Lower Ball Joints Recall Update

[liberator]

Has anybody received a notice or info on the most recent ball recall?

Has anybody replaced them recently at a dealership If so, is anything new or different from the old ball joint design?

Does anybody have a new ball joint part number? The lastest part number I have is 5114037A1 installed Aug 16, 2006.

Lets figure out if this is truly a better BJ.

 

[MoladoGuy]

I don't think they have shipped the new manufactured part yet. I had an appointment setup with my local dealership this week, but I canceled. They said I would have to pay for the service (out of warranty) but I would be immediatley reimbursed upon the recall. I asked if I would also get the new manufactured ball joint installed at the same time when I get reimbursed. Their response:

Them: "Why would we install the ball joints again after we already installed them?"

Me: "Because the recalled ball joint is still in my Jeep, though you gave me a new pair I still have the problem ball joint. Or did you receive the newly manufactured ones?"

Them: "We are still using the same manufactured ball joint. Who says they are sending out a newer manufactured one?"

Me: "Nevermind for the appointment. I will wait. Thank you for your time."

 

[Marlon_JB2]

He IS sort of right.

Nowhere does it say they are shipping out new parts...

 

[2003KJ]

Notices dont BEGIN to go out till september...so dont expect to hear anything for a few weeks yet.

 

[Dave]

I know we're all anxious but it sounds like we need to wait for the recall as long as we don't have a loose one.

 

[liberator]

The 2005 parts manual shows the LBJ part no as 5114 037AC which leads me to believe that 5114 037AI installed Aug 16th is an updated version. Whether it is the definitive recalled version is yet to be determined. Standby.

 

[jfortier777]

Nowhere does it say they are shipping out new parts...

They stated numerous times that the reason the balljoints were failing was because the wrong spec was used for the balljoints.
Which seems to mean they used a lighter duty balljoint than was needed, and that caused them to wear much faster than expected. This seems to imply that they will use a ball joint that is rated to be used for heavier duty application.

That makes it sound an awful lot like new parts.

 

[Marlon_JB2]

Nowhere does it say they are shipping out new parts...

They stated numerous times that the reason the balljoints were failing was because the wrong spec was used for the balljoints.
Which seems to mean they used a lighter duty balljoint than was needed, and that caused them to wear much faster than expected. This seems to imply that they will use a ball joint that is rated to be used for heavier duty application.

That makes it sound an awful lot like new parts.

Nothing is official until it's official... and right now it ain't official yet.

 

[jfortier777]

Nothing is official until it's official... and right now it ain't official yet.

(word)

 

[dnm45227]

In todays "sue 'em all" culture if they have admitted that an inferior part was installed, and they are replacing said part, then one would think (liabilty wise) they are taking a huge risk if they put another inferior part back on.

I now the part is performing within in specs, it was apparently used for the wrong application. To me since they have confirmed this by recalling them, then if they use the same part and somebody or something gets hurt, then it's thier fault.