New Recall V06

[sag2]

So assuming that they have to look at the threads, I'd guess that they have to back off the adjustment nut all the way to check it. So I assume that they will have to do a new wheel alignment at that point, whether they replace the part or not...right?

My truck is scheduled to be 'inspected' on Friday and I want to know as much as possible before going in. Thanks!

Remember the drag link only adjusts steering wheel center. But more than likely they will check and adjust the toe anyway. The last thing they want is weld the nuts and then have to do an alignment.

 

[JPM]

The recall has been revised from the version posted.

what has been changed?

 

[SnoKing]

The recall has been revised from the version posted.

So can you post the revised version? .6mm of thread engagement did not seem right. SnoKing

 

[Cummins12V98]

Not thing they WON'T be doing is setting my toe back to factory specs of 1/4".

 

[Deleted member 995608]

I tried the Mopar website using my VIN to find an update. It opens another tab the says "Page not found"

 

[JohnBiccum]

I'm seeing the same thing as JHawes; the Mopar link to the revised bulletin returns an error.

So my comments below are based on the original bulletin:

I can't believe NHTSA signed off on this weldment "fix". I think we should as a community engage NHTSA and/or FCA and get them to engineer a better fix. This isn't rocket science: all that is needed is lockwasher-like functionality that works with the torque of 120 ft/pounds or so. Something like a bespoke cup washer with the tabs sized to be bent over the nut with a hammer and punch so that each of the hex flanges has a tab preventing its rotation would work, this has idea has been used before in similar applications.

With this alternative approach the intended functionality of the threads (adjustibility and maintainability) is retained. With the weldment "fix" FCA is trying to foist off on us, there is no adjustability, we must replace entire drag link *when* future adjustment needed...and its going to be at *our* cost too.

Here is a picture of such a cup washer used to hold the drive sprocket on a motorcycle. The hex fastener in this application is under similar torque, in this application the washer, nut and shaft are rotating at 5-6K RPM. For reference nut shown has a 27mm flat on the hex, our fastener in the recall has 41mm flats on the hex.

 

[JPM]

As JohnB has pointed out welding an component that has part its functionally, adjustment and maintainability, rendering it useless , could be considered causing irreparable damage. I believe recalls should not damage a vehicle , but return it as functional as intended.

 

[JohnBiccum]

Here is the revised procedure, found it on the NHTSA website. If the government published it , I guess FCA isn't going to care if we host a copy too.

The changes to the procedure are indicated by RED type making them easy to find.

 

[SnoKing]

I filed a complain with NHTSA stating that welding the drag link was not a suitable solution. Note: For vehicle make model year put in FCA All Models xxxx = year.

I included Safety Recall V06 / NHTSA 19V-021 Drag Link in my write up.
SnoKing

 

[JohnBiccum]

It is interesting that this is up to 2017 vehicles. The Mopar parts sites list all the same part numbers for 2018 vehicles. SnoKing

NHTSA website now shows 2018s too. I think you caught the mistake before NHTSA!

 

[JohnBiccum]

After reading the entire revised procedure and all the communications between FCA and NHTSA I have some concerns that those folks finding loose jam nuts and just tightening them up are missing something very important: Part B of the recall procedure covering the evaluation of the "engagement" between the male and female threads.

Greatly paraphrasing the revised (and un-revised) recall procedure says :

1) if the turnbuckle is is completely disconnected from the draglink then replace the draglink with the new (suffix-AB revised) draglink.

2) if If not disconnected, then do a "tightness check" per part A, if they are tight per the checks in Part A then weld them per part C (skipping part B).

3) If not tight per the Part A checks then evaluate thread engagement between male and female threads per Part B, if Part B evaluation shows sufficient engagement then torque to spec and weld per Part C but if evaluation shows insufficient thread engagement then replace the draglink with the revised -AB suffix draglink.


My reading "between the lines" of the documents lead me to believe that the FCA engineers are very concerned that if the jam nuts are loose that the male and female threads will work against one another, damaging ("stripping") both the male and female threads so that they can no longer take the pushing and pulling strain placed on this assembly by the act of steering the truck down the road. The problem is fatigue damage to the threads caused by steering the truck when the jam nuts were loose.


My (20 plus years) of Quality Assurance experience in aerospace machine shops says that this concern is legitimate. Lots of the checks that inspectors make of threads are related to the engagement between male and female threads (pitch diameter, major and minor diameters, thread angle, root radius etc etc.) The reason so many checks are made on these characteristics is that they affect fitment and fitment affects fatigue life.

I think anyone finding these jam nuts loose and (without further thread engagement evaluation per part B) just tightening them up is making an unwise, potentially fatal decision.

At 10 k miles on my 2018 3500 I found the nuts tight per the Part A tests so I am not proceeding to the part B engagement checks.

 

[SnoKing]

After reading the entire revised procedure and all the communications between FCA and NHTSA I have some concerns that those folks finding loose jab nuts and just tightening them up are missing something very important: Part B of the recall procedure covering the evaluation of the "engagement" between the male and female threads.

Greatly paraphrasing the revised (and un-revised) recall procedure says :
1) if the draglink is completely disconnected from the jam nuts then replace the draglink with the new (suffix-AB revised) draglink.
2) if If not disconnected, then do a "tightness check" per part A, if they are tight per the checks in Part A then weld them per part C (skipping part B).
3) If not tight per the Part A checks then evaluate thread engagement between male and female threads per Part B, if Part B evaluation shows sufficient engagement then torque to spec and weld per Part C but if evaluation show insufficient thread engagement then replace the draglink with the revised -AB suffix draglink.


My reading "between the lines" of the documents lead me to believe that the FCA engineers are very concerned that if the jam nuts are loose that the male and female threads will work against one another, damaging ("stripping") both the male and female threads so that they can no longer take the pushing and pulling strain placed on this assembly by the act of steering the truck down the road. The problem is fatigue damage to the threads caused by steering the truck when the jam nuts were loose.


My (20 plus years) of Quality Assurance experience in aerospace machine shops says that this concern is legitimate. Lots of the checks that inspectors make of threads are related to the engagement between male and female threads (pitch diameter, major and minor diameters, thread angle, root radius etc etc.) The reason so many checks are made on these characteristics is that they affect fitment and fitment affects fatigue life.

I think anyone finding these jam nuts loose and (without further thread engagement evaluation per part B) just tightening them up is making an unwise, maybe fatal mistake.

At 10 k miles on my 2018 3500 I found the nuts tight per the Part A tests so I am not proceeding to the part B engagement checks.

To top that all off .6 MM is very little engagement, and is 1/2 of the test I did earlier in this thread of a bolt and nut I had on my work bench.

 

[JohnBiccum]

To top that all off .6 MM is very little engagement, and is 1/2 of the test I did earlier in this thread of a bolt and nut I had on my work bench.

Thanks for validating what eyeballing photos in the recall procedure made me suspect: I noticed that both the male and the female threads on the photos in the recall procedure looked "flat". The threads might have looked flat due to oil on them, or maybe a weird photographic artifact. But the internal threads might have looked flat because the minor diameter was oversize (either mis-manufactured or stripped out from fatigue). The external threads might have looked flat due to the major diameter being undersize (mis-manufactured or the thread crest pulled off due to fatigue).

Anyone got a Machinery's Handbook handy? All those diameters (& pitch diameter too) are defined therein, provided we can discern what thread was specified by FCA.

 

[SnoKing]

Thanks for validating what eyeballing photos in the recall procedure made me suspect: I noticed that both the male and the female threads on the photos in the recall procedure looked "flat". The threads might have looked flat due to oil on them, or maybe a weird photographic artifact. But the internal threads might have looked flat because the minor diameter was oversize (either mis-manufactured or stripped out from fatigue). The external threads might have looked flat due to the major diameter being undersize (mis-manufactured or the thread crest pulled off due to fatigue).

Anyone got a Machinery's Handbook handy? All those diameters (& pitch diameter too) are defined therein, provided we can discern what thread was specified by FCA.

When I rolled the far side nut back and forth with my finger it turn easily but it did NOT feel sloppy. It felt like a nice clean well machined class 2A and 2B fit for the nut. The question might be was the turnbuckle manufactured with to much allowance. FASTENALL notes that nearly 90% of all commercial and industrial fasteners use this class of thread fit.

https://www.fastenal.com/en/78/screw-thread-design

 

[JPM]

When I rolled the far side nut back and forth with my finger it turn easily but it did NOT feel sloppy. It felt like a nice clean well machined class 2A and 2B fit for the nut. The question might be was the turnbuckle manufactured with to much allowance. FASTENALL notes that nearly 90% of all commercial and industrial fasteners use this class of thread fit.

https://www.fastenal.com/en/78/screw-thread-design

My drivers side nut is hand tight, and when turning it , it seems to be OK as you found. As long as the truck is not needed( mine sits waiting for the camper season mostly) maybe it would be wise to wait and see if they come up a better solution .

 

[Deleted member 995608]

I filed a complain with NHTSA stating that welding the drag link was not a suitable solution. Note: For vehicle make model year put in FCA All Models xxxx = year.

I included Safety Recall V06 / NHTSA 19V-021 Drag Link in my write up.
SnoKing

I just did the same. Thanks Sno

 

[RChandler]

Here is the part number for the Passenger side(the one that tends to loosen first) lock nut if someone wants to try installing a second nut.

NUT. JAM. (06510749AA)
Ram 3500 Parts
Dodge Ram 3500 Steering Linkage, and Steering Shock Parts

Drivers side

NUT. JAM. (06510750AA)
Ram 3500 Parts
Dodge Ram 3500 Steering Linkage, and Steering Shock Parts

SnoKing

Seems like this is the best fix If it was tight to begin with . Dealer said it has to be welded or it will void warranty

 

[Shiner]

Seems like this is the best fix If it was tight to begin with . Dealer said it has to be welded or it will void warranty

I would like that dealer to explain exactly what warranty would be voided.

 

[SnoKing]

Everyone that thinks an adjustment that might be needed in the future should not be welded should tell the NHTSA so by filing with them.

 

[RChandler]

At this point will let them weld it with the condition if there is a no weld fix that comes later with adjustment feature they would put on with no charge . If not will have to see what part of the warranty is effected and go from there , might have to weld it . Wonder what the fix is on the new trucks yet to be built …. Synergy makes a replacement 8701-01 for 300 bucks think it will fit my 2018 will probably buy one later . Too bad Ram can't figure it out