Being a Field Service Technician/Engineer (Two calculus classes shy of the engineering degree) with a Masters, I have had the privilege of seeing Engineers have the Gun to their Head and jump on my lowly suggestions for field solutions to problems. I have had them take my CAD Sketches that can not be called drawings and have the CAD operators copy them on the official company template that goes to the fabricator.

In this Wonderfully Capitalist World we live in, we have after-market suppliers. When the independent manufacturer sees a way to make a profit by building ball joints that are stronger and better, we will buy them. The Vendor in Mississauga, ON selling on eBay may have a good ball joint with a grease fitting, but his/her marketing is very poor to say the least. These ball joints may be the answer, but who knows

If I had the time, I would build some ball joints out of 4140 half hard alloy (gunsmiths use this stuff), drill and tap grease fittings on them, and recommend synthetic NLGI 2 high temp grease.

I am sure someone at Chrysler has come up with the same proposal only to get cut off because the grease fittings cost $0.15 each and to drill and tap the holes costs $0.50 each and the grease cost $0.001 more

I once worked for a Tractor Manufacturer who would not spend $0.35 for the extra Cast Iron to reinforce the casting but would spend over $50.00 for a reinforcement plate that did not work and let the castings crack and paid big bucks for the recall

As we can all see Chrysler paid out more than $0.15 for the grease fitting, $0.50 to drill and tap, and $0.001 extra for the synthetic NLGI 2 grease

Steve

_________________
2006 Pearl Green CRD
Magnaflow 2 1/2" Cat Back
KJ Extra Leg Room Brackets, Carter Lift Pump, V6 Airbox, ORM
Fuel cooler, Oil Separator, Progard 7
Gauges EGT Boost Trans Temp Oil Pres, Michelin LXT AT2 245 70 R16
7,000# Draw Tight hitch, PML EX Deep Trans Pan
Centrifuge, SunCoast, Transgo, RAM TCM, InMotion Stage 2
Wife's 99 TDI VW Beetle

Thanks for the info and lively discussion.

I have talked to a coupe of people about this, e.g. one who has Land Rover Discovery V6 TD 3.0 2005 (Peugeot-sourced engine) and another with late model IZUSU Trooper 3.0. Their experience is similar to mine. However it seems that older diesel engines are more even milage-wise (less efficient though) between different conditions.

All the best,
Hjalti

_________________
Liberty 2006, silver, CRD Limited, MOAB wheels Goodyear MTRs 245/75 (summer) 255/70 studded tires on original rims (winter), 30 mm lift, full MOPAR skid plates, tow bar and tow hooks, THULE Pacific 100 luggage box. 33,000 miles.

CJ-2A 1946 Normandy blue, ? miles, 600x16 non-directional, second owner...

Yes obviously this is true. The older indirect injected diesels are built with not nearly as precise tolerances and technology. They are mechanically sound and ditto controlled. Not dependant too much upon the conditions because they themselves are not finely tuned for maximum power. So when conditions change they still operate as well as with optimum conditions. On the flipside they cannot take advantage of the optimum condition, nor are they able to produce an optimum condition for themselves (lack of sensors and superior control).

As a control engineer I find both approaches intersting!

_________________
L.O.S.T forever!
Silver 2002 Skoda Fabia TDI, 235,000km
Former car: Jeep KJ 2003 CRD

DIESEL - saving millions of liters of petrol every day!