms were bad and had to be replaced with only 52,000 miles. Chrysler said at the time this was unheard of and saw no reason for premature failure. They would not cover this under factory warranty. They made me pay for this with my Chrysler extended warranty, charging me $50 deductible and I had to pay for a front end alignment that was not required except for the changing of the parts. This should not be required on a vehicle with this age and mileage. Cars run for years and over one hundred thousand miles and do not have this problem. This needs to be looked into further. Luckily, this was caught before there was an incident while driving the vehicle on vacation in the mountains a few weeks later.
On 7/26/03, our mechanic reported that the "front passenger side upper ball joint has looseness inside" on our 1999 Durango with only 31,250 miles of on-road use only. This complaint is being filed to corroborate the numerous complaints already reported on ball joints and to further your recall investigation efforts.
Re: 1999 Dodge Durango front suspension I just had to replace all four ball joints, and both tie rod ends on this vehicle at 59,000 miles of light on road usage. I have run previous vehicles to over 200,000 miles without any front work required. I consider this to be a defect in design.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T S
- Little Silver, NJ, USA