Front Drive Shaft Update

[Mountain4x4]

Agile has a DC shaft, but it has bad harmonics at 70-72 and they have had the best result so far. When i eventually get ours back from the dealer I will report back on performance. But its bad enough that you have to talk to them directly before purchasing. Lots of amazing shops gave up. Again, angle.

Heavy Duty FRONT Driveshaft for INEOS Grenadier by Agile Offroad » Agile Offroad

Heavy Duty Front Drive Shaft for INEOS Grenadier by Agile Offroad. Our upgraded U-joint design eliminates boot tearing and improves range of motion.

agileoffroad.com

 

[Tom109]

The Agile drive shafts are U-joints, not DC at the t-case.

 

[Commodore]

It is not just a cheap boot and cup. It gets pinched because their is absolutely no margin in the angle. Simply towing did mine in with a bounce. A thicker boot may only get bound up more, same result. More clearance is needed, and for that angle change. I would prefer a 1350 ujoint, that is FAR more reliable and strong long term and better fits the Grenadiers design philosophy. Are the shafts strong enough? Seems so, but Jeep guys have issues with these CV joints even with correct angles. The bottom line is, with out changing the angle with the diff, its unlikely we will have a resolution. Keep in mind, bad harmonics happen to stock Grenadiers occasionally, and 100% with a tiny 1.2" lift, and continues with aftermarket driveshafts. Lift, no lift, we need SIGNICANTLY more clearance to avoid premature joint wear, bad harmonics and boot tears that lead to dangerous, catastrophic failures.

1350 isn’t the answer. Harmonics aside, the joint is passed its operating angle and the joint will wear prematurely. A DC 1350 just makes the shaft shorter and the angle worse.

 

[Mountain4x4]

Oh, I agree, just wont fall apart. I am thinking more of if the angle was fixed, I would prefer that type of joint.

 

[Commodore]

Oh, I agree, just wont fall apart. I am thinking more of if the angle was fixed, I would prefer that type of joint.

If the angles were right then a 1350 would be great. Just remember that regular u-joints need the same angle on both the t-case side and the pinion side or you will get harmonics. CV’s don’t care if the angles match and they are plenty strong for most grenadier uses.

 

[landmannnn]

I suggested a driveshaft loop might be an insurance should the joint fail.

Here is mine.

In situ




A little bit rough, could have done better.
Actually just a £31 driveshaft retaining loop from Amazon chopped up a bit (some blood lost in the process)


Of course I had to get one of these to made sure nothing clashed

 

[Logsplitter]

I suggested a driveshaft loop might be an insurance should the joint fail.

Here is mine.View attachment 7914278

In situ

View attachment 7914279
View attachment 7914280

A little bit rough, could have done better.
Actually just a £31 driveshaft retaining loop from Amazon chopped up a bit (some blood lost in the process)
View attachment 7914281

Of course I had to get one of these to made sure nothing clashed
View attachment 7914282

Looks good

 

[LRNAD90]

I suggested a driveshaft loop might be an insurance should the joint fail.

Here is mine.View attachment 7914278

In situ

View attachment 7914279
View attachment 7914280

A little bit rough, could have done better.
Actually just a £31 driveshaft retaining loop from Amazon chopped up a bit (some blood lost in the process)

I like it. I just hope the dealership/ Ineos doesn't find some way to use it against you..

 

[landmannnn]

I like it. I just hope the dealership/ Ineos doesn't find some way to use it against you..

It's not actually touching anything, just bolted on through 2 existing M10 threaded holes in the transmission crossmember, so I can't see why there would be a problem.
In any case, it will come off in 5 mins with a 17mm socket.

 

[Mountain4x4]

At that point, I would fight it and point out the absurdity of waiting for a recall and having to build something for safety.

 

[jvkintheusa]

I think it would be very difficult to get single or double/double u-joints of any configuration to run as smooth as the Rzeppa style CVs fitted on the Grenadier. The most obvious angles everyone is concerned about is the vertical angles brought on by suspension lifts. However, if you look underneath the Grenadier down the centerline of the vehicle front to rear you’ll notice there are fairly obvious lateral angles involved as well between the transfer case and front/rear differentials. In effect, you’d are asking a standard u-joint to run smooth while faced with compound angles both vertical and lateral at the same time.

Unless all the angles are engineered and balanced out perfectly a cross the entire drivetrain all u-joints style driveshafts installed on a Grenadier will either vibrate or offer a harmonic resonance at some point. The only joints able to handle both vertical and lateral angles simultaneously without vibration is Rzeppa style joints and is the most likely the reason IA went with them for the Grenadier and how the drivetrain is packaged.

It might be possible to get u-joints to run smoothly over a certain speed range but at some combination of speed or load you are going to feel them going about their business. It comes down to the severity of the vibration (potential extra wear on transfer case and diff input bearings, etc…) and whether or not the trade-off for stronger joints off-road is a bigger priority.

Wouldn't the vibration or harmonic resonance be limited if you just replace the front drive shaft with the u-joints?

 

[ECrider]

I suggested a driveshaft loop might be an insurance should the joint fail.

Here is mine.View attachment 7914278

In situ

View attachment 7914279
View attachment 7914280

A little bit rough, could have done better.
Actually just a £31 driveshaft retaining loop from Amazon chopped up a bit (some blood lost in the process)
View attachment 7914281

Of course I had to get one of these to made sure nothing clashed
View attachment 7914282

That is superb, well done.

 

[ECrider]

I suggested a driveshaft loop might be an insurance should the joint fail.

Here is mine.View attachment 7914278

In situ

View attachment 7914279
View attachment 7914280

A little bit rough, could have done better.
Actually just a £31 driveshaft retaining loop from Amazon chopped up a bit (some blood lost in the process)
View attachment 7914281

Of course I had to get one of these to made sure nothing clashed
View attachment 7914282

meant to ask for the link if could post - danke

 

[landmannnn]

meant to ask for the link if could post - danke

Do an Amazon search for

driveshaft safety loop

There's quite a few.

Interesting dynamic pricing. The one I bought on Monday for £31.75 is now £67…

 

[C-Mack]

Wouldn't the vibration or harmonic resonance be limited if you just replace the front drive shaft with the u-joints?

If you use a single cardan u-joint at each end of the front driveshaft it'll vibrate/resonate on the Grenadier.

Both u-joints need to run at complimentary angles in order to run smooth. On a hypothetical vehicle say the u-joint at the transfer case is running at 10 degrees down. In order for the driveshaft to run smooth the differential u-joint needs to be running very close to the same 10 degrees angle but up. This would cancel out the natural oscillations (slowing down/speeding up) of the u-joint, if phased correctly, which occur when it rotates with any angle applied.

On the Grenadier neither the diff or transfer case flanges are setup to allow for these complimentary angles hence why they use a Rzeppa style joints which can run smooth without matching angles within reason. You can use a double cardan style u-joint at one end of the driveshaft, which effectively acts like a CV style joint. However, for it to run smooth you need the single cardan u-joint down at the other end of the driveshaft to run more or less in alignment axially with the main body of the driveshaft.

In order to do that you have to rotate the differential up so it points at the transfer case which is not easy on the Grenadier without some major reengineering of the front axle as it will negatively impact steering caster which is a whole other kettle of fish. Some folks on the forum are experimenting with driveshafts which use both a double cardan u-joint at the transfer case end and a Rzeppa style at the differential end. In theory, this should allow the driveshaft to run smooth while potentially solving the failure issues some are experiencing at the more acute angle transfer case assume all the angles involved are not too much for the double cardan joint to handle.

 

[Mountain4x4]

Great explanation above. The single double cardan does indeed have bad harmonics, but with out a front diff change there is now way to get that off setting joint to work as you say. My rear diff locker failure replacement was finally authorized by Ineos, so now its just a matter of waiting for the thing to show up. Then I can test the Agile shaft.

 

[Mountain4x4]

Some day....a manufacturer will reach out to me, and Say "Hey Lloyd, we have read about you everywhere and notice your Knick Name is the abuse master, would you do some early testing for us?" That would be glorious! I could shatter any engineers hopes and dreams

 

[Mike Morrison]

Could one not have a dropped gearset, something like a portal axle, bolted to the front of the transfer box that would then reduce the driveline angles?

 

[NQ94]

Could one not have a dropped gearset, something like a portal axle, bolted to the front of the transfer box that would then reduce the driveline angles?

The issue would be the reduced ground clearance, noise and a method to reinforce the t/case to stop cracking. To keep the same output rotation it would have to be a three gear design or chain drive for reduced noise.

 

[Mountain4x4]

My guess is their portal rigs do not have that issue So trade up to 150K for portals to not have to deal with this?Hmmm