The contact owns a 1995 Mitsubishi Galant. While making a left turn at approximately 5 mph, the front driver's side wheel detached from the vehicle. The vehicle was towed to the contact's residence. The VIN was included in NHTSA campaign id number 00V421001 (suspension:front:control arm:lower ball joint). The dealer has not inspected the vehicle. A police report was filed. The current and failure mileages were 117,000.

- La Puente, CA, USA

: the contact stated while driving at 15 mph, there was a loud noise. The contact looked under the vehicle and saw the tire was buckled out. The vehicle was towed to an independent repair shop who determined the left ball joint had pulled out of the socket which pulled the axle apart. There was a recall, NHTSA recall, # 99V066002 performed on the vehicle in 2001 concerning, the suspension: Front: Control arm: Lower ball joint for the right side. This complaint was regarding the left lower ball joint of the vehicle. Updated 09/15/06.

- Port Townsend, WA, USA

The ball joints on the right side of the vehicle came off while driving. As a result the vehicle collapsed onto the ground on the driver's side, jamming the driver's door shut. The vehicle was towed to a service station where it was determined that the left side ball joint had separated and broke the axle of the car. One month later the consumer received a recall notice which referenced a ball joint problem. The consumer called the manufacturer and was told to take the vehicle to the dealer to have the dealer inspect/install the ball joints. The consumer was also told to give the original receipt to the dealer to be reimbursed. The vehicle was taken tot he dealer where they approved the work done on 2/14/04 and replaced the right ball joint. However they did not repair the dent on the frame. The consumer still hasn't received reimbursement for the ball joint.

- Springfield Gardens, NY, USA

While making a left turn out of the parking lot vehicle failed to move. Consumer had the vehicle towed to the dealer for inspection, and mechanic determined that both frontal lower ball joints needed to be replaced.

- Manchester, CT, USA

While driving ball joints separated and the front end of the vehicle collapsed. This failure occurred prior to receiving recall notice sr-04-001. The letter indicated that a prior notice was sent in April 2001, unfortunately the consumer never received that notice because the vehicle was not purchased until July 2002. The consumer requested reimbursement but has not received it yet.

- Springfield Gardens, NY, USA

Consumer has had 2 different lower controll arm ball joint failures. While driving in 10/02, right front wheel "caved in" causing loss of vehicle control. 2nd failure while driving on 06/08/03 the left front wheel "caved in".

- Plano, TX, USA

Consumer is requesting a refund for repair work related to recall 00V421001.

- Highland, CA, USA

Consumer is requesting a refund for repair work related to recall 00V421001.

- Highland, CA, USA

Prior to recall (00V-421) the lower lateral arm ball joint failed and caused the left front wheel to come off.

- Farmer City, IL, USA

Recall 00 V 421 001/lower ball joint boot: Dealer gene messer Mitsubishi, amarillo, tx; phone# 806/358-8888 charged consumer for recall part, knowing that vehicle was covered. Manufacturer was notified, and advised consumer to call NHTSA to report the dealer. Asking NHTSA to assist in this matter. Feel free to provide any further information.

- Amarillo, TX, USA

NHTSA recall#00V421001/ manufacturer's recall SR01-007. Dealer was contacted for recall repairs, but was unable to complete work because parts were unavailable until further notice.

- Sherell, AK, USA

Consumer contacted dealer in reference to recall 00V421001/ manufacturer's recall SR01-007. Dealer stated parts were unavailable until further notice.

- Sherill, AK, USA

Consumer received recall 01V421007/ manufacturer's recall SR99-002. Consumer has previous problems with right front lower ball joints. Dealer refuses repairs. They will keep stating it doesn't look too bad. Dealer is not acknowledging recall.

- Virginia Beach, VA, USA

Consumer received recall 00V421001/ manufacturer's recall SR99-0002. Consumer called dealer and made an appointment, had a 4 hour drive to dealership. Manufacturer suggested to go to a locall mechanic before traveling 4 hours. Mechanic indicated that lower ball joints wore out. Then, consumer traveled 4 hours to other dealer, appleway motors on sprague ave. Spokehan, wa. Phone 509-924-1150, and they never moved vehicle. But, stated that ball joints were up to specifications. Upper ball joints were going to need to be replaced because of the wear. Consumer drove back, went to the mechanic, and vehicle was put on a lift to see that lower ball joints moved a 1/4 inch out of joint.

- Kalispell, MT, USA

After consumer contacted dealer to have recall 00V421001/ manufacturer's recall SR99-02 taken care off, premium mitsubshi in new rochelle, NY 914-576-2280, insisted they didn't have time for consumer to bring vehicle in.

- Bronx, NY, USA

The consumer had ball joints replaced at an independent mechanic prior to recall notice 00V-421 because the steering wheel seemed loose. Nlm

- Monroe, NY, USA

Lower control arm ball joint failed prior to recall notice 00V-421. Nlm

- Denver, CO, USA

Recall 00V237000, took vehicle to dealer in July 2000 for recall. Was told boot did not need to be replaced. While driving 30 mph, wheel started coming off. Consumer was concerned this was due to boot not being replaced in July under recall. Dealer told her that is why wheel was coming off. The recall stated that the condition could cause the lower lateral arm ball joint to separate, increasing the risk of vehicle crash. That is the defective part increase the risk of vehicle crash and the dealer should replaced it.

- Morrow, GA, USA

Consumer took vehicle for recall # 99V066002 repairs, and dealer refused to fix problem. On her way out, recall part fell from under the car, and consumer had vehicle towed back to dealership.

- Loxahapchee, FL, USA

Consumer received recall 99V066001 and took vehicle to dealer for repairs, dealer informed consumer that the dust boot covers on vehicle would not be covered by recall, consumer feels this should be covered in recall.

- Yonkers, NY, USA