Thread: Now we wait as well!

0.02 x 0.02 = 0.0004 eg 4 in ten thousand. It’s unlikely lightning will strike twice to one individual, but obviously odds are just that.

Originally Posted by DiscoJeffster

0.02 x 0.02 = 0.0004 eg 4 in ten thousand. It’s unlikely lightning will strike twice to one individual, but obviously odds are just that.

Ok, my math is bad. I'm still traumatised by my forced study of statistics!

Interesting comments from all.

My issue with JLR is that they seem totally unwilling to acknowledge and address the issue and find the situation acceptable. Be a pretty sad state of affairs if all motor companies behaved the same way when it came to major issues. I’d like to think Toyota, with their continuous improvement to philosophy, would do something. Maybe I’m naive, but I had a mate who worked at Toyota in Japan for a while and he was categorical that they tried to make the best vehicles possible.

Originally Posted by nixo

Interesting comments from all.

My issue with JLR is that they seem totally unwilling to acknowledge and address the issue and find the situation acceptable. Be a pretty sad state of affairs if all motor companies behaved the same way when it came to major issues. I’d like to think Toyota, with their continuous improvement to philosophy, would do something. Maybe I’m naive, but I had a mate who worked at Toyota in Japan for a while and he was categorical that they tried to make the best vehicles possible.

Long gone methodology.

They now build to price like all of them.

The situation is acceptable, and Toyota has an accepted failure rate also. It’s impossible not to.

LR handle the situation whilst in (and just outside) warranty very well - which is their required commitment.
Try a Toyosan claim and see how many hoops they make you jump through.

Originally Posted by Art

So if D4 motor failure is estimated at 2% or .02 then 2 in a row should be statistically be .004%? or 4 in a thousand?

I think i posted about this before, if you consider the total amoumt of 2.7 l v6 engines and their derivatives produced by PSA, then look at only those fitted to LR's and then the estimated number of failures, the failure rate is around 0.05 to 0.1%.

Not ideal for the poor owner who suffers an engine failure, but seen from a mass produced, complex machinery point of view, a totally acceptable "out of spec" tolerance range.

Plus add to this the unknowns such as ab(use) in terms of heavy towing, extended oil service intervals (beyond even the LR 12months/24000km, then it is then in my view still commendable from LR to come to the party in some cases with covering some or all of the costs. Try getting that from any of the Japanese mo With an out of warranty vehicle.

My personal view is that the crank failures are a combination of too long service intervals specified, possible material defects (crank forgings/castings and main bearings, i.e. a "bad batch" ) from PSA's sub suppliers and assembly deficiencies (say production line hydraulic torque wrench out of calibration?)

If it truly was a design defect (i agree the missing tangs on the main bearing shells is not ideal, but this design is used in many other engine configurations) then we would be seeing many, many more failures.


All we can do is keep up the fresh, quality oil to these engines, service every 10000km or less and regularly check oil levels (no, there is no dipstick, thats a whole other can o'worms).

Just my 2c worth.

Originally Posted by Eric SDV6SE

I think i posted about this before, if you consider the total amoumt of 2.7 l v6 engines and their derivatives produced by PSA, then look at only those fitted to LR's and then the estimated number of failures, the failure rate is around 0.05 to 0.1%.

Not ideal for the poor owner who suffers an engine failure, but seen from a mass produced, complex machinery point of view, a totally acceptable "out of spec" tolerance range.

Plus add to this the unknowns such as ab(use) in terms of heavy towing, extended oil service intervals (beyond even the LR 12months/24000km, then it is then in my view still commendable from LR to come to the party in some cases with covering some or all of the costs. Try getting that from any of the Japanese mo With an out of warranty vehicle.

My personal view is that the crank failures are a combination of too long service intervals specified, possible material defects (crank forgings/castings and main bearings, i.e. a "bad batch" ) from PSA's sub suppliers and assembly deficiencies (say production line hydraulic torque wrench out of calibration?)

If it truly was a design defect (i agree the missing tangs on the main bearing shells is not ideal, but this design is used in many other engine configurations) then we would be seeing many, many more failures.


All we can do is keep up the fresh, quality oil to these engines, service every 10000km or less and regularly check oil levels (no, there is no dipstick, thats a whole other can o'worms).

Just my 2c worth.

Yeah I agree. My Disco 4 only had 2 owners including me. It was in perfect order when I bought it just over 1 year before the motor failed. I doubt the previous owner had done any 4dw or towing before I got it. The service schedule was up to date and only 60k on the clock.
I only had 3 or 4 trips beach camping with no heavy towing, before the crank let go with no warning. So I doubt the abuse hypothesis.
But JLR did provide a new long motor and I paid only for fitting for a 6 year old vehicle. I thought that that was pretty good given it was way out of warranty.
I will now be super conservative with all future services. No more than 10k between oil changes and major service yearly. I can't see why I can't now 300k from this new engine now if I baby it!

No engine has ever liked being babied! Right foot down!!

Originally Posted by Art

Hmmm....? I wonder what the probability is of my new engine failing again given the first died at 60k?

2 in a 100