alko amc rear axle(s) GREASING

[Steve928]

monique.hubrechts@gm - 2016-11-01 5:11 PM

 

Just pump your axle full of grease..

 

Indeed, that's what I'm considering doing with mine as there's no way that a light pressure greasing at the legacy grease nipples that remain inboard of the chassis rails are getting grease well outboard to the bushes in the newly extended-track axle tube; it's just plain wrong.

 

I reckon it might take10-15kg of grease to completely fill the tube and allow grease to be forced outboard. That's 10-15kg of payload that I don't really have spare, but if it stops this piece of cr@p becoming a piece of scrap then it could be worth it.

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Steve

 

I suspect that you have not got a rosy relationship with Al-Ko (or Bailey) given the problems you have had with your motorhome’s rear suspension, but have you asked them to comment on lubrication of your ‘wide’ rear axle’s bearings?

 

If (as you’ve said earlier) the position of the bearings on your axle and the position of the grease-nipple are incompatible, there’s no possibility that grease will reach the bearings unless you did as you are suggesting and fill the axle completely with grease (which would be an extreme measure and worth knowing Al-Ko’s opinion of).

 

It’s rather surprising to me that the ’standard’ arrangement of locating a single grease-nipple between the bearings seems to work as well as it does. I would have thought there ought to be a pair of grease-nipples (one per bearing) with grease tracks in each bearing for the grease to follow (as per the Fraser Brown modification). Really speaking though, with a modern vehicle there ought to be no greasing requirement at all.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Alko says we have maintenance free axles but of the extra price motor home builders are not interested. For some strange reason its standard on the extra options. Burstner dropped the alko chassis on some of their models in favor of fiat. If you see worned out swing arms you can see the tear out where they were nested in the bushes The inboard wears faster than the out board.SKF stipulates a lot of risks using this type of bearings especially due to the partial load pattern.Again difficult to grease and keep dirt and water out. So pump till you see grease coming out and dont care about the rubber grease seals. You have no other option.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Just came across what the AMC workshop manual stipulates: Full axle unloaden. Both wheels off the ground.The swing arm degrees in unload and max load depends of your type of axle. Grease as above. Nothing is said about the outboard bush, but there is a by-pass of grease if that bush is greased any way. Now comes the clue. After greasing you have to make 10-12 times full loads of the swing arms. I suggest to do some street bumps at speed fully loaden.

[Steve928]

No, I haven't posed the question of Al-Ko, Derek, not because of my history with them but primarily because I wouldn't expect a useful answer. There's evidence on this thread of their lack of interest in responding to end-user (not customer) emails and my experience of them is that suggesting to them that their product may be in any way less than perfect isn't productive.

 

Your contributions are very useful, Monique. I think that my best plan is to insert grease at a higher pressure i.e. not stop instantly upon feeling resistance. If that pops the seals then so be it and I'll need to fill the axle. I can get 12x400g of Gadus S3 for under £30 so hopefully that would do it, although I might need a bigger grease gun..

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Just heard what can happen to your chassis and the outcome of it. A friend of mine has a large burstner caravan. After some years a propagating crack appeared in his chassis (not alko with the rubber and octagonal torsion bar axle greased for life made in louhans where you can see how they fit the torsionbars not our btr axle) A compromise was made between chassis make and burstner. You know chassis makers have strict rules what do do with their chassis. So he got a new chassis. After 9 months with his new chassis the same crack on the same place.He said good buy to burstner and bought a new Knaus. The dealer has to solve this problem not the chassis maker or the house builder. In his contract are the risks .

[747]

A simple way to find out if grease is travelling to your Bushes is to pump until you feel resistance (pressure). Take the van for a short run and pump grease again. If the pressure is still there from the start, it is not being distributed. As there will be a clearance between the Bush and the Shaft, this should not be pressurised for long as the Grease should slowly work its way through.

 

My thoughts on the design of the axle (bearing in mind that I have a sealed for life, needle bearing type) is this. A properly greased Bush type is the better option. Needle Roller Bearings are not suitable for heavy duty and shock loads (think potholes), especially 'sealed for life' bearings.

 

My 2 axles are nowhere near the maximum rated weight and I think that is the most important factor in longevity of an Alko axle.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Thank you for your support. If you park your dearest vehicle for quite some months be sure it is horizontal and unload your torsion bars by means of axle blocks. Most people do some angles to drain off the roof water if no shelter above. Some premium brands have water drain guides in diagonal horizontal position. Talking to Al-KO Germany reveals that they aware that the small rotation in the bushes prevents adequate lubrication. They are working hard on this problem. But you have still the best engineered chassis on the market :-D

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Fully agree about this but your needle bearing is outboard and you have still a classic bush on the end of the pivot. This pivot arm is quite short about as long as your swing arm. Nevertheless however i suppose you have life time guarantee or just one year. Most axle companies are very rich and dominate the market see the take over by alko of giant Dexter in the USA. Since you have this type ca axle which options you have and are you satisfied of them.

[747]

The Alko axle is far from perfect but it makes the vehicle more stable, especially in the Tag axle configuration. The ride is harder than the normal Leaf Spring setup and tyre pressure needs to be correct to help with 'damping' the ride.

 

If new Shock Absorbers are needed, it is extremely difficult to source the correct ones and many of the Part Numbers on them are now out of date and difficult to match up. I believe there was some good information on identifying new Shocks on another forum. I will see if I can find it.

[Cap44]

This topic reminds me of inner radius arms on the front of the early minis and also the rear radius of the same car. All with needle roller bearings that are totally unsuitable for high load and small rotating arc as they hammer the shaft instead or rotating around it.

Because of the cost of these axles has anyone fitted extra grease nipples into the casing between the bearings. Only needs a small drill hole and a tap to suit a new grease nipple. You can buy nipples from most classic car spares suppliers.

[747]

I have the necessary Drills, Taps and Grease Nipples in my Garage at home. The main problem is exactly where to drill the hole. I have not seen a schematic diagram for the sealed unit used on my van (plenty for trailer axles, none for Motorhomes).

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

If you are going to drill in the axle at least the swing arms should be removed. The std nipple is between the bushes one at the beginning of the tube and further on in the pipe matches the end of the swing arm. Adding extra grease nipples does not mean it will enter the bushes. There is no proven track record of this also from john fraser method, alko started with two nipples in first versions A better method is to pump out the old grease or make a clean out revision if you afraid of the bill for a new axle. There is also no proven track record of the behavior of the grease free axle in time. Alko uses the needle bearing only assist systems which have less load shocks on the in Board bearing Not saying that if you have air that the swings are just rotating in the air you may tell me.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

The axle parts do not determine the max load but your torsion bars. There are about five loads and five shocks.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Pull in with your Vin number at alko intranet and you will get the ETI number. Or call alko.

[keninpalamos]

747 - 2016-11-03 5:55 PM

 

The Alko axle is far from perfect but it makes the vehicle more stable, especially in the Tag axle configuration. The ride is harder than the normal Leaf Spring setup and tyre pressure needs to be correct to help with 'damping' the ride.

 

If new Shock Absorbers are needed, it is extremely difficult to source the correct ones and many of the Part Numbers on them are now out of date and difficult to match up. I believe there was some good information on identifying new Shocks on another forum. I will see if I can find it.

I'd be interested to know what tyre pressures you are using on your "Tag" axles. Over the years I find I am carrying less load so have decreased the pressures accordingly and just to make sure all is OK I stop after the first 10 miles of a trip to the EU to check tyre temps and keep an eye on how the tread is wearing. On long motorway trips I stick to 65psi then drop the pressure to 55psi for A & B type roads and towns etc. Cuts down on the spine jolting crashes and damaged cups, plates etc :-S

[747]

I have the Burstner Delphin Performance T821, rated at 4.5 ton on a Renault Master and Alko chassis.

 

I run the front wheels on 65 psi and the rears on 50 psi. (225/70R16 from memory)

 

I put the van on a weighbridge to get the axle weights and could reduce the rear pressures down to about 45 psi according to the tyre charts for the size and axle weights. I find that 50 is OK (measured cold), I would expect the pressures to rise by at least 5 or 6 psi when warmed up on the move. The main reason I keep them a little on the high side is that the van stands unused for periods of time and I want to avoid flat spots on the tyres. In fact, once I am sure the van will not be used for a decent length of time over the worst of the Winter, I inflate the tyres to a much higher pressure to prevent flat spots. I probably will not bother with the rear tyres this Winter because I will be fitting 4 new tyres in the Spring due to their age. The front tyres are 2 year old Michelin Agilis and will be boosted to 75 or 80 psi.

 

When I picked up this van it had 80 psi all round and it rattled and banged like a bag of spanners. My previous van (a 5 Ton MAM) was the same ....... why do Dealers do that? *-)

[Derek Uzzell]

747 - 2016-11-05 9:59 PM

 

...When I picked up this van it had 80 psi all round and it rattled and banged like a bag of spanners. My previous van (a 5 Ton MAM) was the same ....... why do Dealers do that? *-)

 

They do it because the Owner Manuals provided by the base-vehicle manufacturer and/or the chassis manufacturer and/or the motorhome manufacturer specify that high tyre-pressures should be used.

 

I’d question your earlier statement suggesting that having an Al-Ko rear axle on a motorhome automatically makes it more stable than one with a different rear-suspension arrangement. There’s no doubt that having tandem Al-Ko rear axles should result is excellent stability (though the tyres will inevitably tend to scrub) but what are you going to compare the twin-axle arrangement with stability-wise? Will a motorhome built on a ‘camping-car’ chassis with a single rear axle be any less stable than an equivalent vehicle using an Al-Ko chassis? I believe there’s no evidence this would be the case. If a motorhome converter chooses to specify a super-low Al-Ko chassis that lowers the vehicle’s centre of gravity right down there might be some marginal stability gains, but the result would inevitably be the shortage of suspension travel that Steve928 has highlighted regarding his Bailey motorhome.

[keninpalamos]

Thanks for that 747. I should think that playing the 1812 overture at full volume would not drown out the crashing and banging at 80psi I have an elderly Hymer E700 and have owned a Hymer E650 with a single axle on the rear with an AlKo Chassis. Im only talking from experience but find the twin axle E700 the more stable of the two especially in cross winds and large lorries going passed. Even cornering is improved. I had the E650 fitted with airide which improved the stability some what but not up to the standard of the E700. I bought the E700 when it was 3 or 4 years old and have always grease the axles every year and have replaced both the 2 torsion bars (only one in each axle on the early one's) in the last 3 years. I also replaced the front springs with up rated Goldschmitt units which have raised the front so the vehicle sits level and they have improved the cornering ability no end. The only reason I changed vans was having a scooter on the back of the E650 was hopeless plus I noticed in a very short time that there was a small gap opening up between floor and fix furniture! but was fine when I removed the scooter, rack and tow bar. I only carry a 75Kg Honda Dax now in the E700 garage and it sits about 2 1/2 ft from the rear axle and has no notacible affect on the 'vans stability. My 'van gets little use in the summer and sits in a storage unit with the occasional run out and I do a bit of full timing part time (lol) Its used mainly in Spain over winter. I bought a Autosleeper Montana as a project last year (A pop top on a Mercedes Vito) which is great fun.

[747]

Derek Uzzell - 2016-11-06 9:09 AM

 

747 - 2016-11-05 9:59 PM

 

...When I picked up this van it had 80 psi all round and it rattled and banged like a bag of spanners. My previous van (a 5 Ton MAM) was the same ....... why do Dealers do that? *-)

 

They do it because the Owner Manuals provided by the base-vehicle manufacturer and/or the chassis manufacturer and/or the motorhome manufacturer specify that high tyre-pressures should be used.

 

I’d question your earlier statement suggesting that having an Al-Ko rear axle on a motorhome automatically makes it more stable than one with a different rear-suspension arrangement. There’s no doubt that having tandem Al-Ko rear axles should result is excellent stability (though the tyres will inevitably tend to scrub) but what are you going to compare the twin-axle arrangement with stability-wise? Will a motorhome built on a ‘camping-car’ chassis with a single rear axle be any less stable than an equivalent vehicle using an Al-Ko chassis? I believe there’s no evidence this would be the case. If a motorhome converter chooses to specify a super-low Al-Ko chassis that lowers the vehicle’s centre of gravity right down there might be some marginal stability gains, but the result would inevitably be the shortage of suspension travel that Steve928 has highlighted regarding his Bailey motorhome.

 

Derek, I have no experience of having a van with a single Alko axle, so cannot comment. I did have an Elddis on a 'camping car' chassis (Peugeot Baxer base vehicle). My current Tag Axle Maxi chassis is lower than my last Tag axle chassis on a Burstner 747. The 747 was higher off the ground and a tall motorhome with an overcab. It was still a very stable vehicle in adverse conditions. The current van is much lower in overall height but the difference seems minimal.

 

I have heard this reference to tyres 'scrubbing' on Tag Axle vans but with nearly 8 years of driving them, I have seen no sign of this. They were brand new tyres fitted to my last van as part of the deal when I bought it and I owned it 5 years. The Michelin XC rear tyres on my current van are starting to show signs of sidewall cracking and will be changed as they are 2011 vintage. Both Tag axle vans had/have a very large turning circle (Ducato and Renault). If it were smaller, there could be the possibility of tyre damage (I have certainly seen the effect on Trailers etc.). Maybe someone could provide photo evidence of this on a motorhome as I would be interested to see how it looks.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Go for a pressure under driving load which gives 3 cm Tyre inclination which look like a balloon. Its good when driving from belgium via euro chunnel to Rockingham castle in the Midlands which i did last Summer for a dog agility festival. Your trucks on the M drive very fast. We have to care for put holes to keep our alko in shape

[Steve928]

Derek Uzzell - 2016-11-06 9:09 AM

 

Will a motorhome built on a ‘camping-car’ chassis with a single rear axle be any less stable than an equivalent vehicle using an Al-Ko chassis? I believe there’s no evidence this would be the case. If a motorhome converter chooses to specify a super-low Al-Ko chassis that lowers the vehicle’s centre of gravity right down there might be some marginal stability gains, but the result would inevitably be the shortage of suspension travel that Steve928 has highlighted regarding his Bailey motorhome.

 

I suspect that the standard Sevel live rear axle will suffer from some lateral movement in use, being located only by the leaf springs and their large rubber bushes. Certainly when equivalent live rear axles were 'de riguer' in competition cars they would always be located by an additional Panhard rod (or 2) which the Sevel chassis doesn't have. The Al-Ko axle is the clear winner in this respect.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

A super low AL-Ko chassis is not traded by them. Having a fiat ducato tractor with pushed on AL-KO chassis The reference point is a horizontal structure line in steel same as the pedestal of the front seats, From there fiat drops a little the same for alko high frame and 144 and 220 max down the line and every in between you want. Regarding our greasing topic alko offers all commercial vans chassis with maintenance free axles and perhaps also very soon for motorhomes.

[Derek Uzzell]

Steve928 - 2016-11-06 4:50 PM

 

I suspect that the standard Sevel live rear axle will suffer from some lateral movement in use, being located only by the leaf springs and their large rubber bushes. Certainly when equivalent live rear axles were 'de riguer' in competition cars they would always be located by an additional Panhard rod (or 2) which the Sevel chassis doesn't have. The Al-Ko axle is the clear winner in this respect.

 

Front-wheel drive Sevel motorhomes do not have ‘live’ rear axles (which is why there are no ‘tag’ axle Ducatos or Boxers, just tandem rear-axle models) they have ‘dead’ (ie. unpowered) rear axles. The only European-built genuine ‘tag’ axle motorhomes I’m aware of will be Mercedes Sprinter-based with an Al-Ko chassis.

 

I’ve owned RWD cars where the rear axle was laterally located by a Panhard rod or Watts linkeage, but that was a long time age. My Rapido has the Sevel camping-car chassis which has the rear wheels’ stub axles well above the axle cross-piece. Besides the leaf springs (metal single-leaf in the Rapido’s case) there is a thick anti-sway bar that should contribute to lateral axle-location. I can’t see the Rapido’s rear axle moving much, but even if it did move sideways a bit I wouldn’t envisage that being significant stability-wise.

 

There are persuasive arguments for a motorhome to have an Al-Ko chassis and, if a converter wishes to build a long heavy motorhome on a FWD Sevel base, a tandem rear-axle Al-Ko chassis will need to be used. Similarly, if a FWD motorhome is to have a proper double floor above the top of the chassis, there will be no real alternative to ‘going Al-Ko’.

 

I suspect that - with a single-rear-axle Sevel-based motorhome design - there’s not much difference in cost nowadays between a converter opting for the camping-car chassis or the Al-Ko chassis. Both have their pros and cons, but I believe that better stability won’t be obtained from the Al-Ko chassis as a matter of course. And, as you’ve highlighted in the past, there’s the potential for misalignment with an Al-Ko chassis, plus an unavoidably harsh ride if the lowest version is chosen.

 

[Robbo]

Back to the question of greasing and supporting the rear wheels off the ground.

 

The official advice seems to be, to have both wheels clear of the ground. I have previously adhered to this advice.

 

However, on another Forum, one of the respected contributors, advocates jacking up just one wheel at a time. This method would be much easier for me and also add some degree of comfort and stability to the jacking process. I would, of course, use an axle stand to support the chassis on one side before commencing the greasing procedure.

 

I can't see that having both wheels unloaded is any better than having one wheel unloaded at a time for injecting grease into the relevant bearing journal.

 

Any views and advice would be most welcomed.