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?

 

[Mountain4x4]

Good Question Lab Rat. The issue is once a failure begins, the boot will get shredded either way. I cannot be sure if mine was pinched and came apart, or bound up under compression shredding the bearings, then tearing the boot, Was not the c clip for me. Compared to large U joints and double cardons, its not nearly as robust. But then again, have there even been any rear drive shaft failures yet? And of course the rear takes more load.

 

[LabRat]

Good Question Lab Rat. The issue is once a failure begins, the boot will get shredded either way. I cannot be sure if mine was pinched and came apart, or bound up under compression shredding the bearings, then tearing the boot, Was not the c clip for me. Compared to large U joints and double cardons, its not nearly as robust. But then again, have there even been any rear drive shaft failures yet? And of course the rear takes more load.

I seem to think there was one rear drive failure, maybe it was on Facebook, but can't remember. However, it all seems to be happening at the one CV only.

 

[Jeremy996]

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?

Not seen or heard of any, either here or on FaceBook.
Having said that, a catastrophic failure of a CV is likely to trash all of the evidence!

BRM had a series of CV joint failures in their F1 cars back in the '50s, where the grease was flung into the rubber boot. went unbalanced, then tore itself apart, with the CV joint failing several laps later.

 

[Logsplitter]

Not seen or heard of any, either here or on FaceBook.
Having said that, a catastrophic failure of a CV is likely to trash all of the evidence!

BRM had a series of CV joint failures in their F1 cars back in the '50s, where the grease was flung into the rubber boot. went unbalanced, then tore itself apart, with the CV joint failing several laps later.

View attachment 7914146

I don’t think you’re allowed to post things like that anymore . Are you a forum moderator

 

[Zimm]

I have many opinions on this issue. No one is asking me for them but I've shared some anyway .

@Dokatd is right (it is his jam after all).
The CV appears to be at the limits of operating angle. The aftermarket is saying the same thing. There is little tolerance for adding more angle via a suspension lift and if IA's recent comments (shared to @Rok_Dr at an event in Perth) hold any weight there is little tolerance for mishandling of the driveshaft during maintenance. I understand there is only one or two degrees difference between the upper and lower CVs so what affects one is never far away from affecting the other. I think there has been two (?) reports of diff end CV failure just to keep it interesting.

The boot pinching seems like an obvious casualty. You can see how that would happen if the suspension droops or the shaft was allowed to drop while disconnected. The failed clips are a little weirder but it's likely to be another casualty rather than the cause. This is all proven tech. Dana have been doing this design for years and it's not unique to Grenadier.

Whilst instincts might say to make this area stronger via an end bolt, my lizard engineer brain says that will just make the failure even more spectacular. That is to say, if it's going to fail it still will but at a much higher loading with even more damage.

@cmurray's comments are revealing and @Dokatd's recent summary is on point. Craig says the splines were stripped on the CV stub. Did the clip come out then the splines disengaged and stripped the stub, or did the CV jam (binding from @Dokatd's summary) and the spline stub overloaded and stripped? We don't know and probably won't but the clip came out. It doesn't seem to be temperature, metallurgy or lubricant related so a force must be dislodging it from the groove. That force is in all probability the CV having a moment when the operating parts compete for the same space at the limit of travel. The TC (or the diff on overrun) doesn't care that the CV no longer wants to turn. Something has to give to unload the drivetrain. In that sense the clip is acting like a fuse. Call it 5 amps.

Now, replace that clip with say an M8x20 cap screw and plate on the end of the spline stub, assuming something can be made to fit under the cap. Squint your eyes and maybe you can see a cap screw here in place of the clip. Go on, try it .

View attachment 7913959

Nothing else has changed so the unhappy force is still there. If/when the CV runs out of travel it's now being resisted by a much stronger device i.e. the cap screw. The CV is still going to fail but now it's delayed until a higher loading point. We just upgraded the 5 amp fuse to a 50 amp fuse. Now we have good potential to take out the transfer case as well. Errr, no. So I don't think a stronger retaining device like a bolt is a good fix, but I don't have the answer either.

Keep lobbying your agent or dealer or IA directly to get this fixed. Sharing frustrations on here might be cathartic but it isn't actually fixing anything.

Edit: typos.

yep to all