Thread: Why do 2.7 cranks break?

Originally Posted by josh.huber

However, back to the start of the post. For the reasons above I agree with daza td5 . Quality control has lead us to this conversation.. maybe Ford knew which cranks to send where..I mean. They sell more Ford's then LR, why not keep the good ones?

And the 2.7 D4?

Same spec as Territory,just coincidence they were same run of engines,maybe?

The Territory typically weighs 400-500kg less than the Discovery 4 and depending on if it is a 2WD or AWD has a towing capacity of only 2300kg or 2700kg.

The typical duty load cycle will be higher in the Discovery which would put the motor under more stress cycles.

Originally Posted by scarry

And the 2.7 D4?

Same spec as Territory,just coincidence they were same run of engines,maybe?

Has anyone been able to determine whether the cranks interchangeable?

Originally Posted by scarry

And the 2.7 D4?

Same spec as Territory,just coincidence they were same run of engines,maybe?

It was my understanding that the 2.7L D4 had proven itself to be the best of the bunch. The 3.0L cranks break, but the 2.7L don't, they just have bottom end failures from oil filter mishaps and top end failures from the tensioner breaking?

Originally Posted by Hoges

I "thought" I read somewhere that while the engine is from PSA, LR specified their own crankshaft design to be incorporated into JLR-specific engines. Ford reviewed the JLR crankshaft design, determined it wasn't optimal for their purposes and made several changes (not specified) to the crank design intended for Ford products... I've tried to find the reference but as stated elsewhere, my forgettery is better than my memory these days!

It is a Ford engine developed in a partnership between Ford UK and the PSA group for their subsidiaries so it could be used across multiple applications including Jaguar, Land Rover, Peugeot, and Citroen. Ford itself was a late adopter in using the engine for the Territory and later F-150.

The original design work was based out of PSA’s engineering centre in Paris, but then the engine was engineered and assembled at Ford’s Dagenham engine plant in the UK, and so recognised as being a Ford engine.

LR’s input was to modify the sump and oil pick up to suit off road use, plus dropped to single turbo and mildly de-tuned for better bottom end torque. Interestingly LR wanted it to be a 3L, whilst Peugeot wanted a 2.5L - so we ended up with 2.7L as a compromise.

By the time Ford Australia used the engine in the Territory, early issues with the 2.7L such as the weak oil pump housing had already been fixed and upgraded by Ford UK.

Ford US did not consider the motor heavy duty enough and so redesigned the 3L version of the engine for the F-150 series. Mods included a new crank. Time will tell if Ford have been successful with these mods.

Originally Posted by 350RRC

And off road?

(Not having a dig), DL

offroad = awesome, very nimble.

Originally Posted by gavinwibrow

Dazza took my prior D4 2.7 into the hills near Kalamunda some time ago and was pleasantly surprised by the performance. I'll leave him to comment further if he chooses

Unfortunately it wasnt the first D3 / D4 I've taken along my "test route" over the years and they all performed well better than other archaic 4x4s.
The only ones that know are the owners of the said problematic vehicle.

You will find that the D4 2.7 and the Territory 2.7 were made on the same production line.
There are parts on the Territory 2.7 that have a Land Rover logo and part number.
What is likely is all engines were the same and tagged on the line as for "Ford Australia" "Land Rover" etc etc to facilitate assembly differences as sumps, electrical harness etc etc