posted 04-21-2003 07:57 AM         

"I just recieved an update to the recall we recently performed on your Prowler.

the upper ball joint nut specs called for 95 ft. lbs. The updated specs call for 65 ft. lbs.

Call me so we can discuss our next move."

I rescheduled, but he said Chrysler gave no indication of what the overtorqueing does....so he suggested ASAP.

Make sure you get your ball joints retourqued! (That sounded just so dirty didn't it? )

posted 04-21-2003 08:18 AM         

------------------

Current mods: Mopar dual exhaust & front mudflaps; MacMotorsports Air Intake;
Real Rod Air Patrol; Graphics by Balistek Designs; ($8) Chrome grille; Chrome
tire valve-stem covers; Painted rear bumper lettering; Prowler Pro Gears; Synthetic
Oil; Raybestos Ceramic Brake Pads; TGF Door Panel Inserts & Headrest Covers;
SheepskinExpress Sheepskin Seatcovers; Grille Light; Pinstriping by Bo Boring;
Painted Valve Cover; Window Tinting; Windshield Visor Banner; Front Bumper
Removal / Relocation of Front Turn Signal Lights; Real Rod Transmission Cooler
Cover, Sill and Carper Covers, Aero Front Covers and Roadster Rear Pan and
rear bumpers removed.
More 'Pumpkin' photos . . . . . More cars and other stuff

posted 04-21-2003 10:04 AM         

The upper ball joint is smaller than the lower and so it gets less torque applied to it. A good mechanic should have caught the error in torque when doing the recall and evidently a good one somewhere did, then brought it to the attention of D/C. There was a misprint in the recall directions that gave the same specs for both ball joints.

I see little problem even if the upper ball joints were overtightened.

posted 04-21-2003 10:24 AM         

I should check with my mechanic to see if he actually removed the upper ball joints to begin with!

posted 04-21-2003 10:42 AM         

Seriously, thanks for the info Larry.

posted 04-22-2003 06:54 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry Lord:
If you have had your recall repairs done at Ontario Chrysler, you have no problems.
John does not remove the upper ball joint when doing the recall.

The upper ball joint is smaller than the lower and so it gets less torque applied to it. A good mechanic should have caught the error in torque when doing the recall and evidently a good one somewhere did, then brought it to the attention of D/C. There was a misprint in the recall directions that gave the same specs for both ball joints.

I see little problem even if the upper ball joints were overtightened.

---

posted 04-22-2003 08:48 PM         

I didn't look in the manual for the torque specs but that sounds odd to me.

As a general rule the load bearing ball joint is larger and will require more torque than the smaller non load bearing ball joint. I assumed that to be the case with the Prowler but I may be wrong.
Do you know what the corrected torque specs for the top and bottom ball joints in the recall are? My guess is that the lower get more torque but now you have me very curious.

posted 04-23-2003 11:03 AM         

This goes against the general rule of “the larger the bolt or nut, the higher the torque required” that I had always been told. On most vehicles the load-bearing ball joint is always the larger one and requires higher torque to tighten it than is required by the smaller non load-bearing ball joint.
On a Prowler, the lower ball joint is the load-bearing ball joint and it is noticeably larger than the upper ball joint.
To me this would indicate that the lower ball joint should require more torque than the upper ball joint.

I believe that the new spec for the upper ball joint has now been changed to 65 ft. pounds as "record" and “BT161” pointed out in their POA posts about the “new torque specs for the upper ball joint” used for doing the ball joint recall work. The corrected torque specification of 65 ft. pounds for the upper ball joint now makes sense to me and follows what I’ve always been taught. The upper and smaller ball joint now gets less torque than the larger lower ball joint.

It appears to me that every manual I’ve read has been in error.
1. Is the new corrected recall torque spec the correct torque spec?
2. Are the factory manuals all in error?
3. Did the factory tighten the upper ball joints to the new correct spec of 65 ft pounds or the manual suggested 95 ft pounds?
4. Has every Prowler upper ball joint been over-torqued since they were built?

It now appears to me that every Prowler shop manual needs to be revised!

This inquiring mind wants to know!
Can anyone explain this to me?

Thank you Darcy (KatAddict) for bringing this to my attention!

posted 04-23-2003 12:02 PM         

The ball joint has a tapered pin. This is important because the pin/hole dimensions are very critical and require extremely close tolerances. The steering knuckle is located according to where the ball joint tapered pin fills the hole. Torque is also critical. If the nut is over-torqued on the STEEL tapered pin, it could enlarge the hole in the ALUMINUM steering knuckle. Then the result is the same as if the hole were out of tolerance on the big side: The steering knuckle would be located farther up the tapered pin causing reduced clearance between the steering knuckle and upper A-arm. My mechanic discovered the steering knuckle interferes with the upper A-arm on my Prowler and the mechanic ordered a new steering knuckle and upper A-arm assembly. (See more detials in the "heads up" posting). There was damage from rubbing on the A-arm and steering knuckle.

posted 04-23-2003 01:32 PM         

To: DRALLS ALL DEALERS
Update - Safety recall #C03 - Revised upper ball Joint Torque Specification
Involved Vehicles:
1997-2002 (PR) Plymouth/Chrysler Prowler

Torque Specification Correction

The torque value specified on page 6, step 27 of the recall C03 for tightening the upper ball joint is incorrect. The proper torque specification is 65 ft. lbs. (88 N.m.)

Please correct all copies of the Recall C03 to reflect the proper torque specification of 65 ft. lbs. (88 N.m.)

The MDS2 and DealerCONNECT versions of this recall will be updated to reflect this change in the near future.

NOTE: The torque value specified in the Prowler Service Manual will also be revised.

If you have any questions regarding this action, please contact your Service and Parts District Manager.

Joseph Hilger
Vice-President, Global Service
************************************************

So there you have it!
All of the manuals are wrong!

THE QUESTION NOW SEEMS TO BE,,,WHAT WAS THE TORQUE VALUE APPLIED AT THE FACTORY?

posted 04-23-2003 09:18 PM         

When I called tonight, the Mopar service rep here in NW Indiana told me he could not find any TSB or locate any notice from the MDS regarding incorrect torque specs listed in the recall notice. He told me he would check with Chrysler tomorrow (4/24).

However, he did say that if the post by Larry Lord is accurate - they would need my car back in the shop to change my steering knuckles (and possibly other parts) because the excessive torque would have certainly damaged them and he advised me NOT to drive the car until further notice!

posted 04-24-2003 08:51 AM         

It probably means they do not have the original Prowler Tool kit. All the tools are in the special Kit with the exception of the C-clamp. This ket has been available since 1997.

Maybe it grew legs and walked away... Some have disappered and been sold on ebay... Many dealers invested in the kit and training and over time their tech may have left and the kit has disappeared. Duane told me the kit was on backorder from Miller tools...

The other option is for the dealer to borrow the tool kit from another dealer in the area.

posted 04-24-2003 08:54 AM         

This is the time when I really truly appreciate this board!

and a BIG thanks to Mike for having this site for us (yeah... we've said it before, but now does seem an appropriate time to call it up again)....

posted 04-25-2003 09:17 PM         

In addition, the service rep. said he would be more comfortable if I did not drive the car back to the dealership - he offered to send out a flatbed for my car so I wouldn't have to drive it. I must say, though the recall has turned out to be a bit of a pain - the dealer is coming through like a champ!

If anyone had the recall done and had the upper ball joints torqued improperly, I would take the car right back to the dealer and have them replace the steering knuckles.

I hope more dealers are treating their customers this well!

posted 04-30-2003 08:49 PM         

As promised, yesterday the service advisor (Joe) at the Chrysler dealer sent out a flatbed for my Prowler's return trip back to the service department. I went along for the ride too.

In less than 2 hours the Prowler tech (Butch) had both new steering knuckles installed on my car and did it without leaving a mark. I watched (from a distance) and the tech took considerable care of the car. No broken caps - no scratches.

The tech stated I might never had a problem from the overtorque of the upper ball joints, but he knew since they were overtightened they would cause the fit (hole) in the knuckle to be spread and be out of spec.

He told me as soon as he found out about the torque mistake he had the parts dept. order the knuckles. The tech thanked me for making him aware of the mistake and I told him the thanks go to those who so kindly share their posts with the POA!

I know some Prowler owners have had a bit of bad luck at their local dealers but I've said it before and I'll say it again - the recall, and the fix of the recall, were a bit of a pain but Griegers Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep in Valparaiso, IN provided me with the best possible service, courtesy and care. GREAT JOB and Thanks again, guys!!!

PS. Here's some pics of the new knuckles!