Thread: LR4 Crankshaft Failure?

Have a read of this thread: 2.7 and 3.0 Td V6 Crankshaft Bearing Failure known manufacturing fault

LR4? Are you moving to the USA?

There are better things to worry about,a very small % actually fail.

With a good service record you should be fine.

Or go the D4 2.7l,less problematic than the SDV6,and NO reported crankshaft failures.The engine was uprated from D3.

Yes definitely go a D4 over a LR4 - much better vehicle

Gday Dave, we just purchased aD3 to add to our Landrover driveway, I suppose if we worried about all the possibilities that could go wrong we wouldn’t have vehicle at all especially a Landrover, I’m wondering how to mount the Hf aerial when/ if I get rid of D2, new colour coded bull bar goes on D3 next week , good luck with the pondering
Rob

With the D3,although they are getting on a bit,and so some issues are going to appear,a Territory engine is the go if the worse happens.

Same for D4 2.7l,but no reports of broken cranks so far with the model run,as said.

Where with the 3.0l,it is a costly exercise to replace the engine,and as these vehicles get older,they won't be worth repairing.

But like i said,the chance of it happening is remote.

Originally Posted by rapserv

Seriously looking at upgrading (if you could call it that) from a EU3 Disco 2 TD5 to a LR4 SDV6 and have a concern in the back of my mind re: crankshaft failure in this engine .. even though the possibility of it happening is fairly low .. according to Land Rover.
Just wondering if this has happened to anyone on the forum .. and if so .. how was the problem resolved and in particular .. WHO paid for the repair?

As I see it, LR have admitted it is caused by a manufacturing problem (SSM72928) and therefore anyone, under Australian law, who has suffered from the failure should be able to pursue LR for repair cost.
The fact that the vehicle may have been outside the 'warranty' period is irrelevant.
The simple 'fact' is ... the problem was a KNOWN fault BEFORE the vehicle was sold and if the failure occurs .. then the engine was 'not fit for purpose' .. or is not within the definition of 'a reasonable expectation'.

There are actually 2 x SSM's.
SSM72928 & SSM71816

I have an MY13 D4 and bought it 20 mnths ago @ 102,000 klms knowing about the c/shaft 'problems' but that didn't deter me.
If you look at various past threads concerning this matter you will see that I have said exactly the same as you.
ie, given the SSM's and known re-calls in other countries, I also believe that LRA doesn't have a leg to stand on.

A simple phone call to them (in the event of failure) will undoubtedly see you fobbed off and I reckon they'll try a fair bit to decline any wnty or pro rata wnty.
However I have a small amount of Aus Consumer Law knowledge which was drummed into us at the (Worldwide) Earth moving manufacturer where I was State Mngr for almost 30 yrs prior retirement, and I have no doubt that if LRA was pushed hard enough by a competent lawyer threatening Class Actions, bad publicity, etc, they would reconsider their position.

LRA, like any other manufacturer's representative, will try and make life difficult for anyone making such a claim in the hope of fobbing you off, however I for one would willingly spend if necessary a coupla thousand in lawyers fees if it was considered my case had a good chance of success.
There a plenty of lawyers around these days who advertise "no win no fee" service, and a half hour discussion with one would soon determine one's chances of success.

If you are that worried, why not talk to one prior purchase of a D4?

I am sure you'd need to provide adequate proof of regular servicing and maintenance etc and that is why I keep all documents of oil & filter purchases etc. I service mine religiously every 10k and use correct oil/filter which is of course mandatory.

Depending on your budget, I would recommend as late a D4 as you can manage (goes without saying! )

PS: A little known section of Aus Consumer Law concerning wntys is very interesting and it concerns your comment "fit for purpose".
For example, If you buy a new fridge with 12 months wnty, and it fails at say, 20 to 22 months, therefore 10-12 months out of wnty, if you scream hard enough AND YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE WAS NOT CAUSED BY YOU, then you should get either a new one FOC or at least a very generous pro rata wnty.

I have no doubt that 99% of fridge Retailers would be completely unaware of that part of ACL, which makes life difficult when claiming the fridge wnty, but it's necessary to persevere, just like it would be with LRA!

The reasoning behind this is the fact that we all know that fridges last 10-20 years, and thus the purchaser can have reasonable expectations that his new fridge should last that time.

Apologies for long post, but this is a very interesting subject.

Discodicky ... thanks for your reply.

I am intending on still purchasing an LR4 sometime soon ... I was just interested to hear if anyone on the forum had had a crankshaft failure.
I think a bit of 'common sense' should tell pretty much everyone that if something has failed that .. 'shouldn't' have failed .. there must be someone held to account.
I've had some 'experience' with ACL and my wife has worked for Consumer Affairs and the Supreme Court.
I've found that a LOT of people believe that once a warranty has expired .. you don't have any comeback ... but the fact is, many times you do!!
Many believe this because this is what the manufacturers & retailers WANT you to believe. Just like if you want to return a faulty item to a department store but can't find the receipt. You are NOT required to have the receipt, regardless of what the store might tell you .... THEY will have a copy of the receipt ... you just need to remember where you bought it from and when .. if at all possible.
As you say ... most of these places will try and just fob you off ... but stand your ground!!
When running my business a few years back, I took one of the worlds largest consumer electronics companies to the ACCC for breaches of the TPA and they got done like a dinner!! In Australia, we have some fairly decent consumer protection legislation ... so people should not be reluctant to take advantage of it.
In the case of LR, the fact that this is not only a known problem, but that it was known to be caused by LR's OWN manufacturing process .. and DOCUMENTED .. makes me pretty sure that a claim against LR for a damaged crankshaft would not be too difficult to prove in a court of law.
I for one would have no hesitation in proceeding should it be necessary.

Obviously, the any item in question would have to be costly enough to warrant going to court in the first place, however, even though the vehicle (in this case a secondhand LR4) may have been purchased for a relatively cheap price (due to poor LR's resale values) ... it was a VERY expensive vehicle to purchase only a few years earlier, and I'm sure a court would look at this position favorably.

Consumers need to start standing up to these 'bad' practices and use the laws that are there to protect THEM!!
Whatever product you have purchased ... you have paid out of your own pocket your own 'hard worked for' money to acquire.