could sorry u joints, have led to no more 70k warranty???

[Cummins Cowboy]

my truck has 75 k miles, every u joint on the truck has needed replacement as well as the carrier barring. not to mention ball joints and tie rod ends but that is another story. when most manufacturers are offering longer warranties, dodge drops the 70k powertrain warranty they had been offering on all our trucks. mine is an '06 so I had no 70k warranty. I am wondering if the deplorable u joints made dodge drop this warranty. as the front u joints in particular are much more involved to change.

 

[HBarlow]

my truck has 75 k miles, every u joint on the truck has needed replacement as well as the carrier barring. not to mention ball joints and tie rod ends but that is another story. when most manufacturers are offering longer warranties, dodge drops the 70k powertrain warranty they had been offering on all our trucks. mine is an '06 so I had no 70k warranty. I am wondering if the deplorable u joints made dodge drop this warranty. as the front u joints in particular are much more involved to change.

I realize that I am a pain in many member's rear parts when I post my experience with Dodge Rams which is different than theirs but here it is.

I've owned three Dodge Rams, '01, '06, and '08. All three had only a three year, 36k mile warranty on the truck. I don't buy extended warranties, period. Nowhere, no time, no product.

In over 615,000 miles of combined Dodge Ram miles I have not replaced a single universal joint, carrier bearing, ball joint, or tie rod end.

I don't understand how you guys can tear up so many parts.

 

[jgillott]

I realize that I am a pain in many member's rear parts when I post my experience with Dodge Rams which is different than theirs but here it is.



I've owned three Dodge Rams, '01, '06, and '08. All three had only a three year, 36k mile warranty on the truck. I don't buy extended warranties, period. Nowhere, no time, no product.



In over 615,000 miles of combined Dodge Ram miles I have not replaced a single universal joint, carrier bearing, ball joint, or tie rod end.



I don't understand how you guys can tear up so many parts.

Have you owned any 4 wheel drives?

 

[HBarlow]

No. Do 4wd trucks use different u joints, carrier bearings, or tie rod ends?

My current C&C actually uses a complete 4wd front end assembly minus axle shafts, driveshaft, and ring and pinion. So far I've seen no indication of early failure.

 

[jgillott]

No. Do 4wd trucks use different u joints, carrier bearings, or tie rod ends?



My current C&C actually uses a complete 4wd front end assembly minus axle shafts, driveshaft, and ring and pinion. So far I've seen no indication of early failure.

Consider yourself very lucky. It seems that the 4 wheel drives are much more prone to troubles with front end parts, front axle u-joints, etc. Every Ram 4x4 that I have owned since my first in 1992 has gone through multiple sets of front axle u-joints and/or ball joints, track bars, etc. Keep in mind, my trucks are used off road on a regular basis, so that is certainly a contributing factor.



Now I've never had any difficulty with a rear u-joint, carrier bearings or the like. Just front end problems personally.

 

[jelag]

I currently own 3 4WD trucks and 1 2WD 5500, I don't think these trucks have any worse issues for front u-joints than any other truck... A u-joint was never designed to do what we see them do... . CV joints do this so much better... The tight turn radius is the killer here...

I've never put a tie rod end, ball joint or other suspension part in one of my trucks... The 4 trucks I currently own must have a total of 500K miles... maybe more...

I often think that I'm on the other side sometimes, with what Harvey says... but I agree with him on this issue... But we would see a lot better life if we'd lockout hubs on these trucks...

 

[steved]

I for one agree the joints are problematic...

I had a 99 that had a SINGLE ujoint replaced in 200k... my dad has a 99 that's had NO joints replaced with 290k.

I replaced ALL my joints by 75k in this 04. 5... all were at some point of deterioration, whether a single pin was seizing or the needles were completely gone. If it had been one, I would have said bad joint, but all of them at right around the same time????

The ball joints are another story... I had 180k on mine and they were still OK.

I think one issue might be the seals on the ujoints... I live in the salt belt, and the joints were all corroded.

 

[TimothyLong]

I think I'm going to go with Harvey on this one too. I put 84K on my old '98. 5 4WD and had no problems, my wife's old '99 4WD 1500 had about 90K on it when we traded it in and had no problems, my '03 has 112K and is fine (although it could probably use new track bar bushings), and my wife's '04 4WD CTD has 56K with no problems. We do not do off-roading either. I will concede that these are high wear parts and do go bad from time to time. I would expect that over time and higher mileage. Although, if I were to do any serious off-roading I wouldn't rely on the OEM front end chassis, steering, and suspension parts. I'd be ripping that stuff out and installing parts that were designed for that kind of abuse.

 

[MMeier]

223k on my '03 now. front and rear shafts both redone... rear @ 100k, front @ 151k, still all original front end parts with the exception of shocks, still have the original brake pads at all 4 corners too !!

 

[brods]

... ... .

I think one issue might be the seals on the ujoints... I live in the salt belt, and the joints were all corroded.

Yep, bad seal was at least part of the problem on one joint of mine. Can’t recall if the other two factory joints that went bad had seal issues as well. I’m at 80K and two of the steering linkage joints are bad. Time to go with the 08 upgrade I guess.



/webdata/photopost/data/500/medium/wheel_ujoint.JPG#ad




Harvey, you are entitled to your opinion. Many years of experience has shown me that most machines like to be run continuously. The ones that are constantly being used tend to have less problems than ones that sit idle (shut off) for long periods or that only run intermittently for short intervals. Automobiles, in my experience, fall into this category as well. I would bet money that (with all other things being equal) the truck that gets run high miles every day will give many more miles of service than the truck that gets driven intermittently.



It is also safe to assume a very large percentage of your miles were highway miles where stresses on steering components are less (fewer turns per mile and less sharp turning angles). Highway driving produces less overall vehicle wear and tear per mile compared to constantly braking, accelerating and turning on urban roads. It can be argued that 4x4 puts more stress on the steering components so comparing your 2wd hot shot experience against 4x4s with more average driving cycles is comparing apples to oranges. YMMV

 

[steved]

It is also safe to assume a very large percentage of your miles were highway miles where stresses on steering components are less (fewer turns per mile and less sharp turning angles). Highway driving produces less overall vehicle wear and tear per mile compared to constantly braking, accelerating and turning on urban roads. YMMV

I would agree with this, except the majority of my miles are highway... and I'm sitting at around 200k currently, its not like the truck sits all that much.

Again, I had to replace every joint by 75k. The rear shaft joints were so bad they were seizing and causing the truck to vibrate. The front joints were seized so bad they were causing the shakes during turns.

If it had been one joint (even two), I would have said "bad parts"... but I find it ironic that all the joints failed around the same time on a truck that sees mostly highway and no offroad. That is a faulty batch of parts.

 

[FOXY005]

My 03 has 113,000 miles on it and I had the complete set of universal joints replaced under warranty at 45,000 miles, service manager stated "Common Problem" and they didn't even bother messing with the front wheel units they replace the whole axel assembly !



I replaced them all again with greasable units at 89,000 miles.

Both times the non-greasable OEM units were showing rust on the end caps and binding, causing a chatter / vibration in the drive train.



90 % of my driving is on 4 lane interstates.



I don't have any power adders to put extra stress on them, and my wife says I drive it like an old lady.



So my conclusion would have to be some guys are just luckier than others, if you search the sight there are lots of posts about bad universal joints which tells me that it is a known problem in some model years.

 

[TBartlett1]

I live in Massachusetts and have purchased trucks in Texas, Arizona, California and Connecticut, those vehicles in the south and west have a charmed life.

Vehicles located in the Northern States (rust belt) and/or those with poor roads have more maintaince issues due to snow, salt, rain and rough roads. I bought my first CTD new in 1990. I recently scrapped it due to corrosion but kept the running gear which has heavy rust but is still salvageable. In 2000 I purchased a pristine 1990 W250 in Tucson Arizona while working there.

The outer u-joints were replaced within the first year after bringing it home to Mass.

Currently there is considerable surface rust.

I recently purchased another 1990 W350 CTD near Coarsegold California and drove it home to Mass. My new to me CTD has zero rust and no rattles.

I would like to add that the first gen trucks have grease fittings on every u-joint, tie-rod and ball-joint.

Geographical location and roads have the largest impact on vehicle durability aside from use and maintenance. Someone that lives in Texas has no idea the living hell a vehicle endures living on a mountain in the winter with pot holed roads that kept clear with 100% salt.

Also as brods said vehicles that are constantly in use generally cost less per mile to maintain.

Sealed non-greasable u-joints if not properly filled with grease during assembly may have a less than expected life expectancy and in my opinion do not belong on a heavy duty pickup.

If people would install greasable replacement parts and grease them on a regular schedule it could be an eye opener.

In the past there have been hundreds of threads debating which motor oil and filter is best. There are good oils & filters and there are poor oils & filters, some is fact but most is a matter of opinion.

Grease is no different. There is poor grease and there is good grease and like engine oil it also needs to be changed/replaced by greasing.

For those that prefer sealed u-joints or have non greasable units on their vehicle I have found that squirting the u-joints with penetrating oil such as Blaster will increase the life expectancy by keeping moisture and corrosion from creeping past the seals and into the bearing itself.

On a few occasions I was able to free-up stiff outer u-joints with blaster and keep them happy until I was able to find time to replace them.

As in Real Estate it is also Location, Location, Location!



Tim

 

[flyby night]

Tim I agree with you. Grease is just not all the same, I am personally very particular about my grease. I think that is why they probably some of the reason why they don't put zerks on some stuff. I could see someone putting sub par white lithium grease or something into the front wheel bearing assemblies!! However in the u-joints, any grease would be better than no grease. Which is what you find out when you change the sealed u-joints on these 3rd genners.

 

[mwilson]

I have posted in the past several times regarding the poor performance of the front u-joints, ball joints and the steering in general on my truck. I even posted a do it your self ball joint change with pictures for the unfortunate many that will have to change them in the future and don't want to spend the kid's college fund for labor charges. It is a poor design. Period. The lack of grease fittings combined with the poor geometry of the knuckle and steering make it trouble looking for a place to happen. I agree 100% with Tim and have posted the same sentiment in regards to the destructive abilitys of living in a salt / snow/ cold area. The calcium/salt mixture crawls into the u-joints and ball joints, and without the ability to grease them and flush the contaminents out they will fail quickly. At the very least all components must have grease fittings from the factory. At the very best toss the American Axle POS and put the proven Dana 60 back under these trucks. I didn't have abnormal front end issues with either my '94 or '98. 5 trucks and they both had the identical duty cycle of my '06. Hold your Carli comments, please. I should not have to spend that kind of money to keep a 4 year old truck reliable. I will buy the Carli's if I have to as it appears to be a quality upgrade, but it is something you would expect and be willing to do for extreme use, not a daily driver. Also all that does is let Dodge off of the hook once again for putting sub-standard parts in certain areas of these trucks.



I've said it before and I'll say it again, I buy the Cummins and put up with the rest of it.



If you have a 3rd Gen 4 X 4 truck that does / has not had any front end issues you need to buy a lottery ticket as this is your time to win...

 

[steved]

Vehicles located in the Northern States (rust belt) and/or those with poor roads have more maintaince issues due to snow, salt, rain and rough roads.



Tim

I would agree with this, however; all of the trucks I ever owned (including those my dad owned) have lived in the snow belt of PA. I replaced more ujoints on this 3rd gen than I replaced on the previous 11 4x4 dodge trucks we have owned combined!



Its my opinion that there is something with the 3rd gen joints, and it might be the grease as noted... if its not water resistant, it would easily wash out.

 

[mwilson]

Just thinking out loud here, but didn't this issue really start when they (Dodge) changed the ball joint location. Up until 2001 or so the ball joints were pressed into the knuckles, then they changed designs and placed the ball joints into the axle tube. That included some Dana 60 front axles as I remember. Could that have started the problem???

 

[TBartlett1]

The 1st Gen Dana 6o front axles had a Timken bearing for the lower ball-joint (kingpin) and a plastic bushing for the top which were grease-able. Then they went to pressed in ball-joints. The geometry on the Dana 60 also placed them on the same rotating axis.



The newer AAM use pressed in ball-joints that are non grease-able and on the small side with insufficient bearing surface to carry the load. In this design the ball-joints are also out of alignment with each other in that they do not rotate on a common axis.

Why is this I do not know? I suspect it was done to enhance the driving & handling characteristics to make it feel like a car.



The AAM otherwise looks quite substantial in gear and u-joint size.

The AAM would stand up quite well if someone ambitious cut the knuckles off and installed the knuckles from an old Dana 60.

Here's a challenge for someone with a torch and an old AAM & Dana 60 lying around.

Hmmm, this could actually be quite straight forward!





Tim

 

[mwilson]

Agreed!!! I had a 1 ton GMC 4 X 4 with that exact front axle in it. 9' foot Fisher plow hanging off of it and a huge service body on its back. Tough, Tough, Tough. I do not know why that design was dropped as it worked well and was cheap to replace the upper nylon bushing and spring. The bearing and race were an LM series Timken which were low cost as well, can't recall the whole number right now. That would be a bullet-proof upgrade for sure.

On top of all that it handled twice as good as this Dodge ever will!!!!! Drove like a car even with the plow on it.

Mike.

 

[BIGNASTY]

I used to have a 4x4 truck not a dodge but I used it as a 4x4 and off road is hard on trucks that was just part of off road dont know how else to explain the parts wear