Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 285

Thread: Why do 2.7 cranks break?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    5,780
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DazzaTD5 View Post
    Also the guy in the video reckons service good or bad has nothing to do with it.
    I think thats bull though, Ive got customers with D4 3.0lt with over 200K that have had good servicing and going faultless. I mean good as in every 10K servicing.
    deleted.
    L322 tdv8 poverty pack - wow
    Perentie 110 wagon ARN 49-107 (probably selling) turbo, p/steer, RFSV front axle/trutrack, HF, gullwing windows, double jerrys etc.
    Perentie 110 wagon ARN 48-699 another project
    Track Trailer ARN 200-117
    REMLR # 137

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    4,109
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rar110 View Post
    There was a late D4 on here that failed after the 1st service on a HW run. They seem to fail at anytime during the engine life.
    You’re conflating two issues. Late D4 is the common 3L engine issue. The 2.7 in the D4 never suffered crank failure issues or tensioner issues
    2010 TDV6 3.0L Discovery 4 HSE
    2007 Audi RS4 (B7)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    5,780
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoJeffster View Post
    You’re conflating two issues. Late D4 is the common 3L engine issue. The 2.7 in the D4 never suffered crank failure issues or tensioner issues
    thanks fixed to avoid confusing issue.
    L322 tdv8 poverty pack - wow
    Perentie 110 wagon ARN 49-107 (probably selling) turbo, p/steer, RFSV front axle/trutrack, HF, gullwing windows, double jerrys etc.
    Perentie 110 wagon ARN 48-699 another project
    Track Trailer ARN 200-117
    REMLR # 137

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gabbadah WA
    Posts
    1,438
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I often wonder if these failures are due to people remapping and chipping there engines for more power .

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    18,485
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatso View Post
    I often wonder if these failures are due to people remapping and chipping there engines for more power .
    Not likely considering the engine was available in Jags as a twin turbo with more power and torque and they did not seem to suffer crank failures.
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1976 Jaguar XJ12C
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic., Oz
    Posts
    199
    Total Downloaded
    0
    How does the 3.0 get the extra capacity (assuming it's the same base engine)? Is it bored, stroked, combo thereof?

    And is the crank the same part number on both? (Guess not if it's stroked)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisbane,some of the time.
    Posts
    13,676
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fatso View Post
    I often wonder if these failures are due to people remapping and chipping there engines for more power .
    Not many around tuned or chipped.

    Of the few that were,depending on tuner,some ocasionally cracked exhaust manifolds.
    Paul

    D2,D2,D2a,D4,'09 Defender 110(sons), all moved on.

    '56 S1,been in the family since...'56
    Comes out of hibernation every few months for a run

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,720
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skidrov View Post
    How does the 3.0 get the extra capacity (assuming it's the same base engine)? Is it bored, stroked, combo thereof?

    And is the crank the same part number on both? (Guess not if it's stroked)
    Both -
    2.7 bore x stroke 81 mm × 88 mm
    3.0
    bore x stroke 84 mm × 90 mm
    Shane
    2005 D3 TDV6 loaded to the brim with 4 kids!
    http://www.aulro.com/afvb/members-rides/220914-too-many-defender-write-ups-here-time-d3.html

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,375
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shanegtr View Post
    Both -
    2.7 bore x stroke 81 mm × 88 mm
    3.0
    bore x stroke 84 mm × 90 mm
    A poofteenth difference considering the massive power difference

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    4,109
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PerthDisco View Post
    A poofteenth difference considering the massive power difference
    An 11% capacity increase with a 28% power increase. Presume sequential turbo configuration allows for more boost via the secondary turbo/possibly larger secondary turbo that would cause lag in the 2.7 single turbo configuration. Plus the marketing department detuning the 2.7 to sell more higher spec models.
    2010 TDV6 3.0L Discovery 4 HSE
    2007 Audi RS4 (B7)

Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!