D4 Engine types - interoperability

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoJeffster

It’s fair to say when LR only care about failures within warranty or reasonable service times (post warranty) (which if determined are reasonable are funded by LR anyway) so they know the failure rate within the parameters they care about. If an engine fails at an extended age, they don’t care TBH.

There is no reason to re-engineer anything at this stage, simply provide a new short or long engine to those who require it. You take your chances at probably sub 1% real failure rate. If you’re not paying, it’s difficult to argue more.

---

DiscoJeffster, thanks for your comprehensive commentary, particularly the SB numbers, I will have a read of these

Well Ford the builders of the engines certainly know there is an issue with the crankshaft. The 3.0 TDV6 that is going into the F trucks have larger journals. The PSA Lion 3.0 engines have main journals approx 65.98mm where the Ford F150 Lion engines have main journals at around 69.98mm so around 4mm larger - plus there are design changes in the block which is thicker. (similar to what LR did with the RV8 crankshaft on the change from the 3.9 to 4.0 engines where crankshaft journals are larger in the 4.0 even though the 3.9 and 4.0 have the same engine capacity.

So clearly PSA/LR/Ford knew of the issues of the crank in the 3.0 and took steps to remedy it for the engine to go into a US stateside product with their Lemon Laws.

Or it could be as simple as continuing product improvement and development. [emoji41]

Imagine that, a manufacturing striving to make an improved product. Oh the conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

Or it could be as simple as continuing product improvement and development. [emoji41]

Imagine that, a manufacturing striving to make an improved product. Oh the conspiracy.

---

Well maybe and it would be great if it was the case, but the F150 Lion engine has been around now for what - 2 years and as far as I know this development did not flow over to the European products - would love to be shown I am wrong but I dont think so.

Didn't someone post in the last couple of days that the 3.0 SDV6/TDV6 is getting a reprieve and is going to stay on in some LR products as a replacement for the 2 litre engine - if so, I hope this engine has the product development you mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101RRS

Well Ford the builders of the engines certainly know there is an issue with the crankshaft. The 3.0 TDV6 that is going into the F trucks have larger journals. The PSA Lion 3.0 engines have main journals approx 65.98mm where the Ford F150 Lion engines have main journals at around 69.98mm so around 4mm larger - plus there are design changes in the block which is thicker. (similar to what LR did with the RV8 crankshaft on the change from the 3.9 to 4.0 engines where crankshaft journals are larger in the 4.0 even though the 3.9 and 4.0 have the same engine capacity.

So clearly PSA/LR/Ford knew of the issues of the crank in the 3.0 and took steps to remedy it for the engine to go into a US stateside product with their Lemon Laws.

---

I see you own an E Type V12.
Noice car!
Are you aware the early V12 engines had faulty crankshafts and Jaguar had to re-engineer?
Spun bearings often, I replaced 2 in around 1974/5 and they didn't have big mileage on them.
Out of warranty and no 'real' Consumer Laws in those days!
One E Type and one XJ12 Series One.
Never found the reason as I wasn't working for a Dealership, had my own Jaguar/RR business, but heard it was probably faulty nitriding/tuftriding during manufacture.

Not heard of that. My car is the 11th RHD car made so is very early, not sure where the engine sits with that but is also a very early variant. I have not had any issues with the engine - like I have not at this stage not had any issues with my 2.7 TDV6.

I had heard of the tuff nitriding on the V12 crank breaking down but was not considered a systematic problem.

Cheers

Garry