LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

We are not the only ones
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16689
Page 1 of 2

Author:  smitty1938 [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  We are not the only ones

Seems Toyota is having a ball joint recall of 533,000 SUV's and pickup for balljoint problems.

Author:  raceinfan [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

:shock:

Author:  TheJawsOfDeath [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

darn, more than half a million! Anyone know the total number of Jeeps affected by the BJ recall?

Author:  chefdab [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

I believe it was a little over 800,000.

Author:  sleeve84028 [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

The Toyota recall was on the large SUV (Sequoia?) but as I was reading the article it also mentioned the word "trucks." I assumed they were refering to the SUV with the word, but couldn't be for sure.

As Toyota grows globally - they will have more recalls.

Author:  Jeepjeepster [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

I dont understand why they cannot get that part right? Whats the big deal? Chevy's had recalls, DC, Toyota.. Why can they not make them serviceable??!?!?! :evil:

Author:  Wahoo650 [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Several reasons why things like this happen:

-Under engineering
-engineering to a price point
-engineering to a vehicle gross weight (fuel mileage concerns, etc.)
-forced price reductions, low price point forced on supplier
-insufficient testing(see first point) to save money, time and/or both.
-rising price of steel/fuel/labor/etc. - got to save somewhere...

As a great chef used to say "I guarantee" some or all of these will be at the root of these problems. And almost all of them in some way come back to $.

I'm a unit manager for a tier one supplier - I live it everyday.

Author:  Jeepjeepster [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wahoo650 wrote:
Several reasons why things like this happen:

-Under engineering
-engineering to a price point
-engineering to a vehicle gross weight (fuel mileage concerns, etc.)
-forced price reductions, low price point forced on supplier
-insufficient testing(see first point) to save money, time and/or both.
-rising price of steel/fuel/labor/etc. - got to save somewhere...

As a great chef used to say "I guarantee" some or all of these will be at the root of these problems. And almost all of them in some way come back to $.

I'm a unit manager for a tier one supplier - I live it everyday.


I know they cannot save money by cutting back on costs, then having a recall b/c they cut costs.

Author:  smitty1938 [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

Found out this is their second recall on ball joints. The first was on earlier models involving over 700,000 vehicles.

Author:  USPLibby [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wahoo650 wrote:
Several reasons why things like this happen:

-Under engineering
-engineering to a price point
-engineering to a vehicle gross weight (fuel mileage concerns, etc.)
-forced price reductions, low price point forced on supplier
-insufficient testing(see first point) to save money, time and/or both.
-rising price of steel/fuel/labor/etc. - got to save somewhere...

As a great chef used to say "I guarantee" some or all of these will be at the root of these problems. And almost all of them in some way come back to $.

I'm a unit manager for a tier one supplier - I live it everyday.


Don't forget

- removing the ability to regrease them like in the KJ = real dumb idea

Author:  jason thompson [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

Jeepjeepster wrote:
I dont understand why they cannot get that part right? Whats the big deal? Chevy's had recalls, DC, Toyota.. Why can they not make them serviceable??!?!?! :evil:



I talked to "my mechanic" about the LBJ problem and he said that it had to do with the way they were being installed
I am not sure exactly how he explained it but it had to do with the ball end should have thee weight pushing down on it not pulling it out of the socket
I think he said that they should do that as well as add a zerk

Author:  jason thompson [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

here ya go
look at the pic and see the LBJ note that the lower A arm has the weight on it
now look back at the LBJ see what is wrong?
every day the LBJ is holding the weight of the rig not the rig sitting on it

Image

it is very easy to make it work on paper but in the real world it is not so easy
this is just poor engineering on there part
I can not speak for others but I can see the problem with the KJ

Author:  Joe Romas [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

jason thompson wrote:
Jeepjeepster wrote:
I dont understand why they cannot get that part right? Whats the big deal? Chevy's had recalls, DC, Toyota.. Why can they not make them serviceable??!?!?! :evil:



I talked to "my mechanic" about the LBJ problem and he said that it had to do with the way they were being installed
I am not sure exactly how he explained it but it had to do with the ball end should have thee weight pushing down on it not pulling it out of the socket
I think he said that they should do that as well as add a zerk


Another way to discribe it would be. The weight of the vehicle is pulling the ball joint appart instead of pushing it together :!:

Author:  Jeepjeepster [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

That is exactly right jason. Would of it cost more if the engineer that thought to make it that way, would of made it a different way. Probably not. Look at the WK.. The joints are made the other way on it. There are some really stupid people out there, thats for sure. :?

Author:  RFCRD [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Jeepjeepster wrote:
I dont understand why they cannot get that part right? Whats the big deal? Chevy's had recalls, DC, Toyota.. Why can they not make them serviceable??!?!?! :evil:

DC's product support rep told me greasable LBJ's are just as bad with warranty claims because they don't get serviced correctly. I don't understand this either, my Chevy pick-up is riding on it original greasable LBJ's at 110K miles. Even my Iacocca specials from 20 years ago had greasable LBJ's, which I drove like a rented mule and never had one go bad. Please don't tell me the typical US mechanic is now too stupid to figure out how to use a grease gun.

Author:  Donkeykong [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:23 am ]
Post subject: 

So, this is the first jeep I have ever owned, and I like it.

As far as the LBJ (or any joint) being greasable, it's a matter of this day and age.

I am not accusing any of you of being old school, or old fashioned, but when it comes down to it, greasable pivot points are out dated. Jeep has simply been trying to meet the times and using up to date materials and seals.

The reason pivot points don't need greasing isn't because they aren't built to last, there are simply better materials to suit the job. My $4000 bicycle doesn't need the pivot points greasing every hard ride and we shouldn't expect our jeeps to need it. The engineers have begun using bushings and seals and synthetic greade that doesn't require constant baby-sitting.

As far as the LBJ on the KJ's, it looks like it's an engineering problem that someone should have or will be canned for, but I have yet to own a car that has needed anything more than the door hunges greasing (and that is here in ohio with salty roads all winter).

I hope I don't come off as wrong, but why would you want to have to grease a suspension component when you don't have to?

It's a shame that there is such a problem with the LBJ's, and I really do wish that my libby had come with a SFA, but seriously, this is the year 2007. Grease guns were incorporated in pre 1950's technology due to the lack of sealing technology and grease breakdown. Now who wants to help me grease my axle boots?
-Mark

Author:  Goglio704 [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:33 am ]
Post subject: 

Donkeykong wrote:
So, this is the first jeep I have ever owned, and I like it.

As far as the LBJ (or any joint) being greasable, it's a matter of this day and age.

I am not accusing any of you of being old school, or old fashioned, but when it comes down to it, greasable pivot points are out dated. Jeep has simply been trying to meet the times and using up to date materials and seals.

The reason pivot points don't need greasing isn't because they aren't built to last, there are simply better materials to suit the job. My $4000 bicycle doesn't need the pivot points greasing every hard ride and we shouldn't expect our jeeps to need it. The engineers have begun using bushings and seals and synthetic greade that doesn't require constant baby-sitting.

As far as the LBJ on the KJ's, it looks like it's an engineering problem that someone should have or will be canned for, but I have yet to own a car that has needed anything more than the door hunges greasing (and that is here in ohio with salty roads all winter).

I hope I don't come off as wrong, but why would you want to have to grease a suspension component when you don't have to?

It's a shame that there is such a problem with the LBJ's, and I really do wish that my libby had come with a SFA, but seriously, this is the year 2007. Grease guns were incorporated in pre 1950's technology due to the lack of sealing technology and grease breakdown. Now who wants to help me grease my axle boots?
-Mark


Non greaseable is not better or modern. It is disposable. Designed to last long enough to get out of warranty. Quality equipment is always greaseable in industry. Only the cheap throwaway crap is non greaseable. Your $4000 bicycle analogy is severely flawed. A twenty dollar Walmart special is not greasable either. It is not a hallmark of high tech or quality.

Author:  RFCRD [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:05 am ]
Post subject: 

Donkeykong wrote:
So, this is the first jeep I have ever owned, and I like it.

As far as the LBJ (or any joint) being greasable, it's a matter of this day and age.

I am not accusing any of you of being old school, or old fashioned, but when it comes down to it, greasable pivot points are out dated. Jeep has simply been trying to meet the times and using up to date materials and seals.

The reason pivot points don't need greasing isn't because they aren't built to last, there are simply better materials to suit the job. My $4000 bicycle doesn't need the pivot points greasing every hard ride and we shouldn't expect our jeeps to need it. The engineers have begun using bushings and seals and synthetic greade that doesn't require constant baby-sitting.

As far as the LBJ on the KJ's, it looks like it's an engineering problem that someone should have or will be canned for, but I have yet to own a car that has needed anything more than the door hunges greasing (and that is here in ohio with salty roads all winter).

I hope I don't come off as wrong, but why would you want to have to grease a suspension component when you don't have to?

It's a shame that there is such a problem with the LBJ's, and I really do wish that my libby had come with a SFA, but seriously, this is the year 2007. Grease guns were incorporated in pre 1950's technology due to the lack of sealing technology and grease breakdown. Now who wants to help me grease my axle boots?
-Mark

How did Ronald Reagan say it? "I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you."

From experience working around commercial vehicles for better than 20 years and more Ohio road salt than I care to remember, you need a serviceable joint in this enviornment. Fresh grease flushes-out dirt, salt, water, rust, etc... from mechanical joints which if left in place will cause the joint to fail. Using another old-school part, the king pin as an example. One must take the mechanical load off of the joint to force grease through the joint, flushing contaminants to keep this joint from failing. I was most amused by the first set of Rockwell disk brakes used on commercial vehicles having dry, unsealed caliper pins. Those lasted about 2 weeks in Ohio salt before the brakes would lock on the pins and smoke a brake. The fix was as simple as Never Sieze on the pins, slop them up and it's good for @ 6 months. Ball joints are no different, neglect them and they will fail.

As for Liberty's LBJ's, they are nothing short of a POS. My first set was trash after the first Ohio winter (12K miles), second set starting to loosen close to when the recall was done (21K miles), and the new & improved recall set is already starting to knock and showing signs of lane wander (23.5K miles).

Author:  Albert [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:45 am ]
Post subject: 

I'll take a greasable ball joint any day. But then I prefer warn manual locking hubs. Ok , so I am old and out of date but i've never had a problem with the old fashioned greasable ball joints and manual locking hubs.

The servicing problem with them is when some idiot puts his pressurized grease gun on the zerk and pumps until he blows the grease through the boot and now it's impossible to keep dirt and water out of there. They're only supposed to be pumped until they expand a little and are firm. I've had old fashioned greasable ball joints last 140,000 miles easy.

There is a design problem but it could easily be overcome with a heavier duty and greasable ball joint.

Author:  jason thompson [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Donkeykong wrote:
So, this is the first jeep I have ever owned, and I like it.

As far as the LBJ (or any joint) being greasable, it's a matter of this day and age.

I am not accusing any of you of being old school, or old fashioned, but when it comes down to it, greasable pivot points are out dated. Jeep has simply been trying to meet the times and using up to date materials and seals.

The reason pivot points don't need greasing isn't because they aren't built to last, there are simply better materials to suit the job. My $4000 bicycle doesn't need the pivot points greasing every hard ride and we shouldn't expect our jeeps to need it. The engineers have begun using bushings and seals and synthetic greade that doesn't require constant baby-sitting.

As far as the LBJ on the KJ's, it looks like it's an engineering problem that someone should have or will be canned for, but I have yet to own a car that has needed anything more than the door hunges greasing (and that is here in ohio with salty roads all winter).

I hope I don't come off as wrong, but why would you want to have to grease a suspension component when you don't have to?

It's a shame that there is such a problem with the LBJ's, and I really do wish that my libby had come with a SFA, but seriously, this is the year 2007. Grease guns were incorporated in pre 1950's technology due to the lack of sealing technology and grease breakdown. Now who wants to help me grease my axle boots?
-Mark




ok if that were true then why does my '02 TJ have over 14 grease zerks on it and the '03 kj have 0?
it comes down to "target market" the KJ's "target market" wants nothing to do with "service" they want to drive it and if it is needed change the oil

I know this hurts some of the "loyalist" around here but I belive it is true
The KJ was not intended as a "trail machine" but more as a DD and good for the once or twice a year "off road adventure"
if you want to do mare than this in your KJ then you will need to learn to fix it and as of '07 the same can be said for the entire jeep line as far as I am concerned

I mean no offence to anyone by this but it is the way I feel
note also that my TJ new only had I think 6 or 8 grease zerks I added "high tec" after market stuff that had them in it

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/