Is it an epidemic?
LBJ Failure... My turn.
- Thread starter 88xtraSR5
- Start date
Is it an epidemic?
pluton
Senior Member
To expand on this, it appears that the way Toyota designed the front suspension on these vehicles and the 1st gen Tacomas, the LBJs are unusually vulnerable( compared to normal, traditional designs) to failure due to normal wear combined with the front suspension being bottomed, that is, compressed hard all the way to the stops.
Using lower quality aftermarket LBJs just speeds up the wear process, brings closer the day of doom, and really is a form of gambling.
The 'remedy' is to be vigilant and replace before failure.
As you'll find from using the Google, Toyota fixed the design weakness on the next gen Tacomas/4Runners.
the great him
Elite Member
what increases the chance of this happening? the answer is neglect and use of inferior parts. those two things are imo the two main foactors in this
yeah its a poor design, but thats a piss poor answer... i mean look at most LBJ set ups, most of them are similar, the LBJ supports the weight of the vehicle, toyota is not the only manufacture to do this, and the 4runner is certainly not the only vehicle to have this type of design.
yes and know they still use the same basic design... as do most other auto manufactures. again i think the leading cause of failure here is poor maintenance and neglect, as well as people trying to cut corners and cost and using cheap inferior parts thinking they will be the same quality. -is the design a bad one, yes imo any time you have only one single moving part holding the entire weight of the vehicle by itself that is a bad design, but toyota is not the only one to have this issue - https://www.google.com/search?q=low...Gh4DABw&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1958&bih=914&dpr=0.7 that is a google image search of "lower ball joint failure"... as you can see, toyota is not the only one with this issue. i think the real blame lies with the owers and them not changing a part that is a wear part and was never intended to last the life of the vehicle.
^I disagree with the above comment. While owner maintenance is crucial, IMO, Toyota is to blame for this one. There are several other vehicles from other manufacturers that also have this design flaw like the Jeep Liberty. Toyota should offer a recall for ALL vehicles with this failed design because IMO...this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. But they wont because this design affects so many of their older (and best selling) trucks and would be too costly. This includes: 3rd gen 4Runner, 1st gen Tacoma, early model Sequoia/Tundra, and Land Cruiser Prado J90 series.
Most IFS systems have dual ball joints, upper and lower. But what makes our lower ball joint design flawed is the fact that they are in tension, which is a non fail safe design. The proper design from an engineering perspective is to load the ball joints such that they are in compression. Most newer vehicles, including newer Toyota trucks, use this fail safe, ball joint in compression type design. The difference between these two designs is that in a fail-safe compression type geometry, wear on the ball and socket may cause play, but the natural compression forces pushes the ball in the socket and prevents the entire wheel from tearing apart. The ball would have to be extremely worn for the wheel to be at risk of coming apart dangerously. In comparison, with a tension type design, wear on the ball and socket causes the ball to naturally pull away from the socket, thereby tearing the wheel apart. Even small amount of wear makes this design risky.
I suspect Toyota made a half assed design decision by copying the IFS geometry from the first generation Toyota trucks. You'll notice that the ball joint arrangement is very similar. BUT, you don't see the wheels falling off these older trucks because they use a torsion bar suspension in which the load from the torsion bar rests on the upper control arm, then through the upper ball joint (in compression), and finally to the wheel hub. The lower ball joints in the older trucks merely act to keep the wheel hub assembly in place and have little load bearing responsibility. With our 3rd gen 4Runner suspension design, the strut is connected to the lower control arm. That means the load of the vehicle is carried from the spring, to the lower control arm, through the ball joint (in tension), and finally to the wheel hub. In this design, the lower ball joint not only has to keep the wheel hub in place, but it also has to support the load of the vehicle through tensile force. THIS IS A POOR DESIGN. You basically have the thread of the ball joint and a ball stud that is maybe 1/2" in diameter, supporting the ENTIRE FRONT END of the vehicle under tension.
You may notice other vehicles having a similar ball joint design in which the lower control arm hangs below the wheel hub with a ball joint in between. But usually, the coil spring/strut is connected directly to the wheel hub and not to the lower control arm. This may be a similar design, but it is acceptable and not as much of a concern since the lower ball joint does not bear weight.
The key here is how the load is supported. If the load is supported directly by the wheel hub, then it does not really matter how the designer arranges the ball joints. However, if the load is supported by the control arm (upper or lower), then the ball joint has the extra responsibility of being load bearing, in which case, the proper engineering choice is to have them under compression loading.
Most IFS systems have dual ball joints, upper and lower. But what makes our lower ball joint design flawed is the fact that they are in tension, which is a non fail safe design. The proper design from an engineering perspective is to load the ball joints such that they are in compression. Most newer vehicles, including newer Toyota trucks, use this fail safe, ball joint in compression type design. The difference between these two designs is that in a fail-safe compression type geometry, wear on the ball and socket may cause play, but the natural compression forces pushes the ball in the socket and prevents the entire wheel from tearing apart. The ball would have to be extremely worn for the wheel to be at risk of coming apart dangerously. In comparison, with a tension type design, wear on the ball and socket causes the ball to naturally pull away from the socket, thereby tearing the wheel apart. Even small amount of wear makes this design risky.
I suspect Toyota made a half assed design decision by copying the IFS geometry from the first generation Toyota trucks. You'll notice that the ball joint arrangement is very similar. BUT, you don't see the wheels falling off these older trucks because they use a torsion bar suspension in which the load from the torsion bar rests on the upper control arm, then through the upper ball joint (in compression), and finally to the wheel hub. The lower ball joints in the older trucks merely act to keep the wheel hub assembly in place and have little load bearing responsibility. With our 3rd gen 4Runner suspension design, the strut is connected to the lower control arm. That means the load of the vehicle is carried from the spring, to the lower control arm, through the ball joint (in tension), and finally to the wheel hub. In this design, the lower ball joint not only has to keep the wheel hub in place, but it also has to support the load of the vehicle through tensile force. THIS IS A POOR DESIGN. You basically have the thread of the ball joint and a ball stud that is maybe 1/2" in diameter, supporting the ENTIRE FRONT END of the vehicle under tension.
You may notice other vehicles having a similar ball joint design in which the lower control arm hangs below the wheel hub with a ball joint in between. But usually, the coil spring/strut is connected directly to the wheel hub and not to the lower control arm. This may be a similar design, but it is acceptable and not as much of a concern since the lower ball joint does not bear weight.
The key here is how the load is supported. If the load is supported directly by the wheel hub, then it does not really matter how the designer arranges the ball joints. However, if the load is supported by the control arm (upper or lower), then the ball joint has the extra responsibility of being load bearing, in which case, the proper engineering choice is to have them under compression loading.
Last edited:
drdolittlerwc
New member
Dude!!!
I just replaced my ball joints 2 months ago and afterwards I read a couple different posts about them (yeah, I know, should have read sooner), and came to find out that I had installed the very same ball joints (all 4) that everyone is complaining about.
At first I thought, maybe it's really no big deal... Then a couple of these threads popped up and now I'm thinkin' :infidel: WHAT!!???
This has to change now! We are leaving in a week for a 3,500 mile trip to Belize, I'm not waitin for something like this to happen on the road...
Ok, so I'm thinkin' that maybe since it's only been a couple months, I'm not gonna see much difference. WRONG!!! :fear:
One of the uppers is floppin' around like a wet noodle!! The two lowers are grindin' HARD!! :wow2::wow2::wow2:
Now I have to try to get my money back... :flamethrwoer2:
Never again will go cheap on a critical part, worse part is, I ALREADY KNOW BETTER!! :yuck::yuck:
This all went down in 2 months and less than 3k miles.
I just replaced my ball joints 2 months ago and afterwards I read a couple different posts about them (yeah, I know, should have read sooner), and came to find out that I had installed the very same ball joints (all 4) that everyone is complaining about.
At first I thought, maybe it's really no big deal... Then a couple of these threads popped up and now I'm thinkin' :infidel: WHAT!!???
This has to change now! We are leaving in a week for a 3,500 mile trip to Belize, I'm not waitin for something like this to happen on the road...
Ok, so I'm thinkin' that maybe since it's only been a couple months, I'm not gonna see much difference. WRONG!!! :fear:
One of the uppers is floppin' around like a wet noodle!! The two lowers are grindin' HARD!! :wow2::wow2::wow2:
Now I have to try to get my money back... :flamethrwoer2:
Never again will go cheap on a critical part, worse part is, I ALREADY KNOW BETTER!! :yuck::yuck:
This all went down in 2 months and less than 3k miles.
Last edited:
the great him
Elite Member
ill agree is a poor design, but it works. and it works fine if you change them out when they should be changed out. every 90-100k thats what toyota recommends -take into account they are figuring the truck is a daily driver and never sees off road use(optimal use/life span). you go outside of that or start lifting or putting bigger tires on adding more weight ect and that life span is going to decrease. this is not toyotas fault that people ignore maintenance intervals or preventative maintenance, or that people use inferior parts. i will say again yeah the design could be better and there are more sturdy designs out there. but you are talking about a vechiel that is 10+ years old, is well out of warranty and should of already had the parts replaced at least once according to the manufacture. how can you even say that toyota should be issuing a recall on all these trucks? over half the parts they will replace wont be their part, and the truck is way out of any warranty even by todays standards let alone the standards of 10 years ago.
the sole responsibility lies on the owner/operator of the vehicle to take care of their vehicle, whats next recall for brakes because they wore out? come on give me a break
I noticed that Nevada commented (before the edit) that my comment above was incorrect. Please feel free to elaborate and criticize my points, as the purpose of this thread is to have an educated discussion on the topic.
As for my comment on Toyota doing a recall on this matter, I stand firm on my belief. In fact, Toyota has already admitted a mistake in their design by having a recall on early model Sequoia and Tundra vehicles for this issue. Why they did not extend the recall on similar 4Runner, Tacoma, and Land Cruiser Prado trucks I have no idea. It is essentially the same flawed lower ball joint design and part (the parts are interchangeable).
The ball joints are not considered to be a regular maintenance item. Where in the manual does it say they need to be replaced every 100K? Regular inspection maybe, but not regular replacements like you would oil, air filters, etc. With this design, inspecting for play is not that easy, and failures occur even after recent inspections. I agree that maintenance and inspection is important, but from an engineering standpoint, any part that may jeopardize safety upon failure should be designed to fail in a manner that is either safe or with ample warning time for the operator.
As for my comment on Toyota doing a recall on this matter, I stand firm on my belief. In fact, Toyota has already admitted a mistake in their design by having a recall on early model Sequoia and Tundra vehicles for this issue. Why they did not extend the recall on similar 4Runner, Tacoma, and Land Cruiser Prado trucks I have no idea. It is essentially the same flawed lower ball joint design and part (the parts are interchangeable).
The ball joints are not considered to be a regular maintenance item. Where in the manual does it say they need to be replaced every 100K? Regular inspection maybe, but not regular replacements like you would oil, air filters, etc. With this design, inspecting for play is not that easy, and failures occur even after recent inspections. I agree that maintenance and inspection is important, but from an engineering standpoint, any part that may jeopardize safety upon failure should be designed to fail in a manner that is either safe or with ample warning time for the operator.
the great him
Elite Member
start performing preventative maintenance instead of reactive maintenance and this wont be a problem... its that easy
there are several factors that could account for the limited recall of the LBJ, one being the supplier/manufacture of the part. there could of been an issue with that run of parts -every thing has a batch number or series run number or lot number, it might not be on the part itself but on the bulk containers ect that the parts a delivered in there will be. its how manufactures can track products. those numbers will then get absorbed into the VIN and can be tracked that way... im guessing thats how toyota limited it to those specific vehicles. do i think toyota should have done a mass recall, no again PM, not RM. but could toyota have done a voluntary replacement for the part when the vehicle say came in for service or if the owner asked for it -like they have done with the tacoma leaf springs, yes, and thats what i think should have been done. that way it would not look bad for toyota, instead look good, as though they say "hey, this could be an issue, we have seen some issues with some(and we have addressed those), so we are gonna go ahead and work with you(the customer/owner) on the rest that dont have this "defect" just to put everyone at ease..." that way they are by no means obligated to fix anything, but they do so out of good faith and then they can have a chance to tell people "look change these every 80K, and have them inspected every 20k..." or what ever they feel is right. at that point toyota has taken all the realistic measures necessary to educate the consumer. -70% of them will not remember a word toyota said and then get to replace more parts and charge more when the customer does not change them and has a failure, sure they might ***** and complain but toyota has documentation now that they told the customer that it needed to be changed and recommended service interval that were ignored. -also i think this should be like the 3.0 head-gaskets and the rear springs in the 4runners only do it once, thats it. after that you are on your own. -you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink...
there are several factors that could account for the limited recall of the LBJ, one being the supplier/manufacture of the part. there could of been an issue with that run of parts -every thing has a batch number or series run number or lot number, it might not be on the part itself but on the bulk containers ect that the parts a delivered in there will be. its how manufactures can track products. those numbers will then get absorbed into the VIN and can be tracked that way... im guessing thats how toyota limited it to those specific vehicles. do i think toyota should have done a mass recall, no again PM, not RM. but could toyota have done a voluntary replacement for the part when the vehicle say came in for service or if the owner asked for it -like they have done with the tacoma leaf springs, yes, and thats what i think should have been done. that way it would not look bad for toyota, instead look good, as though they say "hey, this could be an issue, we have seen some issues with some(and we have addressed those), so we are gonna go ahead and work with you(the customer/owner) on the rest that dont have this "defect" just to put everyone at ease..." that way they are by no means obligated to fix anything, but they do so out of good faith and then they can have a chance to tell people "look change these every 80K, and have them inspected every 20k..." or what ever they feel is right. at that point toyota has taken all the realistic measures necessary to educate the consumer. -70% of them will not remember a word toyota said and then get to replace more parts and charge more when the customer does not change them and has a failure, sure they might ***** and complain but toyota has documentation now that they told the customer that it needed to be changed and recommended service interval that were ignored. -also i think this should be like the 3.0 head-gaskets and the rear springs in the 4runners only do it once, thats it. after that you are on your own. -you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink...
Robb235
Senior Member
Where does it say to replace in my owner's manual? Please quote chapter and verse where it says this, because I didn't see it.
the great him
Elite Member
it doesnt. but techs will recommend it at around that time, it flags in computer systems when mileage is inputted into the computer. also most every tech i know recommends replacing moving suspension/steering parts at around 100k
when will you people learn there are very very few lifetime parts on a car or any vehicle. things need to be replaced, especially those things that have constant loads on them and move around, nothing is wear proof.
its fine with me if you all want to sit around and act like children and blame everyone else for your neglect -just dont expect any help or compensation from it
cj80cruiser
Senior Member
I don't expect toyota to recall my truck but maybe we can all lobby for dealer installed solid front axles to remedy the situation or atleast the parts to diy.
1) Cj80cruiser
2)
3)
...........
5,000,000)
1) Cj80cruiser
2)
3)
...........
5,000,000)
Robb235
Senior Member
You can be as self righteous and condescening as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a mission critical part that has a record of failing with little to no warning, with dire and potentially lethal consequences. LBJs are not typically a normal maintenance item, so please don't try to paint this as a "neglect" issue. This LJB either works or it fails. It's not like these things have zerk fittings and they're failing because people aren't greasing them properly. It's a bad design, plain and simple.
Oh, and "my buddy the Toyota tech sez..." is not the same as WHAT TOYOTA RECOMMENDS.
Last edited:
the great him
Elite Member
you heard it hear first folks... dont worry about your LBJs, they either work or they dont, and its not a normal maintenance item so happy care free motoring. and when your car breaks and crashes and kill innocent people feel free to blame toyota, because im sure they are at fault for a bad design....
im sure your big on the unintended acceleration that both toyota and audi had huh?
Robb235
Senior Member
You avoided every single aspect of my previous post, and then proceeded to put words in my mouth. That is outstanding.
For the record, I replaced my LBJs a couple weeks ago, since this has BECOME a normal maitenance item on THIS vehicle due to knowing (from this forum, not Toyota) the consequences of what may happen otherwise.
the great him
Elite Member
no auto manufacture is going to go out an blatantly publicize their weak points or areas of concern... thats just absurd to even think of or expect. ever auto manufacture has problems with all of their vehicles, some are big, some are small, some are potential safety issues some arent. how many do you hear of, or know about? probably mainly only the toyota ones, and the ones that pertain to your specific vehilce im guessing. thats typically the only ones i know of, that and the vehicles im around and work or or have worked on... my point here is that its not up to the dealer to make sure you take care of your car, its your job as the owner. these vehicles are out of warranty and have been only a very few had this issue under warranty. what are you complaining about. this is not a dealer/manufactures problem any more. you dont like the car then fine sell it and get rid of it, buy something else. these vehicles dont even qualify for certified pre owned... its a 10+ year old vehicle most of them have over 100k miles on them no dealer no manufacture will warranty any vehicle past that... and deff not 10 years ago.
toyota should not issue a recal, people should maintain their vehicles its that simple. i might have other thoughts if this was about a newer vehicle -and yeah when i have techs that are friends and family members who have worked for toyota almost as long as i have been alive tell me that its a normal wear item and that toyota recommends it be replaced im gonna take that as toyota recommending that it be replaced -so if a tech isnt toyota then who is? how is toyota gonna recommend that something be replaced and how are they going to notify you of that if they can not do it through a tech?
toyota should not issue a recal, people should maintain their vehicles its that simple. i might have other thoughts if this was about a newer vehicle -and yeah when i have techs that are friends and family members who have worked for toyota almost as long as i have been alive tell me that its a normal wear item and that toyota recommends it be replaced im gonna take that as toyota recommending that it be replaced -so if a tech isnt toyota then who is? how is toyota gonna recommend that something be replaced and how are they going to notify you of that if they can not do it through a tech?
nevada
Senior Member
I was in a hurry when I read it, then commented. I thought about it, and reread it, and I do think you're right.
but, there other vehicles out there with ball joints in the same orientation.
i have personally seen some failures, but none on a Toyota.
ive changed hundreds, if not thousands of ball joints, never once have we used an OEM part, and we have never had one come back for any reason.
i think maybe only 1-2 of those were on Toyotas.
Ive never owned a vehicle, and Ive had my fair share of vehicles... Where Ball Joints were a PM item. They have always been, as you put it, a reactive maintenance item. Now, I fully understand that with the year 4runner I own, the LBJ is a PM item and I am good with that. However, that is an exception to the rule. Poor design dictates the LBJ on the 4runner is a PM item, rather than a RM item.
The part of your post I snipped is full of "I thinks" and "could bes." Nothing like speculation to make your argument.
