Consumer Complaint Detail
MITSUBISHI / ECLIPSE / 1996
0 Injured
0 Death
No Fire
| Components - Details | |
|---|---|
| NHTSA Complaint Number: 003254003 | Incident Date: Dec, 11 2003 |
| Consumer's City: LAS VEGAS | Consumer's State: NV |
| Vehicle Transmission Type: MAN | Manufacturers Name: Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. |
| Model Name: ECLIPSE | Model Year: 1996 |
| Vehicle Involved in a Crash: Yes | Component's Description: Suspension:front:control arm:lower ball joint |
| Vehicle Involved in a Fire: No | Persons Injured: 0 |
| Vehicle's VIN#: 4A3AK44Y1TE | Date added to File: May, 25 2021 |
| Date Complaint Received: Jan, 12 2004 | Complaint Type: IVOQ |
| Incident Reported To Police: No | Purchase Date: Jul, 15 1999 |
| Was Original Owner: No | Anti-lock Brakes: No |
| Number of Cylinders: 4 | Date of Manufacturer: - |
| Was Vehicle Towed: - | Description of the Complaints: While traveling down our street, my lower ball joint on my 1996 mitsubishi eclipse gs failed. i was traveling approximately 30-35 mph at the time of the failure. my vehicle pulled hard to the right before the failure. i did not realize what was happening at the time, so i corrected the pull by turning the wheel back to the left. within seconds of correcting, the ball joint failed. my passenger side front tire was forced into the wheel well and very nearly torn off. the vehicle had to be towed to a local dealer to be repaired. my vehicle has been to the same dealer twice prior regarding the lbj recall. it upsets me to know that the dealer refused to replace them when the vehicle was inspected for the second time. however, i feel that the dealership in question was negligent in its inspection and did not perform the required inspection fully. i have, however, received some assistance from mitsubishi. currently, the vehicle is back at the delaership due to other problems that surfaced after the car was returned. these problems did not occur before the lbj failure. i am still fighting with the dealership to have the problems resolved. the dealer has decided to switch the burden of proof regarding these new conditions to me, the consumer. this is highly unethical. |