Alignment - Need Advice

[Clark Kent]

Take it to an Indy shop that does trucks and have them confirm the wheelbase is the same left to right.

I’m having issues, and a couple more trucks I know of are also. I bet your passenger side wheelbase is about 1/2” out. (Long)

There’s a really odd procedure I posed a while back that Ineos uses and it did work, and I don’t know why… but… I think it’s a “patch” that’s not going to be replicated by an Indy shop. It’s a bit of work. Mine is back in due to having a locker issue. They chose to replace the front assembly, and voila, I got it back with the same left push as before. A standard alignment shows all green, but it’s out.

what is the date on your build? I’m going to try to compile that. If it’s a frame issue, that can like be isolated to a build date. If it’s control arms and they aren’t keeping track of the production batches… not.

That wheelbase alignment procedure is now in the workshop manual. It’s here if you have portal access, or a text copy is attached.

 

[Zimm]

Yep, that read similar.

They need expendables to get a truck aligned and somehow it’ll be showing aligned, and still pull.

 

[Glen]

That wheelbase alignment procedure is now in the workshop manual. It’s here if you have portal access, or a text copy is attached.

I've followed a similar procedure for settling in rubber / hydraulic engine mounts on FWD vehicles. I had some crazy engine vibration after installing new engine / transmission mounts on my '90 VW. Running the fasteners a little more than finger tight and driving the vehicle a short distance allowed everything to settle into a neutral position so the mounts could move freely in all directions and work as intended. Then I tightened everything to its final torque spec. It looks like that's what Ineos is doing here - trying to ensure all the rubber bushings on the control arms are in a neutral position before final tightening of the bolts that secure the bonded internal steel bushing.

 

[Dokatd]

I've followed a similar procedure for settling in rubber / hydraulic engine mounts on FWD vehicles. I had some crazy engine vibration after installing new engine / transmission mounts on my '90 VW. Running the fasteners mildly tight and driving the vehicle a short distance allowed everything to settle into a neutral position so the mounts could move freely in all directions and work as intended. Then I tightened everything to its final torque spec. It looks like that's what Ineos is doing here - trying to ensure all the rubber bushings on the control arms are in a neutral position before final tightening of the bolts that secure the bonded internal steel bushing.

For the front and rear control arms, they’ve repeated the 110 Nm then 180° more procedure here, explicitly noting the fasteners need to be replaced. The caster bolt sets are $50 each, so * 12 bolts sets is roughly $600 to do an alignment . . . that’s nuts.

By saying to discard the fasteners, Ineos is acknowledging that either their procedure is torque to yield or that it might get into that region. Torque to yield is for situations where you need extremely precise torque values, like compressing a gasket and holding down a head. It actually provides less clamping force than the proof load of a fastener since clamping force drops (and levels off for a bit - that's the "precise" part) once you exceed the elastic limits of the fastener. I’m struggling to understand why control arms would need either extremely precise clamping forces from torque to yield OR extremely high clamping forces at all. The fastener are in a double shear loading - that’s about as strong as it gets. Extreme clamping forces shouldn’t be required.

I'd suspect there's something else going on here - like Ineos trying to solve a problem they don't quite understand yet.

Biggest issue I see with this is that the procedures effects will diminish over time. And likely pretty quickly too. This procedure relies on rubber bushings being preloaded to modify thrust angle. Preloaded bushings will also fail faster than non loaded.

This all indicates to me that Ineos thought their tolerances in the factory would be higher than they actually are.

This also makes the Metal Cloak or similar arms of more value. With the Metal Cloak you can adjust all arms and properly set thrust angle without any bushing pre load.

 

[Zimm]

Biggest issue I see with this is that the procedures effects will diminish over time. And likely pretty quickly too. This procedure relies on rubber bushings being preloaded to modify thrust angle. Preloaded bushings will also fail faster than non loaded.

This all indicates to me that Ineos thought their tolerances in the factory would be higher than they actually are.

This also makes the Metal Cloak or similar arms of more value. With the Metal Cloak you can adjust all arms and properly set thrust angle without any bushing pre load.

The first time this was done, I asked the service manger if it was “fixed” and if I needed alignment in the future, would standard procedures suffice. He said yes. I replied I didn’t know how that could be true. It looked to me they were binding the bushings in a “polite” way, as opposed to say a body shop fixing a wrecked car by just yanking it until it checks out.

It appears I’m right.

I think some mounting points on the frames are too far out of spec, and, I hate to say it, possible lemon law time. I don’t know how this is truly fixed. Some sort of offset bushings would mask it. The metal cloak control arms would mask it, but why should we have to spend 4000 in parts and labor to fix it?

I’m concerned.

 

[Zimm]

The issue returned when they remounted the front axle. Hopefully that isolated the axle that’s out.

 

[Dougn]

When will people stop talking out of their arse?

Caster on the Grenadier cannot be changed independently from left to right. This is a solid axle thing. Outside of some super esoteric vehicles you can adjust caster on every road going vehicle, if they have a solid axle up front then the left to right is Al's not always fixed to each other, but independent vehicles can be adjusted independently. Odd ball 2wd I beam front axles can be tweaked left to right with some heat and force.

I'm not even going to address some of the other wild claims here.

hey be as surly as you like as long as you're correct

 

[Dokatd]

hey be as surly as you like as long as you're correct

I do my best . Can't win all the time though so give me a break here and there.

 

[skinny_tom]

I do my best . Can't win all the time though so give me a break here and there.

So long as you don't need a break on the drive shaft. We're counting on you.

 

[Glen]

The first time this was done, I asked the service manger if it was “fixed” and if I needed alignment in the future, would standard procedures suffice. He said yes. I replied I didn’t know how that could be true. It looked to me they were binding the bushings in a “polite” way, as opposed to say a body shop fixing a wrecked car by just yanking it until it checks out.

It appears I’m right.

I think some mounting points on the frames are too far out of spec, and, I hate to say it, possible lemon law time. I don’t know how this is truly fixed. Some sort of offset bushings would mask it. The metal cloak control arms would mask it, but why should we have to spend 4000 in parts and labor to fix it?

I’m concerned.

In a previous post you said you had the elaborate procedure applied and it fixed your problem. But then after an alignment, the problem re-appeared. I'm certainly not disputing you have a recurring problem, but I don't understand your statement about "binding the bushings in a 'polite' way." What do you mean exactly?

The special procedure has all 12 control arm fasteners tightened to 30 Nm (22 lbs ft) - this would accomplish nut rundown and joint alignment - then the fasteners are backed off 180°. The result is that the fastener would be loose, like 0.75 mm (1/32") loose. Then the vehicle is driven off and back onto ramps twice. The likely intent and result is the control arm ends settle into their neutral position with the least amount of force pushing or pulling (preloading) them in any particular direction. The fasteners are then tightened to 50 Nm (37 lbs ft). The procedure goes on to adjust the rear axle thrust angle, front axle thrust angle, and toe and center the steering wheel. (They don't specify loosening the bolts previously tightened to 50 Nm, so presumably they'll move with that low amount of tightening.) The adjustment of the axle thrust angles is not accomplished by any special procedure. Once all the adjustments are done, the 12 control arm fasteners are tightened to 110 Nm + 180° rotation.

To try and understand what you think is happening, where are the bushings forced into any particular position except what would be a neutral one? During the adjustment while tightened to 50 Nm? The bushings are moving fore or aft, not rotating, so that doesn't produce any preload.

In another post, you speculated someone's right side wheelbase would be 1/2" longer than the left side - did your failed alignment include checking the wheelbase? A Panhard rod that changed length could affect wheelbase. The Panhard rods on the front and rear are both non-adjustable but of different construction. The front is one piece with forged ends. The rear Panhard rod has forged ends swaged into a tube. Is there any evidence one of the swaged ends might have slipped a small amount? Can your dealer accurately compare the length of your rear Panhard rod to one on a known good vehicle?

As far as pursuing a lemon law claim in Pennsylvania, you'll need to show that the manufacturer was unable to fix a problem that "substantially impairs the use, value or safety of said motor vehicle." This only applies to a new owned or leased vehicle in the first 12 months / 12,000 miles, whichever occurs first and the manufacturer was unable to repair it after (typically) three attempts or the vehicle was out of service for 30 days. This is a pretty high bar to get done in that short 12/12,000 window. Here's a reference to the applicable law: Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law

 

[Dokatd]

In a previous post you said you had the elaborate procedure applied and it fixed your problem. But then after an alignment, the problem re-appeared. I'm certainly not disputing you have a recurring problem, but I don't understand your statement about "binding the bushings in a 'polite' way." What do you mean exactly?

The special procedure has all 12 control arm fasteners tightened to 30 Nm (22 lbs ft) - this would accomplish nut rundown and joint alignment - then the fasteners are backed off 180°. The result is that the fastener would be loose, like 0.75 mm (1/32") loose. Then the vehicle is driven off and back onto ramps twice. The likely intent and result is the control arm ends settle into their neutral position with the least amount of force pushing or pulling (preloading) them in any particular direction. The fasteners are then tightened to 50 Nm (37 lbs ft). The procedure goes on to adjust the rear axle thrust angle, front axle thrust angle, and toe and center the steering wheel. (They don't specify loosening the bolts previously tightened to 50 Nm, so presumably they'll move with that low amount of tightening.) The adjustment of the axle thrust angles is not accomplished by any special procedure. Once all the adjustments are done, the 12 control arm fasteners are tightened to 110 Nm + 180° rotation.

To try and understand what you think is happening, where are the bushings forced into any particular position except what would be a neutral one? During the adjustment while tightened to 50 Nm? The bushings are moving fore or aft, not rotating, so that doesn't produce any preload.

In another post, you speculated someone's right side wheelbase would be 1/2" longer than the left side - did your failed alignment include checking the wheelbase? The Panhard rods on the front and rear are both non-adjustable but of different construction. The front is one piece with forged ends. The rear Panhard rod has forged ends swaged into a tube. Is there any evidence one of the swaged ends might have slipped a small amount? Can your dealer accurately compare the length of your rear Panhard rod to one on a known good vehicle?

As far as pursuing a lemon law claim in Pennsylvania, you'll need to show that the manufacturer was unable to fix a problem that "substantially impairs the use, value or safety of said motor vehicle." This only applies to a new owned or leased vehicle in the first 12 months / 12,000 miles, whichever occurs first and the manufacturer was unable to repair it after (typically) three attempts or the vehicle was out of service for 30 days. This is a pretty high bar to get done in that short 12/12,000 window. Here's a reference to the applicable law: Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law

Well Glen won't see this since he blocked me, but to answer your question, thrust angle is not adjustable without preloading bushings. This is because Ineos didn't allow for adjustment of the upper arms as well as the lower arms. The same condition exists on the front axle, so you cannot align the front axle to the back without preloading bushings. As these bushings wear out the truck will slowly return to the neutral condition and not drive correctly anymore.

Preloading bushings is a poor fix for the condition and is not permanent. So Lemon Law could apply if Ineos can't deliver a permanent fix.