Who knows. Either way, both appear to be superior to their predecessors.Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzaTD5
Im amazed about the rear axles though. Only took them 30 odd years.
Printable View
Who knows. Either way, both appear to be superior to their predecessors.Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzaTD5
Im amazed about the rear axles though. Only took them 30 odd years.
Thanks Daz, my question then would be that having a 2016 110 would it mean that I need to upgrade to future proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzaTD5
No, if you get a last model Defender that has one piece axle/drive flange on the rear, then you wont need to upgrade later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg4427
While there is a definite difference in hardness from the Defender TDCi (puma, 2007 onwards) and the previous model Defender TD5 (upto 2006), as in the newer ones are soft by comparison (soft on a hardness scale), they are not prone to breakage like the Landie series of old.
Not many of the last build models around with one piece axle/drive flanges though and personally I wouldnt be paying the premium price just to get them.
Unfortunately its one of the things that DIDNT get better with the influence of Ford. The previous model Defender TD5 and in fact all previous models werent as prone to this sort of fretting wear on the axle/drive flange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beery
Other items that share the same components that got worse with the Defender TDCi (puma) that wasnt an issue with the previous Defender TD5 include:
*Transfer case hi/low switch prone to failure (or rather resistance goes up, but its via the computer rather than just a 12V open/shut circuit).
*joining block between windscreen frame and firewall prone to excessive corrosion.
*Roof near alpine windows (on early Defender TDCi models) prone to corrosion.
*Chassis coating of a very poor quality.
*On dash window regulator switch prone to failure. (a used Discovery 2 switch works and will be good for another 10 years)
*Rear side door electrical harness prone to breaking.
*The one way fuel vent value on the fuel tank prone to sticking open (extend hose and re-route to behind fuel filler)
*Interior rubber around seat base wears out very quickly.
*rear mudflaps of a poor quality (seems more plastic in them) and prone to distorting.
*Front headlight surrounds (the grey plastic square) is not fitted correctly from factory and sits at an angle when compared to front wing panel. (have a look and compare it to a Defender TD5)
*Front door seals or somewhere around there are more prone to leaking water.
*Rear axle/drive flange wear (as already discussed).
*Rear diff rebuilds (was the introduction of P38 diff, so 2004 onwards).
*Early model 2.4lt had no in tank fuel pump (makes it hard to prime fuel system, the 2.2 brought back the in tank fuel pump)
IMHO....
The best value for money Defenders out there are the 2007 - 2011, with 80K - 190K and can be had for between 30K - 40K.
Haha you are right...
Particularly the rear mudflaps...
I was doing a deep wombat hole and the exhaust tip permanently "dent" the mudflap???!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzaTD5
There are also many improvements in the puma Defenders, some of which are subjective of course. I’m sure there are others...
- Significantly quieter and smoother and better for highway trips (but uses slightly more fuel).
- 6 speed gearbox is excellent - good ratios and better for highway cruising.
- anti stall can be excellent in many low range situations (but also problematic in others)
- aircon works (but no more front vents) + better heating.
- better dashboard (subjective)
- drive flanges have had the same issue across all Defender models (except the very last one piece as described above). (I needed to replace them on my 98 Tdi too)
- seats are better front and back
- electric front windows / central locking / alarm
- leaks less in the rain than Tdi IMO
- bottom door seal rubbers much better
- blows less diesel smoke especially on start up.
Obvious other aspects of Pumas that are worse imo:
- Adapter shaft failures (replace and lube)
- weaker transfer case (fix with Ashcroft ATB
- weaker rear diff (Ashcroft ATB
- fuel economy 12l/100km (Tdi 10l/100km)
I have a 2014 puma and a 1998 Tdi (both very hard earned! - savings & loans) I love both and would be unlikely to part with either. I prefer the puma for long drives (because I’m getting old and soft) and the Tdi for character and low-tech bush-ability. I would take either anywhere at the drop of a hat. They are both awesome and nothing else currently available on the market compares IMHO.
The LT230 transfer case isnt weaker on the Defender TDCi (puma, 2007 onwards).
*Its the same as a Defender TD5
*BUT it uses Discovery 2 high range gear sets.
*Backlash is more prone due to the lack of selective thrusts being used on each side of the centre diff, as in they all have the same thickness thrusts (a one size fits all) so some transfer cases have more slack than others. This also means the preload on the centre diff will be more on some and less on others.
The rear diff change from the Sals to the P38 was round that 2004 model. While not bullet proof like a Sals, the P38 diff lives up to most use. Bearing failures are common, but I havent had any that I have rebuilt fail again. Unlike the stealer-ship that simply replace one faulty diff with another faulty diff.
Fuel economy is on par with the previous model TD5, but yes not as good as a 200/300 tdi (but has more power/torque)
Thanks for clarifying Dazza.Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzaTD5
Its not just the PLIP and 10AS that changed. The Instrument Module is also different.Quote:
Originally Posted by martnH
Apparently the older 10AS that came with my 2013 Defender is now not available. And you cannot just drop in the newer 10AS. For compatibility you gotta replace 10AS, Instrument module, and PLIPS for the newer models too.