Ball Joint Failure - New underwear please!!

For me it looks as if the splines on the joint have been ground for easier fitting. :shock:
Then they discovered that the fitting was way too easy, and they did some centre punches to make the joint grip a little more. :shock:

And yes, the other side has been treated probably in a similar way...

To sum up, something like an attempt to murder? You can go a long way if you want to pull it through, but the most important is that the person who did the work should not really be allowed to work on cars. It is that serious.


Demetris
 
Are they little blobs of epoxy?

Have they been glued in??? :shock: :shock:

And the circlip hanging around the link - is that the circlip which holds the joint in (Sorry Harvey, I know it doesn't actually hold the joint in) or is it the sprung loaded one which holds the boot on?

From the pics, it looks like some has ground the splines down because it was tight, then put some 5 minute araldite from the local DIY shop to hold it together, then used the boot circlip in the wrong place.

Only my opinion of course.

Richard
 
My initial reaction re the blobs was supa glue... :shock: But then I thought,..can't be,..surely not. If it is though,...

The splines if you will do give the appearance of having been filed down, but then maybe the bright marks are down to the polishing movement of the joint in the cavity prior to release. The blob marks hold the answer though.

Ron.
 
Yep, my thoughts were also on the superglue path so interesting that I'm not alone...... I'm going to give the garage a call in the morning and ask them to run a finger across the side of the joint and check if the marks are raised or indented in the surface.

Either way it is becoming pretty obvious that this was not just a case of a simple random mechanical failure......................

Cheers,

Al
 
I wouldn't trust the other joint and leg either, even if it isn't on the move, which it may not be as once they move they soon push the circlip out of the way, and that can't go anywhere other than dropping down for all to see in the same way the other side is, and I can't see any sign of it. Maybe they left it out....
On the one that failed it looks like there are centre punch marks put there in an attempt to tighten up the joint in the leg, possibly after grinding off a few too many splines to make fitting easier. Anyone who has done them knows that they really are a tight fit, and require a serious amount of use of the Hickory handled press to get them in.
 
I am no expert on these, by any stretch of the imagination. However, just from looking at the photos, it just looks like a 'bodge'. My initial thought was centre punch holes; glue didn't even cross my mind because nobody would do that, would they? Or would they?
 
Hey,
Bit of an update, the marks have been investigated by the workshop quoting for the repairs and the head office of the people who fitted the ball joints and do indeed appear to be punch indentations likely intended to tighten up the joint. As such after extensive discussions this week the company who fitted the ball joints are accepting liability for them being incorrectly fitted and resulting in the accident. I've therefore removed any references to their name from earlier posts so as not to have any legal impact having named names should they happen upon this thread.

Insurance assesor from my insurance co is going to be inspecting the car tomorrow to see what the go is in terms of repairs, so still the possibility that it'll be written off but that is hopefully marginally less likely now that they will know that they can recover the costs from the other party's insurance.

Will update again when i know more.

Cheers,

Al
 
With P6 values in OZ much higher than in the UK, I would have thought you'd be OK on the write off front. Plus it sounds like you have the garage that fitted the joints exactly where you want them.

Horrific event, but sounds like it should be a good outcome. Well Done!

Chris
 
chrisyork said:
I've never heard of that happening before!
Click to expand...
SydneyRoverP6B said:
I have never seen nor heard of that happening before
Click to expand...
Erm......
This happened to my Dad one night on the Southport Coast Road in about 1981. It was a 2.2, making it a max of 6 years old at the time. He careered off the road and would doubtless have flipped in anything less sturdy than a P6. I drive that same road in my P6 (thankfully a different car) all the time. Nowadays they've lined the sides of the single carriageway road with concrete bollards- sends the jeepers up me every time I go along it.
I've always been worried about the same thing happening to me, but nothing on the forum has suggested it was a common... err... 'problem'. Till now, I've not heard anything on the subject at all.

Al, thank God you're all right! I agree with everyone here- that definitely doesn't look like a precision fitted bit of suspension kit, but should we all be worried about this? Is there a test to check for weakness, or certain production years that should be checked more thoroughly??

Michael
 
chrisyork said:
With P6 values in OZ much higher than in the UK, I would have thought you'd be OK on the write off front.
Click to expand...

Alas even with that it's still going to be a close run thing mostly owing to the cost of labour out here... We're also still in the situation where i think there is a bit of a gap between the actual work needing done and what the repairers it is at currently have got in their quote.

They are quoting to basically replace the whole front suspension including all components that could possibly have sustained any damage rather than just the ones that are found to actually have been damaged, so I'm hoping the insurance assesor will scale this back to more realistic levels tomorrow. If not then I can see about another quote from a second repairer. I can see their point on it to some extent as they don't want to be liable if anything else fails in future, but we need to find some middle ground i think. On top of that the panel damage and requiring those panels repainted even if they use the spare bonnet and front guard that i have sitting around here is taking their quote up to pretty much exactly what the agreed value of the car is set as with my insurance co.

Having said that even if it does get written off then the terms of my policy mean that I retain the salvage at no cost, so although the process of getting a repairable write-off back on the road isn't a great barrel of laughs here it's not the end of the world to do the repairs and put it through the inspections to get it legal again. It'd always show as a "Repaired write-off" on a vehicle status check however so I'd rather that didn't happen if it can be avoided.

Cheers,

Al
 
redrover said:
should we all be worried about this? Is there a test to check for weakness, or certain production years that should be checked more thoroughly??
Click to expand...

The thing to do is firstly make sure the circlips are fitted properly, if the joint starts moving in the leg the first thing it will do is push the clip out, and luckily it can't disappear, it aways stays hanging off the bottom arm, so with a regular servicing routine, checking the joints as normal, plus a quick look under there whenever you're doing something else, or just whenever you get the chance, and you can't fail to notice the circlip if it is hanging there, and should catch the problem long before it gets to the stage that the joint pulls out of the leg.
 
tvr_v8 said:
It'd always show as a "Repaired write-off" on a vehicle status check however so I'd rather that didn't happen if it can be avoided.

Cheers,

Al
Click to expand...

I saw a program on Discovery.Turbo the other day where they get 'financial' (Cat D) write offs and put them back on the road. They said that you can get the car inspected and have the written off status removed from it's history??? This was in the UK and I had not heard of that before but I wonder if something like that exsists in oz for cars that are a financial write off???

It does blight a car I think.
 
richarduk said:
This was in the UK and I had not heard of that before but I wonder if something like that exsists in oz for cars that are a financial write off???
Click to expand...

It does indeed, there are 2 classifications here for written off vehicles, "Statutory" write-offs which are damaged so badly they must not be repaired and can only be stripped for parts and can never again re-registered and "Repairable" write-offs that are beyond economical repair by the insurance company but can be repaired and re-registered after going through what is called a VIV inspection and a fresh roadworthy certificate.

When i bought my Discovery2 it was a "Repairable" write-off and i went through the VIV process and got it back on the road, it has been one of my best ever buys and a fantastic car for the money so i am very happy with it. It will always list as a "Repaired write-off" however on its vehicle status check even after it has completed all of the inspections and been legally re-registered which will obviously make it harder to sell on. As such, I'm not keen for the P6 to end up listing with the same status unless it's the only option.

Cheers,

Al
 
Repairable write offs are also harder to insure - some insurance companies won't provide you with comprehensive insurance, they'll only offer 3rd party or 3rd party - fire and theft. :(
 
Thankfully it's definately not being written off, the insurance co have been fantastic and have agreed a pay out figure to cover the damage but are paying me directly rather than the garage who quoted for the work.

As such the car is heading home over the next couple of days where I'm now planning on doing a lot of it myself seeing as I enjoy it.

Panels went off today to get resprayed and i got a load of the parts like a pair of new lower ball joints on order so they should arrive early next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top