Help needed - Puma tyre issue

[baden28]

Hi All,

I recently purchased a new 110 wagon on early October. Prior to delivery the dealership fitted 16x8 steel wheels with 255/85/16 tyres.

Last Friday the car broke down (4 weeks old with 3,500km on the clock). It was taken to a dealer and they assessed the problem. Apparently the left front CV joint has broken. Land Rover is now not honouring the warranty saying that the larger tyres caused the failure of the CV joint.

I am dealing with Land Rover on the warranty issue but what I need help with is how many other Defender owners run 255/85/16 tyres on their car? If you run this size tyre can you tell me how long you've had them fitted (number of kms) and have they caused any issues with your CV joints?

Also I was told that there was a service note on the vehicle regarding the checking of a driveline spine? Does anyone know what this might be reference to?

Thanks in advance,

Baden.

[justinc]

Hi, There is no way the 255/85 will break a CV UNLESS you have been giving it extreme tharshing on hard surfaces on full lock, that would possibly break one with the standard size tyre too by the way.
Why did they fit such a large tyre anyway?

I have the same CV's and the same tyres AND a hell of a lot more torque AND they have done over 300,000km still OK.

In fact, I would go one step FURTHER and say that the reduced turning circle on the Puma is HELPING the longevity of the CV, NOT making it prone to failure, so if anything YOUR vehicle would have less stress than the earlier models. They are talking rubbish.

I would push this, it is highly unlikely the joint failed due to the tyres. More likely poor quality component, OR assembly (IE No grease in housing:().

JC

[popemobile]

I assume the service reference to checking a drive line spline was in relation to your vehicle. If so I would better considerable amounts of money that the failure was with the inner CV spline. Not the CV part of the CV (if that makes any sense) if i could show you the parts.....

If your vehicle is the same in CVs as mine (mine is a 96 defender) which i believe it is save for some ABS groves on the outer CV bell, then like all Defenders and Discos post 1994 you have the silly 32 spline inner CVs. It is not the spline count that is the problem but the fact that it is considerably smaller in dia than any of the other axle splines in the drive train. I think rover used them as a safety fuse as they are relatively cheap and an experienced mechanic can replace them in about an hr at the side of the road with minimal tools......

The solution is to upgrade to county style CVs and custom inner axles. Makes it all pretty bullet proof. U need AEU2522 CVs,The cheapest ones ive seen recently are actually on ebay for $96 each. some special bushes for the fitment of these into your stub axles Hi Tuff Outer flanges and upgrade inner axles. This upgrades your full front end to County CVs with 23spline inner CV spline but much bigger dia. This will set u back about $1000 plus labour if you chase around. But this should be bullet proof with 255x85x16.

To answer your other question, I run 255x85x16s, did 25000km with no dramas on a vehicle with 450,000 on the clock and original front CVs same as yours. Have upgraded now to county CVs.

Im not surprised your CV broke as they are a weak point and need the upgrade. But then i gave mine a caning for all those KMs and no probs. Many people have broken them though. The upgrade is well researched and developed and the best (but not always cheapest supplier) is the current manufacturer of maxidrive upgrade axles M.R. Automotive (07) 3284 6688
They have other state branches too i think....

Good luck with it all, personally I would be pulling pretty cranky faces at the local dealers counter and reminding him that 900 16s were a quoted potential fitment for old LWB series vehicles and they had weaker axles than yours. Plus, they fitted them. And if yours is like mine the speedo and odometer only reads right with 255x85s on!! :)

[Scouse]

Plus, they fitted them. That's the bit that's killed it for the dealer.

Someone's going to pay for the repair & I don't think it will be LR or you.

[frantic]

Either LR fix it or the dealer fixes it but when they agree( BUT NOT BEFORE!!) to repair it ask the price of the parts and get the cost from MR(for maxi/hytuff) or LRA-Les Richmond Auto(KAM or ashcroft cv's) for the same and then offer to pay the difference in parts cost to have the hytuff/kam cv's fitted.They are going to be paying the labour regardless and if the LR part is 2/3 the cost of the better aftermarket ones you might as welldo the job right once and not have to re-do it several times.;)

[slug_burner]

If the joint is dry you will have your answer. However you will never know if they take it apart.

[baden28]

Thanks for the replies. The car is now at an engineers to get an independent report on what caused the failure. It was actually the cage holding the balls in the CV joint that broke. Once I get the report (I expect it to confirm it was either a faulty part or that a lack of grease caused the failure) I will be going back to LR Aust and suggesting they fix the problem under the statutory warranties they must adhere to. If not then its off to court we go.

Will let you know how it goes. Would still be interested in anyone else running 255/85/16s.

[PAT303]

I've been running 255's for years and so has many others,as JC said unless you try and break one the tyres won't cause a problem.New car,faulty part. Pat

[baden28]

Thanks for your responses. The engineer's report showed that the reason for the CV failing was not tyres or faulty part but that the CV joint wasn't properly lubricated (obvious when you see the CV cage and the damage). This caused heat damage to the CV cage through friction which ultimately led the the cage breaking in 6 places.

I provided this report to LRA and they have agreed to fix the car under warranty.

Whilst a good outcome in the end it really annoys me that the initial answer was no. LRA made no attempt to find out why the CV failed saying that because the car has non-standard tyres fitted the manufacturer's warranty was void. PLEASE NOTE: this is only true if they can demonstrate that they non-standard accessory/modification caused the fault. Even if the manufacturer's warranty is voided there are still statutory warranties regarding being fit for purpose and of merchantable quality under the State's Sale of Goods Act (or Fair Trading Act depending on your State/Territory). Its a pity that it took getting an independent engineer's report for them to accept liability for this issue.

Hopefully after this I'll have no more problems with the car (fingers crossed).

[trobbo]

I hope they have paid for the engineers report too

[baden28]

I paid for the engineer's report but getting LRA to pay for that and the additional tow from LR Canberra to the engineers is round two (although I expect that will also be a positive outcome - they seem a little gun0shy after the warranty issue).

[Naks]

Jeeez, and I thought the South African stealers were bad :mad:

[spudboy]

This is a recurring theme with dealers. If something is not stock, they will immediately use this as an excuse to avoid the warranty claim.

It would have been nice if they instead said "we'll see what it is when we dismantle it...." instead of immediately ruling that the tyres caused the problem.

My Puma runs out of warranty tomorrow, so now I am on my own :eek:

[justinc]

There you go, ANOTHER one with poor assembly and delivery QC.

Have seen a few other prblems in the same vein, very dissappointing in a $60K vehicle:mad::mad::mad:

Come ON LRA; get with the program!!!!!!!!!:mad:


JC