My 96 Eagle Vision TSI is leaking brake fluid from the driver side rear proportioning valve.
However, my service center told me that while the rusted rear brake line has to be replaced, the valve is to only be removed and not replaced.
They told me this was due to a design change in the LH series.
Is it true that this rear proportioning valve in no longer necessary, and my car's brake system will be as safe as it was with valve as it will now be without it?
Does your car have anti-lock brakes?
Richard.
Yes my car has 4 wheel disk, anti-lock, and Traction control
But, I had to pull the fuse that control it back in March because it would always engage and not disengage.
I don't know for sure, but I'm extremely skeptical of this claim. Removing the proportioning valve usually makes the rear wheels lock earlier/easier. Also, 1996 was the next-to-last year for your car's configuration; most of the design changes occurred between '93 and '95. I could be wrong, but if your service center cannot provide satisfactory documentation of this "design change" in the form of a Technical Service Bulletin published by Chrysler, I would (a) take the car elsewhere and (b) insist that the brake system be restored to its original configuration.
It was not the service center that wanted to leave off the rear proportioning valve.
In fact there first estimate included a new valve.
But, when they went to order it, they were told that accourding to my VIN number that the valve should not be replaced - Just removed.
The problem is (as it always is) comes down to money, I save $110.00 by not haveing the valve replaced.
But, then again I do like to stop before I rear-end somebody :-)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.