Front Drive Shaft Update

[Dokatd]

Did you cut a stock unused boot as a baseline? The material at the bend may be deliberately thinner to prevent the outer edge stretching to begin with.

I have measured the stock boot. It does not thin out. The damaged boot ends up with completely new features in it at the end of the day. Meaning the boot is completely reshaped until it fails.

 

[C-Mack]

An yet every day, week, month and model year IA continues to build the Grenadier with the same inherent flaw impacting even stock vehicles as the miles increase. They have no intention of fixing this issue at all and if they ever officially acknowledge the problem it will be a forward production model only fix. At which point they’ll damage the resell values of all previously produced vehicles with the flaw.

Not a very good way to maintain customer loyalty to continue to produce vehicles with a ticking time-bomb of a problem especially if it ends up hurting someone with a high speed failure causing an accident.

 

[Tenac]

An yet every day, week, month and model year IA continues to build the Grenadier with the same inherent flaw impacting even stock vehicles as the miles increase. They have no intention of fixing this issue at all and if they ever officially acknowledge the problem it will be a forward production model only fix. At which point they’ll damage the resell values of all previously produced vehicles with the flaw.

Not a very good way to maintain customer loyalty to continue to produce vehicles with a ticking time-bomb of a problem especially if it ends up hurting someone with a high speed failure causing an accident.

Facts, lets just hope they don't change much so when that new model hits with a fixed shaft, all my aftermarket crap can bolt on.... lol

 

[TD5-90]

The takeaway is that the OEM front shocks allow just enough droop so that the boot comes into light contact with the surrounding metal housing/flange. Not enough contact to immediately destroy the boot but enough that over time the boot is thinned out until eventually it fails once the rubber has become too thin.

So, this also means that every time I put my truck on the 2 post lift I inevitably add damage to the boot?

 

[HereinDaRockies]

So, this also means that every time I put my truck on the 2 post lift I inevitably add damage to the boot?

You are not moving so I don’t see how much damage that can cause.

 

[Tenac]

So, this also means that every time I put my truck on the 2 post lift I inevitably add damage to the boot?

Good point you will be pinching the boot no matter what.

 

[Dokatd]

So, this also means that every time I put my truck on the 2 post lift I inevitably add damage to the boot?

Yes, though it's minor. The damage is cumulative. You aren't killing it, but you are contributing for sure. The damage honestly requires rotation of the shaft to really cause damage.

 

[TD5-90]

You are not moving so I don’t see how much damage that can cause.

Single point pinching? Every time at another point of the boot?

 

[TCMColorado]

So what is more damaging to the CV boot, extended length shocks that allow for more droop thus more compression against the boot flange or continuous running at a higher CV angle if lift springs have been installed? Installing both longer shocks and lift springs would seem to guaranty boot failure. So if you cannot do both is it better to install taller springs for more ground clearance or to use longer shocks for more suspension travel. Given the mechanism of boot failure, taller springs are likely the better choice.

 

[Ovrland Bill]

So what is more damaging to the CV boot, extended length shocks that allow for more droop thus more compression against the boot flange …

What about the opposite? Would shorter than OEM Shocks, such as those from Fox (listed earlier in this tread), act as ‘limiting straps’, and thus help avoid the ‘pinching’ effect in the first place?

 

[Dokatd]

So what is more damaging to the CV boot, extended length shocks that allow for more droop thus more compression against the boot flange or continuous running at a higher CV angle if lift springs have been installed? Installing both longer shocks and lift springs would seem to guaranty boot failure. So if you cannot do both is it better to install taller springs for more ground clearance or to use longer shocks for more suspension travel. Given the mechanism of boot failure, taller springs are likely the better choice.

Installing taller springs guarantees you are closer to the limit every time your suspension cycles. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Dokatd]

What about the opposite? Would shorter than OEM Shocks, such as those from Fox (listed earlier in this tread), act as ‘limiting straps’, and thus help avoid the ‘pinching’ effect in the first place?

Yes, 100%. You will be slightly better off with shorter than stock shocks lifted or not.

 

[Tom109]

The (CV) boot flange always looked out of place to me. It should bell-shaped like the end of a trumpet, or shortened.

 

[TCMColorado]

Installing taller springs guarantees you are closer to the limit every time your suspension cycles. Hope that makes sense.

I have no intention of installing longer shocks or taller springs. It was more of a rhetorical question given that either is going to decrease the working life of the CV boot. But if someone wanted to make one of these modifications they should consciously decide if they want more ground clearance or suspension articulation and know that the impact on boot life could be different depending on that choice. And if both items are installed then plan on changing your CV join every 5K miles when you change the oil.

 

[hon1nbo]

I had a phone call with my insurance today regarding my fieldmaster that decided to become an open flame BBQ when the boot failed. They say they are going to try and subrogate the claim to Ineos.

It doesn't affect me personally if it gets subrogated or not, I'm still getting a settlement for the fire and they've finally come to a valuation. However I'm curious if this will finally make Ineos say something officially.

 

[TCMColorado]

I had a phone call with my insurance today regarding my fieldmaster that decided to become an open flame BBQ when the boot failed. They say they are going to try and subrogate the claim to Ineos.

It doesn't affect me personally if it gets subrogated or not, I'm still getting a settlement for the fire and they've finally come to a valuation. However I'm curious if this will finally make Ineos say something officially.

Subrogation claims will definitely get their attention. One is not enough but multiple cases will become an escalating liability.

 

[Tenac]

Maybe its time for someone to make a low rider out of this station wagon....

 

[hon1nbo]

Subrogation claims will definitely get their attention. One is not enough but multiple cases will become and escalating liability.

True, there are only two cases I can find related to the shaft that resulted in fire. Recalls still happen for loss of motive power, which the general failures can cause and that can lead to other accidents on open road but I don't know that Ineos will be forthcoming about that data, especially with the current administration slashing the agencies that actually have the power to push for it in the USA.

Regardless of whether they decide to officially acknowledge the issue or make an advisory, it may however change dealer sales, i.e. they could stop Ineos dealers from selling a vehicle with the suspension modified without a disclosure as was my case. I didn't know about the shaft issues beforehand, and generally only do that kind of inspection after I do some off road time or a number of miles. It's not a readily known issue unless one is on this forum, or reads deep in reddit comments. I hadn't even had enough miles to consider an oil change by the time it caught fire.

Dealer policies can be a way to mitigate some of the risk without flat out owning up to anything.

 

[Tazzieman]

Nobody slamming their Grenadier to avoid CV issues?