Or, leave the ride height stock as their engineers intended and almost eliminate the boot/shaft failures
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to contribute to the community by adding your own topics, posts, and connect with other members through your own private inbox! INEOS Agents, Dealers or Commercial vendors please contact admin@theineosforum.com for a commercial account.
Or, leave the ride height stock as their engineers intended and almost eliminate the boot/shaft failures
Totally agree with this. Given that +34" tires fit without a lift why risk the driveshaft failure by increasing the suspension height.Or, leave the ride height stock as their engineers intended and almost eliminate the boot/shaft failures
For those that just want the monster truck look (you know who you are!) , disconnect the front propshaft and pootle about in RWD!
SEMA-spec Bluetooth driveshafts!!
Did someone say blue?
I recall reading that. I’ve seen some pinions rather erect. I think the ring gear at speed is tossing copious amounts lubricant up and over. Ever wonder why they take the time to shape interior in a channel? It aids in directing the fluid up and over the top and not just splashing outwards to the side. I honestly don’t think a few deg of angle is going to prove to be life or death to the pinion, if it was, this was designed on the razors edge of reliability.
Just skinnies, which, contrary to popular belief, do not perform as well as true 35x12.5” inch wide tires.
I prefer skinnies and believe they perform better than 12.5" tires in my local conditions. But everyone has different needs. And has been said many times here on the forum by multiple individuals, just increasing spring height does not increase tire clearance. You can still compress the axles to the OEM bump stop locations which means if the tire rubs with the OEM springs it will still rub with taller springs when fully compressed. To properly lift a solid axle vehicle for increased tire clearance you have to add extended bump stops and ideally extended length shocks to make up for the reduced suspension travel that results from the extended bump stops.
Never seen those before, cool product! Wonder how far they can bend?
LR put them in the rear diff end on Discovery 1’s and RRC’s. Most were replaced with u-joints at the first opportunity.
They don't like to flex up and down.The Guibo rubber couplings are standard on old Mercs, Fiats, Saabs, Alfas etc...even on the rear half shaft of the Porsche 917/935 with up to 1000hp.
I 100% agree with you on each point. So when are we going into the front axle business together? We should do it somewhere in the middle of the country to save on shipping.
I haven't really studied it but I doubt it would be a clearance issue.
Considering we are only talking a minor change I doubt it would be a problem. But I haven't looked at it too hard yet.
What exactly did they say?
They specifically said the DC would not handle the angles. I sent them all the angles of my driveline. They then said the Rzeppa can handle more angle than the DC. Which is accurate by the books. But they qualified it all with the Rzeppa boot is maxed out so failure is eminent.
Certainly an option. Not as cost effective if we can get a core axle to cut and turn. Someday we will see a Gren on 60's but that might be awhile. I suspect Ineos will correct the front pinion angle some day. They likely will run through their first batch of axles before though.
There is no volume or parts commonality with anything they have on the shelf. You're talking swapping front and rear and who knows what would go on with the ABS. Cut and turn the stock housing is by far the best option.
