Gracie. DISASTER. Transmission Failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrLandy

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.

---

Well firstly i am getting really uncomfortable with people sticking me up on some pedastal. I am not some kind of messiah. I make plenty of mistakes and like all of us I'm only human. So we'll leave that kind of misdirected praise for someone that deserves it thanks.

I've already outlined some of the issues i come across regularly and I'll add that the puma lt230 isn't the same quality as the td5 and earlier. In fact the last 2015 case i fitted an ATB to it had an even weaker designed centre diff design. The engine issue i mentioned is centered around a design fault with the piston cooling jets (PCJs) failing to open under high flow / high pressure situations like cold starts. This would reduce lubrication for piston skirts on first start up and eventually cause piston failure. This was documented quite a bit in the uk and was addressed on a case by case basis. New engines were fitted sometimes well within the warranty period and the new design PCJs are quite different. All engines after MY2009 had the revised jets fitted and that was the end of the problem. I had one fail here and there was NO way i could get anyone from LR to listen. After week 5 the customer agreed we were not going to get any kind of resolution so i rebuilt the engine and he just had to pay. Now I KNOW that this was the cause however trying to convince anyone at LRA that it was was a complete waste of time. I'm still dirty about this.

The Dmax may suit my towing and work needs 100% and been totally free of problems after 60000km and 2 years so far but it has no soul. It is like driving a piece of whitegoods . I have still got my 110 and love it to bits and will most likely be buried in it... plus i get to drive lots of interesting landies every day so that makes up for it i reckon.

So in conclusion i still stand by my comments and I'm quite happy to expand on them as i find more issues in the years to come....


Jc ☺

Landrover still has not learnt from the mistakes which gave the game away to the Japs in the early 1970s.
The TDI/R380 marry up from the early 1990s had the same problem as does the drive flanges on the hubs............nothing has changed in reliability.
Salisbury diffs are now replaced by weaker rover diffs which the Salisbury replaced as the rover ones were too weak.
I loved my defender for its road holding and suspension etc.
I kept my uncomfortable 101 landrover as the flanges are bigger and oil lubricated,bigger axles,Salisbury front and rear, bigger C/Vs etc.
Landrover had it sused out in 1970.
It's the same old story with English motor vehicles,produce something brilliant and then just keep following up with the same mistakes.
They just just can not be bothered.

The 101 Landy will be still around for another forty years on its original drive line splines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justinc

I am not some kind of messiah.

---

You are the Messiah. I should know, I've followed a few.



Sorry, someone had to say it.

No he's not, he's a very naughty boy.
Who's penance is fixing dodgy British 4wds :p

Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

Hang on and lets back track a bit to add some context,Defenders have problems,but so does everything else,the difference is the defender fix's are cheap and easy and LR are good at honoring the warranty.We are not replacing entire suspension systems,doing GVM upgrades,re-valving auto's etc so the vehicles can do what the manufacturer said they can do,we are getting adapters fixed at LR cost and replacing $100 worth of axle flanges,besides that we do not have sticky threads containing 1500 posts relating to seized motors,oil burning motors,chronic injector problems and monthly safety recalls.We know what goes wrong,it's very well documented,just fix the common ones and if more happens well find it,fix it and post on here to add to our knowledge,looking over the posts there isn't much to worry about :cool:. Pat








PS. Some say under his beard theirs another arm holding a spanner,and his blood is 15w 40,all I know he's called JC :wasntme:. Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectDirector

I said "Frankenstein" from the perspective of putting parts together that have little engineering input. I am an engineer and been involved in many engineering designs.
LR obviously did not have design funds for defender and therefore quickly took parts from existing pile and adapted them.
Why do you think the bonnet has a bulge? They had to place the engine higher to line up the drivetrain.
Anyway I still like my defender and will fix the drivetrain design flaws with Ashcroft and hand the car to my son as I was about to sell it and he put his hand up.

---

I'm going to correct you on that one...

The 2.2 is a very tall engine, it was placed high in order to clear the front axle (it is not designed for a vehicle with a live front axle). That is why they have the bonnet bulge...

That is also why the whole driveline is raised at the front, which by extension is why the input shafts wear because they are not oil bathed as in an earlier LT230 (they didn't raise the fill plug), that is also why the front tailshaft is so close to it's maximum operating angle when at rest.

Basically, the 2007 onwards defender, is actually the bodgiest, thrown together, **** poor excuse for a Land Rover, that Land Rover have ever made.

- The vent holes in the firewall were removed to fit better AC (they didn't even change the pressing, so they look to be missing something [like their best feature]).
- The engine was raised and a glorified hot rod bonnet scoop fitted to cover that.
- The driveline was raked to fit the engine, which caused the myriad of other issues.
- The rear diff is a total POS, from a total POS.
- The rear seat shares more with a D2 seat than most other D2 seats.
- The dash is straight out of a D3.
- The sunroof is straight out of a 1993 NAS Defender.
Do I need to go on?

It's a serious parts bin special. I could put a better vehicle together out of what is in my shed. And I'd probably have more money tied up in R&D than Land Rover did for the whole Puma project.

Give me a Td5 Defender, with all the Td5 niggles any day, at least very few of them put you on a tow truck. Especially with under 350,000km on the vehicle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR LR

I'm going to correct you on that one...

...

---

Thread out of control. Stay focused :)

Look at title of this thread.

Goodness yes sorry it has got a fair bit OT. My apologies to Mr Pickles2.

Jc ☺

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karlz

Thread out of control. Stay focused :)

Look at title of this thread.

---

Sorry!

Forgot to mention how bad the MT82 is :p :wasntme:

But seriously, apologies for the hyjack...

Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.