Thread: Gracie. DISASTER. Transmission Failure.

So do you feel that the stock front axles are sufficient and don't need replacing?

Originally Posted by davisshannon

So do you feel that the stock front axles are sufficient and don't need replacing?

Everyone mentions this, i dont know any puma driver who's broken a front cv. Im not saying they are the bees knees but i dont know anyone, fact!
Who here has broken front cv on their puma? Anyone? I would love to know what you were doing when broke it, just curious

There has been a few and interestingly iirc they were mostly due to having NO LUBRICANT in the swivel housing ex factory...😠😠. They have the same CV and axles as the previous model so the only extra stress over a td5 would be that antistall in low range with traction control operating...and a sharp steering angle. I have run these cvs in my 4bd1t rrc and now county and haven't broken anything even with 33's. Maybe i haven't wheeled hard enough then??? 😈

Jc

Originally Posted by manic

I will concede, I have a selective memory. What memories do you have of TDI, td5 driveline problems hitting at low mileage and how is the puma set up much stronger?

My '98 Tdi had four timing belt,timing gear,belt tensioner ''upgrades'' plus two output gear upgrades alone,plus '98 is when we had big end bearing failure that snapped cranks,not bad for the last year of production. Pat

Originally Posted by ProjectDirector

I would agree with JC, they are design issues. They put this car together in a hurry and created mechanically a "Frankenstein"

Considering where my ''Frankenstein'' has taken me in the last 5 years we'll have to agree to disagree. Pat

No-one said Frankenstein couldn't be capable pat. However I'd tend to agree, Ford probably didn't want to put a whole lot of thought into it, and what they used can work to great effect but it can also create issues.

Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

Land Rover have a different way of doing things. The bean counters have wanted to drop Defender for at least the last decade. Ford couldn't get their noodle around a Henry Ford era production line being used in the 21st century, but insisted a few ford items get used like gearbox, motor, vents etc.

Unlike other makes I think the later production run is higher risk than the first.

Originally Posted by justinc

WARNING PUMA KNOCKING ABOUT TO HAPPEN . Look away if offended...

I as a repairer can 100% say that these vehicles are worse than the previous models for faults per vehicle. I've seen ON MULTIPLE VEHICLES loose and even missing sway bar link bolts all the way through to engine failures due to poor design. Including all components of the complete driveline.

This is also 100% the reason i don't have one and bought a dmax ite for work use. I love my landies anyone who knows me knows this . However i will not give this model a good rap.

As i have also stated previously somewhete here i have plenty of satisfied customers who hardly have any issues at all but plenty at the other end of the spectrum too.

Take what you will from this post.

Jc

Big call JC! In fact a very serious indightment coming from one of the best LR mechanics in the country.

If this is the case then no one buy a Ford Ranger or Mazda BT50 to replace their puma either.

My understanding is that apart from engine/gearbox, the only difference to driveline from previous Defenders is the rear diff? The problematic adapter shaft links the tried and true transfer case to new getrag gearbox. Once lubed or replaced no more problem?

Can I ask, what are the consistent puma engine / gearbox problems you're finding?

All Defenders have driveline clunk, all need HD flanges and rear axles at some point. All Defenders are prone to quirky behaviour, all have had factory issues and all 4WDs have their failings.

...How do puma electrics compare to problematic TD5 elecs for example?

DMax might be a great light duty work ute with a sweet engine but they look pretty flimsy as a long term rough country proposition to me.

Pumas must be really bad for you to come to this conclusion JC.