Looks like that the Dakotas and Durangos from 2000 through 2003 are about to be recalled. The feds say that the upper ball joint can separate causing the front suspension to collapse. Chrysler has admitted that there's a problem, but they don't think it's a safety concern. Here's a link:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...10002909990003

 

Lets keep.. this in mind:
ONLY TECH TALK IS ALLOWED IN THIS FORUM
The purpose of this forum is to make intelligent comparisons of other makes against ford. They don't have to be in favor of Ford but they must be reasonable in any matter or direction. NO BRAND BASHING WILL BE ALLOWED! PERIOD!!

 

I guess the feds are making daimler chrylser to recall thousands of dakota and durango vehicles due to faulty front ball joints that will cause the front wheels to come off the car and cause the driver to crash possibly killing them.

 

And Ford has never had a safety related recall? Transmissions jumping out of Park back in the 70's / 80's? Pinto fuel tank design? Nobody is clean..they all have been caught with faults at one time or another.

 

So far no deaths have been reported and only a handfull of failures. I don't believe DC will do the recall but if they did, good. I believe it would the right thing to do.

 

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0412/10/autos-30137.htm
above is a link with some more news on the issue, just maybe its time all of the car-truck companys stop looking at what items cost and start putting grease fittings back on every thing that used to have them like tie rod ends, ball joints, clutch linkage, ujoints and ect. then just maybe we would not hear things like this any more lets all make sure tims req. is honored
i owned one of them no futher comment!

 

Sorry Tim, what I'm trying to see with this thread is if anyone thinks that Dodge's failure to acknowledge this as a problem could turn out like the whole Ford/Firestone fiaco did. It would seem logical that other companies would learn from Ford's mistake and not follow it.

Does anyone think that this could be the next Firestone style mistake?

 

I'll read the article later, but so far Id say no.

 

No.
I recall* quite a lot about that one, and, NO.
* couldn't help myself

There were a few things that made the firestone recall bad:
1. Ford did not have a proper recording mechanism set up to record, and highlight failures of this, and when issues were recorded, the issues weren't raised to a higher management level

2. There were 2 companies involved - both equal in blame - and they were to busy pointing the finger at each other that they over looked the customer and safety requirement, which was, JUST FIX IT!!!

3. There were a number of fatalities/injuries caused by the concern before Ford or Firestone acted.

4. It cost so much... Having to replace tyres on a vehicle isn't cheap, especially if you do it a number of times...

 

recalls for any company are not cheap. and i feel you make a very valid point here.safty issues are something no one should ever play off but some companys seem imm to do so, and play a lets wait and see if we can get away with it game. from what i have read in several papers to me it looks like dcx will try and fight it for now so a few days or weeks more every one will know more. in the mean time i owned one no comment here.anyway

 

This is a large enough, wide spread issue if it goes all the way, it will cost DC a tremendous amount of money. They are really doing pretty well and this will leave a dent on the bottom line....IMO

 

It will leave a dent in the bottom line for sure, but I don't think there will be a more expensive recall ever than the one done on the Explorer...

It is actually as cheap on a lot of vehicles to change the transmission or the engine under warranty, or for a recall, than it is to change the tires...

I very much doubt DC will be able to get out of it if the government is onto it - thats if your government is anything like ours...

 

up the anti guys to 1.071.000 trucks . here is the link if it works. 2000 to 2004 units http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosins...utos-30432.htm

 

Just curious. I see 600k trucks. 420 million dollars in repairs. At least. Ooops I bet they fire that bean counter. Ohh. Your including all there seperate recalls.

Weird this one leaves ford out of the discussion whearas the one I read mentioned that ford had just recalled 470k escapes.

28 complaints. Hmm. This is going to be interesting. I pulled the complaints on an engine of Fords I was concerned with and there was 34. Including injuries and property loss. Its under investigation.

Caterpillar is under investigation too. For breaking crankshafts on the 3206. Also there is a seperate investigation for stalling.

Fords 7.3 and 6.0 are both under investigation. One for a faulty gas pedal sensor, pap, the other for stalling at innoppurtune times.

The 5.9 is under investigation for stalling. The 98-02 models. Which is weird to me. I havent heard of a lot of stalling issues.

Many, many, many others.

 

Ok, lets be fair here folks. GM is going to recall almost 24 million cars this year. Toyota is recalling 890k. No one is getting of this year it seems. This is the nature of the beast. Auto companies try to make the most profit possible. Buyers try to buy at the cheapest price possible. That means we meet somewhere in the middle.

What that really means in the end though is that we the consumer will not pay for a 100% safe and reliable vehicle as this will more than double the price of the vehicle. Its always a trade off.

I have a cousin that represents an un-named auto maker in these types of cases. While there are time that its a true defect more often than not its the comsumer looking for a easy buck. I'll give you a real example.

A gentleman was involed in an accident in one of the small SUV's. He broke his back because the vehicle folded up around him. He decided to sue the automaker saying that the vehicle was unsafe. When the news outlets got a hold of this that is what got reported.

What was failed to be mentioned except at the time of the accident is that he was envolved in a high speed chase took a elevated off ramp way to fast, could not make the turn and tried to play Evil Knevel off a 40 foot drop off. This was at an estimated speed of around 60 miles per hour.

This should never been allowed to proceed but it was. It cost the company in question millions for its defense and in the end it was thrown out. But because of actions like this and this is the rule not the exception money that might be used to really improve the vehicles is spent instead trying to protect the company.