Front Drive Shaft Update

[Tenac]

It really feels like one of us will have this solved before Ineos gets around to even acknowledging this is just a issues in general. lol

 

[Zimm]

It really feels like one of us will have this solved before Ineos gets around to even acknowledging this is just a issues in general. lol

I think this front end is so mucked up, the solution will be making the truck a low rider, or bankruptcy. You get a couple fires or injuries that coincide with an idiotic 4” set of springs, and this will be Suzuki samurai (us) moment. The rep will never recover.

B’by.

 

[Tom109]

U

I think this front end is so mucked up, the solution will be making the truck a low rider, or bankruptcy. You get a couple fires or injuries that coincide with an idiotic 4” set of springs, and this will be Suzuki samurai (us) moment. The rep will never recover.

B’by.

@Krabby and @Stu_Barnes need to get a call with Lynne. See how she views a massive forum sell-off.

 

[Dokatd]

I thought the issue is boot failure which leads joint failure. Are we seeing many joints blow without torn boots and loss of grease? If joint strength at maximum range of motion is the issue would moving to chromoly CV joints solve some of the strength concern or is a more Birfield-like design needed? Good quality aftermarket Birfields can operate up to 40º or thereabouts.

It 100% is boot failure. You misunderstood me.

The CV joints themselves have higher operating angles than the boots oddly enough. The boots are designed as such due to the need to bolt the joint onto its flange. If the whole assembly was redesigned with bolts from the back of the joint then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But that would dramatically change other aspects of the drivetrain.

What I am saying is that you can increase joint size all you want but the operating angle of the boot won't change much if any. Scale doesn't change the angle.

I wouldn't think you could have differing lengths to either of the lower or either of the upper control arms. That would introduce twist into the whole assembly as the suspension articulated. Yes, rubber bushings can absorb some of that but I wouldn't know the allowable limit. If you corrected both links on the same side to match whatever percentage one of them was altered then you might get bump steer becase of the different radii scribed by the left and right side. Probably not a big deal off road but at speed it could be a thing. Dunno.

You absolutely will need to change all links. But we are talking about .5-.75"

It'll depend where/what the bushings are seated into but really it shouldn't matter as the ends are likely butted to a 90º cut at the tube end (but welded in a jig). It looks that way from the outside. If the bar also has a flange to bolt to the outer knuckle face (or whatever passes for a spindle/bearing mounting surface) it should retain the Ackermann angle as long as the kingpins are tight. Any change to the caster will affect Ackermann though.

The beauty of the Grenadier design is that you don't have to have the knuckles assembled to cut and turn. The end castings own bushing which are around 4-5" long would force alignment. This is different from a typical Dana style axle that does not have support for the half shafts at the end of the tubes.

 

[Ovrland Bill]

It 100% is boot failure.

How difficult would it be to (simply) install replacement OEM ‘boots’ at, say, their half-life point?

 

[Dokatd]

How difficult would it be to (simply) install replacement OEM ‘boots’ at, say, their half-life point?

It's very practical and boots are available. But, you aren't saving any steps to install. The joint has to come off either way. And you should realistically clean out and replenish the grease.

You will save a chunk of money for sure. But saving the cleaning process and such might be worth the extra buck, plus you get a fresh joint. Depending on your lift height if any you will want to replace the joint or boot about every 7k miles worst case scenario. Not to say the boot can't fail faster than that of course.

 

[ECrider]

It 100% is boot failure. You misunderstood me.

The CV joints themselves have higher operating angles than the boots oddly enough. The boots are designed as such due to the need to bolt the joint onto its flange. If the whole assembly was redesigned with bolts from the back of the joint then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But that would dramatically change other aspects of the drivetrain.

What I am saying is that you can increase joint size all you want but the operating angle of the boot won't change much if any. Scale doesn't change the angle.



You absolutely will need to change all links. But we are talking about .5-.75"


The beauty of the Grenadier design is that you don't have to have the knuckles assembled to cut and turn. The end castings own bushing which are around 4-5" long would force alignment. This is different from a typical Dana style axle that does not have support for the half shafts at the end of the tubes.

With regards '100pct boot problem'

Tks yours. I am no engineer but if the shite angle is not affecting circlip or splines or impacting mechanical tolerance of anything other than a plastic boot then can someone engineer a more practical boot or sleeve or something?

Yourself and others are clearly beyond my paygrade on this.

Presume I have optimistically misread it's a boot issue.

 

[Ovrland Bill]

Depending on your lift height if any you will want to replace the joint or boot about every 7k miles worst case scenario. Not to say the boot can't fail faster than that of course.

Although the original boots have lasted 20,000 miles with my standard suspension, their ‘half-life’ may have already passed…