Thread: 2015 Defender 110 - Transfer case, Gear box and Rear Diff failed.

Have to worth a go. My puma radiator failed post warranty they gave me the rad for free, I paid for labor.

I like your honesty too re being a defender owner.

If you have no luck with LR,JC on here is the man you need to talk to.

He runs an LR indie workshop,somewhere in Tassy.

Good luck with it all.

Originally Posted by WombatMarshypoos

Hi All,
looking for info about the Linkage between the ford gearbox and the transfer case failing.

Mine has, had a really loud knocking noise especially when slowing down. After a huge hassle it is now in being repaired, they have completed that and now say that the transfer case and rear diff are also likely needing repair/replacement because of the damage. Yes, 1 year out of warranty.

I've seen that it's a pretty common fault in the Puma's.

Has anyone made a successful application to Land Rover to cover major faults like this as set out in the ACCC Laws?

To note, I'm a pretty typical defender tosser that has it for looks and likes feeling like the bush tucker man as I drive along a beach once or twice a year so it's done zero hard driving let alone what a defender is meant to be able to tackle.

Cheers for the help/advice.

Sam

If i understand your post correct, you are referring to the the spud shaft that connects the gearbox to transfer OR some other part? If you mean the spud shaft, it is a known weak link. Posts about the spud shaft are second only to post asking for recommendations on suspension on this forum. They need regular greasing to minimise spline wear. Personally i think that it is a maintenance issue. Responsibility rests with the owner to properly service their car. No different to greasing UJ's, wheel bearings etc. As a part, it is fit for purpose, subject to maintenance.

You will be pushing a barrow of concrete up a steep hill to get JLR to acknowledge it as a "major fault". I doubt you will get relief under the Australian Consumer Law. If you rely on the consumer guarantees you need to be the first owner and the relief is to replace the part or refund. Are you going to hand back your defender and have the Court adjust the damages for the new v's used status. If you go consequential damages route you will need, by engineering expert evidence, to prove that (i) the spud shaft is not fit for purpose under the ACL; (ii) that damage to the transfer and rear diff is a direct consequence of the failure. Engineering evidence doesn't come cheap. To rely on your local mechanic to write a letter will not be persuasive before the Court. In theory the transfer could be damaged by the failed spud shaft. Long bow to draw to link damage to the rear diff. Lots of parts in between those 2 points. The rear diff is another known premature failure issue because of the lacklustre Q&A at set up.

I wish you good fortune but suspect you will run out of puff (and money) before you budge JLR or persuade the Court that you are right. I also doubt you will champion the ACCC to take on your case. It's not really a cause the ACCC will prosecute on behalf of the wider consumer market. Besides, an ACCC case won't result on money in your pocket. It generally is an undertaking, a recall, public statement of apology, and in important cases, a fine.

I like Spud Shaft, it seems fitting.

I agree that it's a part that needs servicing, which is why I had the car serviced as per the Land Rover servicing schedule.

I also get that correlation in the parts failing doesn't prove causality. But on the other hand given they service the diff, gearbox and transfer case and never found a fault prior to this "spud shaft" failing, it's a good bet it's related. Regardless i would have thought both the diff and the transfer case should last more than 65000 ks of road driving.

I disagree that it's not a major fault though, it has rendered the car undrivable and not fit for purpose. It's defined under the ACCC laws as just that. No reasonable person would buy a new car thats going to be undrivable in less than 5 years.

Anyway we will see what Land Rover come back with, I'll keep it updated in case others have similar dealings and want information.

Originally Posted by MLD

They need regular greasing to minimise spline wear. Personally i think that it is a maintenance issue. Responsibility rests with the owner to properly service their car. No different to greasing UJ's, wheel bearings etc. As a part, it is fit for purpose, subject to maintenance.

How do you service a spud shaft? Isn't it inside so the tfr case would have to come out?

There are a few papers suggesting it's the misalignment of the shafts causing significant wear or fretting than the lack of lubrication.

I believe it is true, evident by the fact many pre2015 2.2 and 2.2 defenders that never had lubricant applied to the adapter shaft, have no problems.

I also think this issue stems from misalignment which would explain why some cars have a shaft fail every 20K miles and some do 100K, it just depends how the tolerances stack up between the back of the MT82, rear casing and LT230, I strongly suspect it’s also poor alignment which has caused the LT77 and R380 spline wear for years.

Quite hard to prove but not impossible, you would need to look at the drawings and work out the max theoretical run out then take a MT82/230 which gets through shafts frequently, put a DTI on the MT82 main shaft and clock up the run out on the LT230 input gear bearing diameter, I wouldn’t be surprised if many were out of tolerance !

Dave

Originally Posted by 101RRS

How do you service a spud shaft? Isn't it inside so the tfr case would have to come out?

Correct,can’t be and isn’t designed to be serviced.

Well it can be if you want to remove transfer case,etc,every so often.

A wonderfull piece of engineering by LR.many were not greased from the factory,and those that were didn’t usually last more than around 80K before they failed.

The Ashcroft set up is better.