Pierce Impel Problems by year

the ball joints sent did not have boot failures, the ball joints were locked-up, galled, and coatings missing. The tak4 suspension is an assembly which includes the ball joints. When a pierce fire truck is built, the tak4 assembly is taken and bolted under that chassis, it is adjusted to the truck weight. If pierce claims in their 910 truck recall that the ball joint boots could rip/tear on the models listed for 06/07, how can the same boots not rip on impel, velocity, or other models with tak4 in the 06/07 model year? One step further, the ball joint boots that pierce is claiming rips/tears is the same boot used on the tak4 suspension from 04 to 09. Why are these boots not being recalled? Is pierce allowed to base their recall solely on warranty records? That would be one or possibly two years. After the warranty period or denied claim, there is no record of failure. Research how many replacement ball joints, boots, and control arms have been sold by pierce! Many of these issues have been ignored by pierce and left for the operators of the trucks to correct and pay for. Straight axle front end suspension trucks have given many years of service with no issues; the tak4 is not reliable in comparison. There have been trucks with wheel off events and trucks that drivers report not feeling in control of. These ball joint recalls should be led by the nhtsa.

in service after discussing the findings with the pierce tech. He felt that it needs to be scheduled for replacement, but were not bad enough that the ball joint would fail and come apart. We already had two trucks out of service with failed ball joints. If we did not have the two trucks out of service, we would have started the repairs right away. This truck also went back to the dealer shortly after delivery in 2008. They replaced ball joints/components due to hard to drive complaints). 3/9/15 The ball joints were removed on this ill steering truck, we thought we were going to find excessive play between the ball and the socket of the ball joint. We also found that the passenger side lower ball joint was rotating inside the control arm, the upper ball joint thrush washer had the alignment dowels sheared and was rotating with the ball of the joint, and the passenger side lower ball joint shims were damaged, (possibly rotating). Pictures were attached of the upper thrust washer. Two control arms were not able to be reused, so we had to replace at least two control arms. Since we were going to have to replace two control arms that now come with the new style ball joint, we decided to replace all four control arms. This way they are the newest design ball joint. This is not just a ball joint failure. The control arms are also being damaged. *Tr

control arm instead of its own cup. This truck had ball joint issues at the date of delivery and has had tire wear issues the entire time it has been is service. Multiple reports have been made to the pierce dealer and pierce fire truck corporation in reference to our four impel truck's tire wear and drivability. During a meeting at the pierce factory, pierce engineers reported to us that they would upgrade our tak4 ball joints with a new design and shim the camber angle to improve our drivability and tire wear. To date pierce has not followed through on their upgrade promise. At this point our shop has had to purchase and install the upgraded design ball joints and control arms in this truck. We have four other trucks with tak4 suspension that have these ball joints. Since the repair on this truck we have two more trucks with failed ball joints, they are in worse condition than the ball joints described above. We are aware of the current tak4 recall that involves 135 trucks and feel our trucks should be included. The tak4 front ball joints that do not have the upgraded ball joints should be recalled. We should not have been responsible for the cost of these repairs. I have contacted our neighboring county and they also have tak4 suspension with the same ball joint failures. [[redacted]], martin county fire rescue. Information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.S.C. 552(B)(6)*tr

first truck for several hours while the sensor was broken and could not tell there was a problem even with the companies software hooked to the vehicle while trying to diagnose the problem. In the event that these components failed again the vehicle would operate with no indication of a problem, this could cause an accident should the esc system be needed in a actual esc event. However once an accident occurs the software has no ability to determine if an esc event activated or if it was even working at the time. This appears to be a huge flaw in the proper operation of the system. How could a system designed to help you control a vehicle indicate that it was working normal when in reality it could not record the position of the steering wheel or that the steering wheel was not being moved even though tire speeds were showing that the vehicle was in a turn. *Tr