posted 06-10-2018 01:47 PM                  

Here is my hypothiness: When the replacement sand cast aluminum arm was put into production the machining process was not looked at closely. I don't believe a tolerance stack was performed. This created an issue in the 'pocket' where the rubber boot sits on the lower ball joint. I have (attempted) to attached photos of the 'old' squeeze cast arm showing the ball joint assembly in place. Notice how the machined pocket is sufficient in diameter and depth to allow movement of the rubber boot. I would like someone with a later model year Prowler (later than 99) to photograph the same area so we can compare the two different arms and relief pockets. This is for your consideration, we need another photo to compare the old arms to the new arms.

I am NOT trying to change anyone's ideas or slow down development of a good quality replacement. But, It's important to verify 'yes or no' if the newer arm is the issue. If it is we may be able to hold Chryslers accountable in some way. Thanks! I look forward to some help here! Lou

posted 06-10-2018 02:12 PM                  

According to the seller, this is the specific car they came off of.
I was told they purchased new parts and had them chromed then swapped them and kept the originals as spares.
I bought the lower control arms and other parts that had been removed after the car was sold.

posted 06-10-2018 02:31 PM                  

I believe the control arms in your possession are the original squeeze cast aluminum arms. Note your smooth surface finish and thin parting line. Same as on my 99. Also the part number states AA as the suffix. That means no engineering changes had yet occured. (when the product design changes the suffix changes, for example from AA to BA or AB).

So, the question rephrased.... Are the lower ball joint failures happening on Prowlers that have the 'newer' sand cast control arms? And, does anyone know exactly when Chrysler changed to the sand cast control arms?

posted 06-11-2018 08:24 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by RPL:
The ball joint recall was for all model year Prowlers. Yes, the control arms are different as described but failures were noted in both styles.

---

posted 06-11-2018 08:34 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry Lord:
Just a quick observation that may or may not have anything to do with the ball joint failures.
Looking at the way the ball joint boot sits in a pocket in the control arm (no matter what year) if there is a boot failure, any water, from washing or road spray will accumulate and puddle in the recessed area around the boot.
I have never personally inspected a failed ball joint. When they do fail, do they normally have rust in them? I don't recall many car from drier climates having failures. Have there been more failures from cars in wetter climates?
I do recall that many people have noticed a change in their steering before a failure but not all have noticed a change. Water intrusion will cause corrosion and the rust that comes along with it along with binding or galling during movement.
I truly believe that the boot failure may be due to the recessed area and subsequent water intrusion causing the corrosion.

---