</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">Originally posted by adam:
<strong>It's the same; no beefier.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, Helv, Helvetica, Sans">This does not make any sense to me... Why would the (almost) "Full Size" T-100 have the same suspension components as a mini-truck? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> Do the engineers really believe that this part is strong enough for the T-100? Or are they just blind to the fact that it sux, even with stock tires?

I would believe that T-100 owners have many more problems out of this part, as I have replaced mine once, rebuilt it twice, and need to do something again... All in the last five years <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> !

***BRAINSTORM MODE ON***

Has anyone come up with an alternative, such as brass bushings instead of plastic? I would be willing to pay for this peace of mind... But on the other hand, would it be even more prone to bending? Maybe the plastic was put in there as sort of a "fuse," made to break before the arm gets bent. This would create more profitable rebuilding, as only the bushings would need replacement 95% of the time. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the shaft was thought to be strong enough, and the plastic bushing was just cheaper from the vendor? Or maybe it was designed to fail from the start, so we would have to replace it whenever we went to the alignment shop, boosting the economy with Idler Arm sales, alignments, and tire sales? Anyone have any input?

***BRAINSTORM MODE OFF***

Ouch... That was too much thinking... Brain hurts now. <img border="0" alt="[Nerd]" title="" src="graemlins/nerd.gif" />