Printable View
From the article it seems whilst the rotating parts may be interchangeable, it sounds like the engine block and emissions controls are different so unlikely to be a bolt in replacement.
It does read though that the JLR engines received the new crank from 2018 on.
Reading between the lines it is as if Ford (US) never considered the engine in its previous form as being suitable for heavy duty 4WD’s.
I understood that the block is unchanged but perhaps not entirely, but at least the improved crank is now in the engine used by JLR. There was no indication that the conrods and therefore bearings have been adopted by the JLR engine though, noting that the pistons are different but perhaps only in the shape of the top.
Who was it saying that the diesel is dead?
Seems pretty much alive to me with the investment that Ford has made.
Regards PhilipA.
Dreamers,even LR have said that EV won't suit most of their products.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Thanks Graeme, any idea what year LR started to fit the updated tdv6, MY2020?Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme
I have no knowledge other than what I read in the linked article which is dated May 2019.
I don’t even think LR can answer this one. I am sure Ford would have run out any old parts to their customers (competitors) and saved the good stuff for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by rar110
Ford learn’t the trick of mixing and matching different machined parts to address quality control issues decades ago, and I am sure when they realised there was a design/manufacturing issue with the TDV6 crank that the better quality cranks went to Ford. And this could have been happening even with the engines made for the Ford Territory before they made design changes for the F-150.
There will be a lot more to this story than what we will probably ever find out but you do have to wonder if the real issue was with Ford or with JLR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoDB
or more likely the PSA Group...
PS..the most credible answer is that of the many contracted crank makers one poss in France produced a batch of cranks not correctly hardened which went into LR cars. The resulting soft metal to soft metal bearing interface eventually leads to siezing and torsional crank failure. This info came from a LR dealer on enquiry re an F150 owner worried about engine reliability and was assured the crank issue is resolved.
Everyone was responsible but no one is accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by INter674
The other credible theory is an incorrect radius undercut between #2 big end and #2 main which created the weak point, and then a vibration induced fatigue failure results in the crank snapping. The shallow undercut is the pre-existing condition but it then takes a contributing action to bring on the failure.
The same design/manufacturing flaw carried over from the 2.7 to the 3.0 even though the crank was different.
Replacement cranks also come with more thrust washers...so I've read which suggests an end float issue.
Either way the simple answer may just be under design for a car with such weight plus power/torque too high for the crank.
We'll probably never know the truth😐