Oil Change & Lube ??? bit of a rant

[bruce119]

Well I took my 93-2wdX to the shop today to get the AC changed over to R134A. Wile they were at it I had them to do an oil change. I been to this shop before for Trany problems and got good vibes from them.

Anyway the oil change was $40.00 it was supposed to be full service oil, fluids & lube. So I took a look under the hood saw the window washer was empty (no big deal) but that lead me to jack up and take a look at the steering arm & tie rods the lube nipples were not touched. This is the reason I took it to a REAL shop not wall mart.

Should I be a little upset or do service garages just don't do lube like they all say they do. Am I expecting too much I plan on going back in the AM to find out what's up.

I hate shops I guess if you want something done rite you got to do it yourself.

Bruce

[runningred92]

Yeah for $40 I would hope they would at least top your fluids off. I would just go back take the manager out and just show him what you noticed after you got home and give them the chance to make it right. I hate those places you have to watch them like a hawk. And by the time you have done all this running back and forth you could have done it right the first time. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we learn as we go. Good luck!

[Roadrunner777]

Of course, most vehicles no longer have grease nipples, so I am not surprised they were overlooked. If I were to use such a service (which I do not recommend) I would specifically mention that the vehicle has them.

[bruce119]

Al's good now I went back and the mechanic had a talking to by the manager he agreed it should not have gotten overlook. I don't like taking the truck to the shop and avoid it but the A/C conversion was a little beyond me. I used to craw under the truck all the time but as time goes on it is not as much fun as it used to be.

[runningred92]

Kind of funny this came up yesterday. My father-in-law stopped by this morning and asked to use my grease gun. He said his front axle was squeaking bad, which it was, but its a 2006 and there wasn't a grease point anywhere on the truck, which absolutely blew his mind. Its one of those things we all grew up with that was pointed out to us at a young age (for me by my grandfather) as an integral part of routine maintenance. Sorry for the little memory lane trip. Glad everything worked out for you.

[idaho_explorer]

yeah i work at a local lube shop in here in boise and we hate cars that come from places like sniffy pube and walmart the people they hire are half wits and 2 brain cells short of a retard.Anyway most new cars dont have greese zurks as of about 2000 and current the only ones that are really guaranteed to have them are Chevy and Toyota.(Ford seemed to be one of the first to cut there number) and even with the years rolling on they are getting smaller and smaller with how many they put on kinda sad really all the domestic company's are getting euro influenced thoughts it seems like where its only built to really do 100k and then its time for drastic overhaul.for example Fords new lifetime gear oil in the trucks yeah right but good job copying BMW and other euro companys anyone who knows a little about cars knows that's bs. Im sorry that your quick lube experience was so bad but at the same time am short on pitty because i mean have you seen the majority of people that work at wall-mart???? know what i mean you get what ya pay for my friend wish ya lived closer cause my lube shop is one of a kind and top notch we laugh when people tell us about there previous problems at other places If a cars leaves our shop with zurks not touched and fluids not topped off you bet someone is getting fired.I know that i demand that someone do as good a job or better than me when taking my cars other places to get work thats why i dont anymore its worth more to me to have it done right then to be pissed off for paying someone to do it wrong

[mr cribb]

I can tell you the factory u-joints I pulled out of my X didn't have grease zerks.
The ones I replaced them with have them.

[koda2000]

when it comes to u-joints, the reason they don't have grease fittings is that it weakens the joint. unless you're putting a lot of power through them or doing heavy duty off road driving, i'd rather be able to grease them.

as far as ball joints and tie rod ends, the first car i owned that didn't come with grease fittings was a 1971 plymouth. they had little plugs where the zurks would be. you could add the zurk however, and i did. i guess it saves the manufacturer a $1 or so per car not to include grease fittings and with millions of cars produced it adds up. also it generates lots of repair dollars for them later.

[FLwireman]

I bought a brand new ( 3 miles on the odo) F-150 in 1985. There were no zerk fittings, but like yours there were plugs where the zerk fittings should be. I installed zerk fittings and greased the ball joints. After a short time the ball joints failed and I took the truck to the shop. I was told that the newer ball joints were teflon and allergic to being greased and that I had caused the premature failure in my old fashioned ways. Like yours, the replacement ball joints came with zerks and loved grease. That was over 20 years and two trucks ago. Just thought you might enjoy the laugh.

[4x4junkie]

Odd, my '94 Ranger still had grease zerks on the steering linkage, but none elsewhere (bought it new early '94).

I do all my maintenance myself (even the A/C, which true, it does require you have some knowledge of it). Sure, it can be a bit of a hassle sometimes, but at least I know I'm not paying $$$ for someone else to screw it up.

[koda2000]

one of my daughters had a pt cruiser. it had grease fittings on the tie rod ends and lower ball joints. the fittings on the lower ball joints were broken off. i thought that was really odd, but i replaced ther zerks and greased them regularly. some time later i read (can't remember where) that when the car was assembled the grease fittings were intentionally snapped off, no explanation as to why and the dealer had no idea either. wierd... car when 115k w/out any tie rod or ball joint wear before it got totaled.

[Tbars4]

Originally Posted by koda2000

when it comes to u-joints, the reason they don't have grease fittings is that it weakens the joint. unless you're putting a lot of power through them or doing heavy duty off road driving, i'd rather be able to grease them.

..One of the benefits to have zerks for offroad vehicles is, you can grease them up on trail after going thru water..

..The joints without zerks are toast after any water gets in them..

[FIND]

Originally Posted by koda2000

when it comes to u-joints, the reason they don't have grease fittings is that it weakens the joint. unless you're putting a lot of power through them or doing heavy duty off road driving, i'd rather be able to grease them.

as far as ball joints and tie rod ends, the first car i owned that didn't come with grease fittings was a 1971 plymouth. they had little plugs where the zurks would be. you could add the zurk however, and i did. i guess it saves the manufacturer a $1 or so per car not to include grease fittings and with millions of cars produced it adds up. also it generates lots of repair dollars for them later.

Actually, grease-less joints last longer because they are sealed, and don't get crap inside of them, plus they are manufactured with better grease...

Joints with zerks allow contamination inside when people are greasing them on a dirty zerk, and people ruin the seals on them when they over-grease them, and they aren't sealed as well as a maintenance free joint, so contamination naturally gets in. The only benefit a grease-able joint has is the ability to force out water with grease after you submerge a joint for a period of time.

It is rare that a grease-able joint lasts as long as a maintenance free one. That is why maintenance free ones are used, not to save a buck per car. They are trying to save a thousand bucks per car on warranty repairs.

Also, as far as u-joints go, you are supposed to put the grease fitting in a position where it is compressed by driveshaft movement. As long as you put the joint in in the correct direction, there is no difference in strength between a maintenance free joint and a joint with a zerk.

[Tbars4]

I would buy into that theory if they didn! use plastic or rubber to actually make the seal of the units...

..The plastic/rubber begins to dry out allowing moisture in which leads to early failure on a non greasable unit...

..Ive tested non greasable items more than once in the desert.. I liked the idea but like someone else lubing my vehicle I hated the outcome..

[4x4junkie]

I would agree a non-greasable joint should far outlast a greasable joint that never gets greased.

OTOH, you do proper maintenance on it, a greasable joint should last almost indefinitely.

[koda2000]

i have three vehicles all with 169k plus. all 3 were purchased new and they all came with greasable ball joints and tie rod ends. i grease the zerks about every other oil change (roughly every 6,000 miles) and none of these vehicles have any sign of wear in the ball joints or tie rod ends. both my explores were purchased used (129k and 179k) and have the sealed joints. the ball joints on both x's are shot and will be replaced with Moog greasable joints very soon. say what you want, but i'll never believe that sealed joints will last longer that greasable ones. maybe i'm just old fashioned...