Front drive shaft broken

[Jiman01]

I thought if a dealer installed an aftermarket part, if a warranty issue arose, you were covered because they installed it?

If there’s no warranty difference between me or some other 3rd party installer modifying the truck vs an INEOS Dealer that would certainly be good information to know.

 

[Walter]

UPDATE: Just heard back from the service manager "I believe I can get this covered under warranty! It's on back order right now with expected delivery sometime in January."
Merry Christmas.

 

[parb]

UPDATE: Just heard back from the service manager "I believe I can get this covered under warranty! It's on back order right now with expected delivery sometime in January."
Merry Christmas.

very nice. It would be pretty good if ineos made a blanket statement about warranty for driveshafts on (mildly) lifted grenadiers.

 

[Walter]

very nice. It would be pretty good if ineos made a blanket statement about warranty for driveshafts on (mildly) lifted grenadiers.

That would be ideal, but it would also mean INEOS admitting that the driveshaft design is a factory defect, which could potentially lead to a recall? At least most, if not all, of the driveshaft failures I’m aware of have been covered under warranty so far.
I’m not sure... I’m starting to think about reverting to the OEM springs now.

 

[Commodore]

That would be ideal, but it would also mean INEOS admitting that the driveshaft design is a factory defect, which could potentially lead to a recall? At least most, if not all, of the driveshaft failures I’m aware of have been covered under warranty so far.
I’m not sure... I’m starting to think about reverting to the OEM springs now.

I would be shocked if Ineos regularly covers driveshaft failures of lifted vehicles. They will say that it is outside of the design parameters. This likely got covered by the dealer because they installed the springs or the dealer isn't telling Ineos that the truck it lifted. I would like to put a leveling spacer on the front springs but no way am I going to risk that until a reliable work around is sorted out.

 

[C-Mack]

The only real fix would be a revised front axle design to lift the pinion and rotate the steering knuckles aft to add more caster at the same time (assuming front axle lubrication is not a limitation). This would have to happen in conjunction with a lowering of the entire engine/transmission/transfer case assembly in the chassis to further decrease angles across the drivetrain. This of course, would present a whole host of packaging, clearance and component changes. Just lowering the tail end of the drivetrain assembly by dropping the transfer case cross member would pivot the drivetrain back which would actually increase the angle at the front transfer case output flange slightly.

These would be wholesale design changes to the vehicles current layout and would only happen if IA encountered a relatively high number of failures (on stock vehicles) or heaven forbid, fatalities or injures, as a result of failures at speed and was forced to issue a recall. The design is what it is for the time being and the aftermarket should be able to produce some solutions which might help but at best they would be classified “Experimental” fixes and would not be covered by IA and could be used as an excuse to avoid repairs.

Sounds like IA is covering a few driveshaft failures for now and one reason could be because warranty claims are not mentioning the vehicles in question have suspension lifts. However, I doubt IA is that naive and may be taking care of customers as they continue to monitor the situation and figure out a path forward. It will be interesting to see if any changes start showing up on newer models. If they do introduce changes that would be admitting they got the design wrong initially but let’s see how it plays out.

 

[MrMike]

The only real fix would be a revised front axle design to lift the pinion and rotate the steering knuckles aft to add more caster at the same time (assuming front axle lubrication is not a limitation). This would have to happen in conjunction with a lowering of the entire engine/transmission/transfer case assembly in the chassis to further decrease angles across the drivetrain. This of course, would present a whole host of packaging, clearance and component changes. Just lowering the tail end of the drivetrain assembly by dropping the transfer case cross member would pivot the drivetrain back which would actually increase the angle at the front transfer case output flange slightly.

These would be wholesale design changes to the vehicles current layout and would only happen if IA encountered a relatively high number of failures (on stock vehicles) or heaven forbid, fatalities or injures, as a result of failures at speed and was forced to issue a recall. The design is what it is for the time being and the aftermarket should be able to produce some solutions which might help but at best they would be classified “Experimental” fixes and would not be covered by IA and could be used as an excuse to avoid repairs.

Sounds like IA is covering a few driveshaft failures for now and one reason could be because warranty claims are not mentioning the vehicles in question have suspension lifts. However, I doubt IA is that naive and may be taking care of customers as they continue to monitor the situation and figure out a path forward. It will be interesting to see if any changes start showing up on newer models. If they do introduce changes that would be admitting they got the design wrong initially but let’s see how it plays out.

IA are really good at warranty i have found, in AU they replaced transfer cases without (in some instances) notifying the owner when their Grenadiers went in for service. Others were emailed and told it was happening. Ford could take a leaf out of their book.
There has to be a reasonable number for it to be a recall, no doubt AI are watching closely.

 

[TCMColorado]

Without going back and reading all 496 posts has anyone kept track of how many reported front drive shaft failures have occurred in vehicles with unmodified suspensions?

If I understand correctly Outlander and Logsplitter had the front shaft fail because the circlip did not retain the shaft in the Rzeppa joint at the transfer case. Are there others for which the boot failure happened while running the OEM suspension?

 

[C-Mack]

Without going back and reading all 496 posts has anyone kept track of how many reported front drive shaft failures have occurred in unmodified vehicles?

If I understand correctly Outlander and Logsplitter had the front shaft fail because the circlip did not retain the shaft in the Rzeppa joint at the transfer case. Are there others for which the boot failure happened while running the OEM suspension?

And some of those failures could be the result of damage occurring during installation of lift springs so it’s going to be a mix of possible causes for sure.

 

[TCMColorado]

And some of those failures could be the result of damage occurring during installation of lift springs so it’s going to be a mix of possible causes for sure.

I am interested in failures on vehicles that have no modifications to the suspension which I tried to make clear in the original post.

 

[MrMike]

I am interested in failures on vehicles that have no modifications to the suspension which I tried to make clear in the original post.

There are ~ 2500 Grenadiers in AU, and so far the reported number (on this forum and social media) that I have seen has been 3. One with lift above 40mm.

 

[Clark Kent]

There are ~ 2500 Grenadiers in AU, and so far the reported number (on this forum and social media) that I have seen has been 3. One with lift above 40mm.

My front shaft was recently replaced because CV lube was leaking through a flange bolt hole at the transfer case end. So a shaft fault but not a boot failure. I posted about it here.
Stock suspension.

 

[Tenac]

I need some education here: I'm aligned with all the information on this thread with drive shaft breaking and by lifting putting more stress on that part as well. Would adjustable track bars help avoid the situation of lifting causing a more extreme angle??? I was watching the video below and the gentlemen states that adding the adjustment allows you to get closer to factory with the suspension??? If so this would mean I could life that 1.5" and buy the metalcloak kit to help avoid breaking with a lift.

View: https://youtu.be/ev_JUUC9q-w?t=180

 

[Walter]

I need some education here: I'm aligned with all the information on this thread with drive shaft breaking and by lifting putting more stress on that part as well. Would adjustable track bars help avoid the situation of lifting causing a more extreme angle??? I was watching the video below and the gentlemen states that adding the adjustment allows you to get closer to factory with the suspension??? If so this would mean I could life that 1.5" and buy the metalcloak kit to help avoid breaking with a lift.

View: https://youtu.be/ev_JUUC9q-w?t=180

He had a custom-made double-joint drive shaft installed.

 

[Tenac]

He had a custom-made double-joint drive shaft installed.

Yeah I seen that as well but with the custom drive shaft or shafts with these links we should have zero issues when lifting right? That's my real question here is how to avoid the risk of lifting without going portals which who knows when they will come out. It also seems like these links might help the OEM truck anyway by adding adjustments etc. ?

 

[Dokatd]

You cannot have factory caster and pinion angles with a lift. Certainly not at the same time anyways. To resolve the pinion angle issue you need to adjust the cam bolts on your lower links. When you do this you are also changing your caster. Unfortunately you are changing your caster in the wrong direction for ideal steering characteristics. Additionally you are affecting the oiling of your pinion bearings (though I am not convinced we are even close to this point).

So, the Metalcloak arms are effectively useless as you can't utilize any more adjustment than the factory arms allow for. That is assuming your trucks frame is within the average for frame dimensions. It is possible your frame was pushing the envelope for it's original dimensions and the factory cam bolts don't all enough adjustment, but I'd put money on it that this is not the case with any IG.

The Metalcloak stuff is fine if you want some bling or feel the tubular arms are necessary for strength concerns, but they are not a solution for the front drive shaft issue.

You can absolutely sacrifice your steering a bit for drive shaft angles though. And being completely honest I am currently feeling that this is more viable than we thought. But....I'm not sure it doesn't require the use of the Terraflex joints. I have a suspicion that the Terraflex joints have a different rubber compound for the boot. I'm questioning if the IG boots are failing simply due to a lower quality boot. The way the boot on mine failed made it look like the boot was 20yrs old. It felt dry and hard.

 

[C-Mack]

For sure high CV-joint angles are a contributing factor but so is the constant flexing of the stock boot as the rubber goes from stretched to compressed back to stretched once each rotation which can cause heat fatigue/hardening and tearing of the boot material.

Also, the boot cover acts as a collection point for mud/sand and all sorts of other trail debris which can cause abrasion to the boots while running. In other words, there could be several different variables all contributing at once to the driveshaft failures mentioned around this forum, but one thing is for sure, once the boot is compromised it’s joint is going to fail in short order.

 

[Zimm]

You cannot have factory caster and pinion angles with a lift. Certainly not at the same time anyways. To resolve the pinion angle issue you need to adjust the cam bolts on your lower links. When you do this you are also changing your caster. Unfortunately you are changing your caster in the wrong direction for ideal steering characteristics. Additionally you are affecting the oiling of your pinion bearings (though I am not convinced we are even close to this point).

So, the Metalcloak arms are effectively useless as you can't utilize any more adjustment than the factory arms allow for. That is assuming your trucks frame is within the average for frame dimensions. It is possible your frame was pushing the envelope for it's original dimensions and the factory cam bolts don't all enough adjustment, but I'd put money on it that this is not the case with any IG.

The Metalcloak stuff is fine if you want some bling or feel the tubular arms are necessary for strength concerns, but they are not a solution for the front drive shaft issue.

You can absolutely sacrifice your steering a bit for drive shaft angles though. And being completely honest I am currently feeling that this is more viable than we thought. But....I'm not sure it doesn't require the use of the Terraflex joints. I have a suspicion that the Terraflex joints have a different rubber compound for the boot. I'm questioning if the IG boots are failing simply due to a lower quality boot. The way the boot on mine failed made it look like the boot was 20yrs old. It felt dry and hard.

Heres a thought. It appears if one doesnt want to lift the truck the upper arms will permit dialing in a couple more degrees of camber and put the pinion side boot at about the same angle as if there was a lift, and it wont screw with the steering linkage. It would have been nice if the upper arm length and angle was designed to tilt the pinion upwards a tad under full droop, but it doesn't look that way. Skinny 35's, no lift, and some return to center sounds like a win.

 

[Dokatd]

Heres a thought. It appears if one doesnt want to lift the truck the upper arms will permit dialing in a couple more degrees of camber and put the pinion side boot at about the same angle as if there was a lift, and it wont screw with the steering linkage. It would have been nice if the upper arm length and angle was designed to tilt the pinion upwards a tad under full droop, but it doesn't look that way. Skinny 35's, no lift, and some return to center sounds like a win.

Sure, but why not run more conservative stock settings on the caster and pinion angle and just change the steering stabilizer. I'd much more prefer to swap a passive part like a steering stabilizer than a suspension link that holds the axle in place. You will get all the return to center you could ever want.

Don't get me wrong, I have made many link arms in my life and all were huge improvements, but to be fair that was to add substantial length to the arms by changing the frame side mount.

I'm not afraid to change parts, but someone worried about it should be more comfortable changing the stabilizer than putting in some new link arms. I'm not a Jeep guy so I don't know Metalcloak from Adam so I can't comment on their engineering capabilities, but I think their link kit is a bit of a fallacy.

All just my 2¢

 

[Dokatd]

On another note, I am considering reducing my caster bit by bit until I hit the stock min or find a handling issue.

I originally had my caster set with stock springs. But once the truck was lifted that caster would have changed a fair bit. I suspect I could achieve more favorable driveshaft angles if I dialed it back some. The truck handles very well as is.