Front Drive Shaft Update

[globalgregors]

I have 60,000kms also with some serious off road klms. But what is interesting is that the company who distributes the Eibach spring kits is also an Ineos agent and has not seen this shaft issue, yet.

Oh, that’s interesting. I received mine direct from Eibach Australia. Did the install with the assistance of my local workshop, a bunch of fix-anything Russian lads. Coincidentally used spring compressors for the install so maybe that’s a factor…

 

[Ovrland Bill]

I know of a shop working on using a larger CV right now but it isn’t my party and I promised not to say anything until it is field tested and ready for sale. Fingers crossed it works. They have machined an adapter to allow the larger CV to attach to the factory TC flange.

It would be ironic if an aftermarket stronger CV voids the warranty…

 

[Jeremy996]

It would be ironic if an aftermarket stronger CV voids the warranty…

No, life!
Manufacturer's warranty extends only to manufacturer's parts. You change the source of parts at your own risk. The law of unintended consequences applies.

With old Defenders, beefing up one part just moves the failure up the driveline; engineering being what it is, I cannot imagine the Grenadier being any different.

 

[ECrider]

Agent advises no driveshaft available, waiting to join the back order list.

 

[HeavyFoot]

No, life!
Manufacturer's warranty extends only to manufacturer's parts. You change the source of parts at your own risk. The law of unintended consequences applies.

With old Defenders, beefing up one part just moves the failure up the driveline; engineering being what it is, I cannot imagine the Grenadier being any different.

If in the next few years this statement holds true, many will likely leave as is, being that changing the CV seems (from someone that has not done it yet) relatively easy.

 

[ECrider]

I think there's a distinction between beefing up a not fit for purpose flawed item meaning failure rate is dramatically reduced and beefing up something to mask an inherent design flaw elsewhere. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

What I am told of is the part number for a new propshaft is different to the one that was supplied with my vehicle - sorry I cannot advise whether modified in any way yet.

 

[Logsplitter]

I think there's a distinction between beefing up a not fit for purpose flawed item meaning failure rate is dramatically reduced and beefing up something to mask an inherent design flaw elsewhere. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

What I am told of is the part number for a new propshaft is different to the one that was supplied with my vehicle - sorry I cannot advise whether modified in any way yet.

I suppose that begs the question: has anyone with a 2025-reg Grenadier, with unmodified suspension or steering geometry, had a front prop-shaft CV joint fail? Hopefully an upgrade has been made — albeit discreetly, with no acknowledgement from Ineos
edit. ;- thinking about I suppose an acknowledgement that the design has been changed , would be like admitting that the original design was flawed.

 

[Jeremy996]

I suppose that begs the question: has anyone with a 2025-reg Grenadier, with unmodified suspension or steering geometry, had a front prop-shaft CV joint fail? Hopefully an upgrade has been made — albeit discreetly, with no acknowledgement from Ineos
edit. ;- thinking about I suppose an acknowledgement that the design has failed, would be like admitting that the original design was flawed.

Like the Royals, never complain, never explain and typical for motor manufacturers.

We do not know what the operating envelope was intended to be and what circumstances cause one driveshaft failure or another, so we do not know if it is a design issue, a manufacturing issue, an underestimation of how hard the vehicle will be used or even random failures of otherwise suitable components, so even a running change will not tell us much.

 

[Logsplitter]

Like the Royals, never complain, never explain and typical for motor manufacturers.

We do not know what the operating envelope was intended to be and what circumstances cause one driveshaft failure or another, so we do not know if it is a design issue, a manufacturing issue, an underestimation of how hard the vehicle will be used or even random failures of otherwise suitable components, so even a running change will not tell us much.

1.1 million miles of testing should have thrown up some flaws if they used the same prop shaft. There again that’s 1.1 million miles over how many vehicles. For all we know each one could have only 10-15 k miles

 

[Jeremy996]

1.1 million miles of testing should have thrown up some flaws if they used the same prop shaft. There again that’s 1.1 million miles over how many vehicles. For all we know each one could have only 10-15 k miles

It could also be in a sub-set of potential conditions. It is hard to test in Europe for really dusty conditions, fully laden rock crawling might be a bit tricky too. For the boot to fail seems to require lots of twist and quite a bit of mileage or poor workshop practise. From other vehicle experience, if the boot has failed, it will only be a matter of time before the CV will break. For the circlip, I do not think I have seen a decent explanation of why one or more have failed, so anything from fatigue to excessive force are possible, (or even a failed boot making the CV stiff in some axis and 'hammering' the circlip).

Thinking historically, the original Mini did not do enough wet weather testing, (most testing was done in Spain), so the plastic shield was added hurriedly; and the Hillman Imp was tested/run 24/7, so the kingpins rusting through lack of use was never spotted. There is nothing like turning a vehicle over to the general public to find an unexpected weakness!

 

[Jeremy996]

I had better explain my statement, "With old Defenders, beefing up one part just moves the failure up the driveline; engineering being what it is, I cannot imagine the Grenadier being any different."

The old Defender, (and the Series before them), were based on a lot of car components, so choices like permanent 4 wheel drive were to protect the drivetrain, which was of modest dimensions. Competing in trials or Comp Safari, tended to break standard components, so upgraded end caps and half shafts became common, so the next bit that broke when competing were diffs, the gearboxes and so on.

Unlike the old Defender, the Grenadier uses rather larger bits, which is presumably why the Grenadier is so heavy. Fixing the front CV joint as a the weakest link means that another part will become the weakest link when the vehicle is pressed harder/the CV does not break. Fixing the original weakest link will increase the operating envelope, but anyone trying hard enough will break something else.

 

[Mountain4x4]

I have 60,000kms also with some serious off road klms. But what is interesting is that the company who distributes the Eibach spring kits is also an Ineos agent and has not seen this shaft issue, yet.

Yep, that is what dealers always say. Even though they did 12 last month.

 

[Mountain4x4]

Agent advises no driveshaft available, waiting to join the back order list.

Geee, I wonder why? In theory this should not be a high demand product, especially on new cars....hmmmm...what could it be?

 

[Mountain4x4]

While there have been early failures, there are certainly lots of variables. Mine waited until 25K, but I swapped the supposedly better Terra joint in at maybe 10K, so really I got 15K. Mine failed due to being loaded and towing over heavily undulated roads. How many have had the scenario. From the reactions I received from Ineos, they knew the angle was a problem at some point, but chose to ignore it, hoping it would not be an insane failure rate. They gambled, and lost. But a good point was made, testing should have been greater in North America for a vehicle like this. Ineos still has no official Rubicon trip under their belt. Its not just a marketing event, but a short and extreme test of durability, for instance. A few weeks in the high Sierra and none would have a driveshaft left. A few hundred miles of 7K towing...probably the same. Testing off-road is an area most OEMs fail on, or ignore issues as being "only for the most hard core" . In 2005 Toyota, Nissan and Hummer had epic and disastrous releases of untested 4x4s that lead to huge financial losses for instance. FJ falling off front ends, exploding diffs, no tire clearance, Xterra exploding diffs and transmissions, and self destructing bottoming out issue, Hummer H3 instant head failures and other drivetrain problems.

 

[LabRat]

I had better explain my statement, "With old Defenders, beefing up one part just moves the failure up the driveline; engineering being what it is, I cannot imagine the Grenadier being any different."

The old Defender, (and the Series before them), were based on a lot of car components, so choices like permanent 4 wheel drive were to protect the drivetrain, which was of modest dimensions. Competing in trials or Comp Safari, tended to break standard components, so upgraded end caps and half shafts became common, so the next bit that broke when competing were diffs, the gearboxes and so on.

Unlike the old Defender, the Grenadier uses rather larger bits, which is presumably why the Grenadier is so heavy. Fixing the front CV joint as a the weakest link means that another part will become the weakest link when the vehicle is pressed harder/the CV does not break. Fixing the original weakest link will increase the operating envelope, but anyone trying hard enough will break something else.

Agree to a point. The CV isn't necessarily a weak link, but rather they seem to be failing because of the loss of lubricant due to the boot failing. It's hard fully keeping up with the various front drive shaft threads, C-clip aside, but have there been any CV failures where the boot has remained in tact and there has been no loss of lubricant?