IllustrationPAINT FADED AFTER 3 YEARS. NO SAFETY DEFCT. *AK
1994 Mitsubishi Galant
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most Galant years
Owner complaints for the 1994 Mitsubishi Galant are substantially higher than the model-year median of 26.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Galant years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 10 of 198 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Suspension. Review the 57 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Air Bags. Review the 35 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 25 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
33 crash reports5 fire reports16 injury reports
What owners actually said
198 reportsTHE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT FAILED PRIOR TO RECALL NOTICE 00V-421, CONSUMER WAS DENIED REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE SEVERAL WORDS WERE WRONG ON THE INVOICE, THE DEALER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIX THE PROBLEM. NLM
EXCESS PLAY IN THE LOWER CONTROL ARMS AND BALL JOINTS. *AK
ELECTRICAL PANEL ON THE DRIVER DOOR IS INOPERABLE DUE TO A MALFUNCTION WITHIN THE ASSEMBLY, ALSO A CONTINUOUS SMELL OF SMOKE OCCURS WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN. PLEASE GIVE ANY FURTHER DETAILS.*AK
RECALL 99V066001. BALL JOINT SEPARATED FROM STEERING KNUCKLE, CAUSING DRIVER TO LOSE CONTROL AND CAUSE DAMAGE TO VEHICLE. UNDER THE RECALL, DEALER ONLY REPLACED ONE OF THE BALL JOINTS, AND THE OTHERS CAUSED THE COLLISION. DEALER NOR MANUFACTURER WILL REPLACE THE OTHER BOOT AS STATED IN THE RECALL.*AK *SLC
CONSUMER EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS BEFORE RECALL 99V066001, CONSUMER WANTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR SEVERAL REPAIRS AND A TOTAL OF NINE TRIPS TO THE REPAIR SHOP DUE TO DEFECT. *SLC
WHILE DRIVING THE WHEEL FELL OFF THE AXLE CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO SPIN OUT OF CONTROL CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE, POSSIBLY RELATED TO RECALL (SR-99-002) WHICH WAS ISSUED AFTER THE INCIDENT. *MJS
WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN DRIVER LOST CONTROL OF VEHICLE AND HIT 3 PARKED VEHICLES. VEHICLE AND OTHER 3 VEHICLES WERE TOTALED. DEALER COULDN'T FIND CAUSE.
CONSUMER WAS PULLING OUT OF DRIVEWAY AND HEARD A POPPYING NOISE/ SMELLED SMOKE. HER HUSBAND LOOKED UNDERNEATH VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT BELT HAD POPPED OUT. SHE DROVE VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP, AND MECHANIC TOLD HER THAT PULLEY/CRANKSHAFT CAME APART. THEY REPLACED THE PART, THEN ONE WEEK LATER THE SAME PROBLEM HAPPENED A…
Read full complaint
CONSUMER WAS PULLING OUT OF DRIVEWAY AND HEARD A POPPYING NOISE/ SMELLED SMOKE. HER HUSBAND LOOKED UNDERNEATH VEHICLE AND NOTICED THAT BELT HAD POPPED OUT. SHE DROVE VEHICLE TO DEALERSHIP, AND MECHANIC TOLD HER THAT PULLEY/CRANKSHAFT CAME APART. THEY REPLACED THE PART, THEN ONE WEEK LATER THE SAME PROBLEM HAPPENED AGAIN. CURRENTLY, SHE HEARED A PINGGING NOISE.*AK
WHEN I TOOK MY CAR IN FOR A RECALL INSPECTION OF MY FRONT BALL JOINT BOOT I WAS INFORMED BY THE MITSUBISHI SERVICE TECHNICIAN THAT BOTH OF MY FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARMS AND BALL JOINTS WERE DANGEROUSLY WORN. THIS WAS NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL BECAUSE THE BOOTS WERE INTACT, HOWEVER. IT SEEMS THAT, GIVEN THAT THE PARTS HAVE CLEARL…
Read full complaint
WHEN I TOOK MY CAR IN FOR A RECALL INSPECTION OF MY FRONT BALL JOINT BOOT I WAS INFORMED BY THE MITSUBISHI SERVICE TECHNICIAN THAT BOTH OF MY FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARMS AND BALL JOINTS WERE DANGEROUSLY WORN. THIS WAS NOT COVERED BY THE RECALL BECAUSE THE BOOTS WERE INTACT, HOWEVER. IT SEEMS THAT, GIVEN THAT THE PARTS HAVE CLEARLY HAD OTHER FAILURES AS EVIDENCED BY THE RECALL, THEY ARE PRONE TO PREMATURE WEAR THAT SHOULD BE THE MANUFACTURERS RESPONSIBILITY. THIS SEEMS UNACCEPTABLY PREMATURE FOR THIS KIND OF FAILURE, AND I HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED OR HEARD OF THESE PARTS FAILING AT SUCH LOW MILEAGE ON OTHER VEHICLES. I THINK THE SITUATION INDICATES THAT THE PARTS OR DESIGN ARE DANGEROUSLY INADEQUATE, BUT THAT MITSUBISHI IS TRYING TO TIE IT TO BOOT FAILURE TO MINIMIZE THEIR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (THE COST FOR REPLACEMENT WAS $479). I WAS ALSO INFORMED BY THE MITSUBISHI SERVICE ADVISOR AT THE DEALER (ERIK REKDAL) THAT HE HAS EXPERIENCED THESE EARLY CONTROL ARM/BALL JOINT FAILURES AS A COMMON OCCURRENCE ON VEHICLES LIKE MINE.
Official recalls
300V421001 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
Dec 18, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. IF THE RUBBER BOOTS ON THE LOWER LATERAL ARM BALL JOINTS OF THE FRONT SUSPENSION WERE DAMAGED DURING ASSEMBLY, DIRT AND WATER CAN INTRUDE. ALSO, MMC HAS ADDED THE POTENTIAL OF LEAKING MOISTURE, WHICH CAN CAUSE THE BALL STUD TO CORRODE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION COULD CAUSE THE LOWER LATERAL ARM BALL JOINT TO SEPARATE, INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE CRASH. THIS CAMPAIGN SUPERCEDES MMC'S PREVIOUS SAFETY RECALL CAMPAIGN, SEE 99V-066.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE LOWER LATERAL ARM BALL JOINT FOR WEAR. BALL JOINTS THAT EXHIBIT WEAR BEYOND THE ESTABLISHED TOLERANCE WILL BE REPLACED WITH NEWLY DESIGNED LATERAL ARM BALL JOINTS. BALL JOINTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED TOLERANCE WILL BE CLEANED AND A SPECIAL SEALANT WILL BE APPLIED TO PREVENT INTRUSION OF MOISTURE.
99V066001 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
Apr 5, 1999
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. IF THE RUBBER BOOTS ON THE LOWER LATERAL ARM BALL JOINTS OF THE FRONT SUSPENSION WERE DAMAGED DURING ASSEMBLY, DIRT AND WATER CAN INTRUDE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION COULD CAUSE THE LOWER LATERAL ARM BALL JOINT TO SEPARATE, INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE RUBBER BOOTS, AND IF THE BOOT IS DAMAGED, THEY WILL REPLACE THE LOWER LATERAL ARM AND BALL JOINT ON THE AFFECTED VEHICLES.
98V212000 · Exterior Lighting:tail Lights:switch
Sep 8, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. WHEN THE STOP LAMP SWITCH WAS ASSEMBLED, GREASE WAS INADVERTENTLY APPLIED TO THE CONTACT POINT. THIS CAN CAUSE THE CONTACT POINT TO HEAT UP CAUSING INTERNAL OPERATION ELEMENTS TO MELT ALLOWING THE SWTICH TO BECOME STUCK IN ON OR OFF POSITION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CONDITION CAN CAUSE THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM (ABS) WARNING LIGHT TO COME ON.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A RELAY AND REPLACE THE BRAKE LAMP SWITCH.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
2RQ00015 · Lower Contrtol Arm Ball Joint
Opened Aug 2, 2000 · Closed Apr 20, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension
There is no summary currently available
Additional source detail variants (3)
Suspension
There is no summary currently available
Suspension
There is no summary currently available
Suspension
There is no summary currently available
PE98032 · Stop Lamp Switch
Opened May 22, 1998 · Closed Sep 8, 1998
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting
ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE STOP LAMP SWITCH PREVENTS ILLUMINATION OF THE BRAKE LIGHTS DURING BRAKING AND INHIBITS DISENGAGEMENT OF CRUISE CONTROL VIA THE BRAKE PEDAL