Broken Crankshaft - a possible contributing reason?

[gavinwibrow]

Was talking to a knowledgeable old bloke over the weekend, who said he'd read an English article which provided a possible reason for the dreaded break.

The article said that there is a correlation between snorkels that have the water drain siliconed up and snapped crankshafts (and resultant water in the oil).
They say that the water collects in the snorkel until it overflows into the intake and bang!

I have no idea if its true or not, but at least it sounds plausible.

For what its worth, and my snorkel is not siliconed.

[SeanC]

I think what he is saying is that some people who run snorkels and do deep water crossings silicone up the drain hole in the air filter box. Much better idea is to have a removable plug that you insert only when doing a water crossing.

I really doubt that would be the reason though.

[gavinwibrow]

I think what he is saying is that some people who run snorkels and do deep water crossings silicone up the drain hole in the air filter box. Much better idea is to have a removable plug that you insert only when doing a water crossing.

I really doubt that would be the reason though.

I got the impression he was thinking more about bits of rain entering and gradually filling over time, but never having seen the inside of a snorkel, I can't comment apart from what I was told. I would also have thought that given the assumed smallish amount normally involved, most would evaporate away in other than frequent/continuous rain scenarios.
Of course there are effectively 2 elbows, one at the bottom of the entry point and another at the front mudguard where it turns into the engine, then you have the air filter et al after that.

[Eric SDV6SE]

I think you have more risk of breaking the crank from long service intervals, incorrect oil being used and driving away as soon as you start the engine (not letting it warm up a bit and stabilising oil pressures) A little bit of water vapour or mist in the intake will get atomised in the compression stroke, the tortured path to get to the combustion chamber should also deter any water ingress. Frequent deep water crossings and an unsealed snorkel would see you hydraulicing the engine, but then you've got more than just a crank to worry about.

[loanrangie]

Not a chance, Eric has got it covered apart from quality control issues. If you look at all the vehicles that the crank failed you will see that very few have any accessories fitted let alone a snorkel or do any river crossings. A friends 2013 D4 had about 160k on the clock, never been offroad or done any heavy towing,no accessories , fully serviced by the book and still failed.

[scarry]

There is more chance it is poorly designed, badly engineered,or poor quality control or all of the above that causes the failures.

So no matter whether the engine is well serviced,looked after, or flogged,it is unfortunately, still going to fail.

FWIW,apparently,and this is from an LR tech,there is a class action about the LR Ingenium 4 cyl engine failures.

[discorevy]

Was talking to a knowledgeable old bloke over the weekend, who said he'd read an English article which provided a possible reason for the dreaded break.

They say that the water collects in the snorkel until it overflows into the intake and bang!

I have no idea if its true or not, but at least it sounds plausible.


As covered by others, when too much water enters the intake, the resulting damage in engines with proper crankshafts is hydraulic lock, usually bending conrods.

There may be a fair chance of it also breaking the crank on these engines simply because it's a weak point.

Ford/Psa have never been renowned for great QC, but if they had just built in some structural redundancy a lot of the pain caused by failures may have been avoided.

[Eric SDV6SE]

...fully serviced by the book and still failed.

That sums it up. The LR service interval is a joke on those engines.

[BradC]

Even cars serviced at half that die, so it's not all about service intervals.

[Tins]

That one that was on LR Time had only done 64K. Hard to see how service intervals were a factor there.

[veebs]

Lots of views and theories, without anything definitive,

I think it’s a combination of manufacturing and the duty cycle on these engines. In other cars the same engine doesn’t work half as hard - in a disco, it’s a heavy chassis, can be loaded or towing etc.

Suddenly, the manufacturing tolerances aren’t good enough, and you get random snaps from cranks that sit towards the edge, but not outside that tolerance range.

[scarry]

Lots of views and theories, without anything definitive,

I think it’s a combination of manufacturing and the duty cycle on these engines. In other cars the same engine doesn’t work half as hard - in a disco, it’s a heavy chassis, can be loaded or towing etc.

Suddenly, the manufacturing tolerances aren’t good enough, and you get random snaps from cranks that sit towards the edge, but not outside that tolerance range.

So one would think all the "tuned" engines would be failing,but that seems not to be the case.Exhaust manifolds can crack,but the engines don't seem to fail.
And the ones that tow would be failing.

There is no difinitive reason why some fail,it is probably a combination of factors as i said in me previous post.Poor QC,poor design and engineering

Although LR and Ford would know exactly what the problem is,but they won't be telling anyone.

I am surprised the manufacturer has got away with the issue,surely at least a class action would be appropriate.

Continuing to sell vehicles for decades with known problematic engines, one would think could line the pockets of those in the legal fraternity.

[veebs]

I don't think QC is a problem - lots of these cars are running just fine, and this engine works well in other vehicles too

QC will have a tolerance to work within. For example, the crank may have X amount of graphite in it, +/- a permitted variance. In these cars, where the crank sits too close to one end, it might be at higher risk, but still needs environmental conditions to actually snap. (Like towing, tuning, heavy foot, light foot, hilly roads, fast roads, hot climate, cold climate, etc etc etc)

Ultimately, I'm guessing as much as any keyboard warrior. As you say, only Ford / LR will be in a position to know more, though given their silence around this whole thing, I wonder if they are guessing as much as we are?

Or, they know that inaction plus risk of a class action is still cheaper than a global recall...

[Discodicky]

As we all know, it is very weird as there seems to be no definitive reason. They'll break at vastly differing klms. Whilst staying at the Sydney (Miranda) Caravan Park a few weeks ago, the CP owner ( I assume he was the owner or manager as he was behind the desk) has a 2011 D4 with the 3.0 litre/6 speed and travels from his home at the Gold Coast down to the CP every fortnight to stay for four days then returns to the GC.

Car has 340,xxx klms and going strong. Has regular servicing around 10,000 klm and has replaced the inlet manifolds/water manifold and updated auto pan but nothing else.
Loves the car as it so comfortable for the long journey.