posted 04-23-2003 11:05 AM         

I’ve checked a 1999, a 2000 and a 2002 for the torque specs for the upper ball joint and they all say 95 ft. pounds. The lower ball joint torque specification is 70 ft. pounds.

This goes against the general rule of “the larger the bolt or nut, the higher the torque required” that I was always 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 01:28 PM         

ATTN: Sales and Service managers

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 08:20 PM         

KR

posted 04-24-2003 01:25 AM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kid Rock:
What happens if they overtighten it?

KR

---

It happened here, (not mine) ruined the knuckle. Needs to be replaced. I would not have believed if I didn't see it myself.

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

posted 04-24-2003 10:11 AM         

************************************************

Larry,
Response to both of your notes,

Torque values are a result of the size of the fastener, thread pitch of the
fastener and the hardness of the fastener.

As for the change in the recall, the torque spec in the original recall was
incorrect hence the correction.

As for the plant that was done correctly, to the right spec as far as I know.
The assembly plant doesn't build by the service manual. They have their own "book" that they build to. The service manual is assembled often after the plant has already built a significant number of early vehicles.

As with any publication there are sometimes corrections needed.

*******************************************

KR - I don't know!
I personally am not overly concerned but I would like to get the correct answer from someone with more knowledge than myself.

RBADKAT - It's not that simple.

I'm not an engineer but I know that are many factors that come into this.
Tighening versus loosening and even the difference of beginning the movement of the nut versus a moving nut being tightened to the correct torque.

I'm sure that we have someone on this site that can give you much better information on the effects of torque than I can.

I'm just a Redneck with some wrenches and a welder.

posted 04-24-2003 09:10 PM         

Answer: My best guess says that if the ball joint was damaged by over torqueing, it
would be obvious.

Question: Any chance the knuckle would be damaged?
If I just loosen and re-torque do I need to install a new nut?
Thanks again,again,
Larry

Answer: I can't imagine the knuckle being damaged. The nuts are one time use nuts.

*********************************************************
This is the reply that I received to one of my e-mails.
If I get more info tonight I'll post it but I'm outta here soon.

I personally am not very worried about the torque issue and I agree with this person that damaging a knuckle is not very likely.

IN MY OPINION ONLY,
The knuckles are made of high tensile strength machined aluminum alloy. They're not made of your Daddy's old beer cans and they're not easily deformed. A tight fitting taper pin and socket is a VERY strong connection. If anything would be damaged by overtorqueing, I would expect it to either be the threads of the nut or possibly the stretching of the ball joint pin at or near the threaded area. We have all overtightened something at some time in our lives and have had few repercussions from our mistake.
I'm not trying to downplay this situation as I still feel it is important but until someone with more knowledge than myself answers some of the questions, I'll just have to keep wondering and hoping that no damage has been done to any of the parts that were overtorqued.