Thread: New Engine or Reconditioned Engine

Originally Posted by Discodicky

I must confess that I'm very bewildered re the comments that the 3.0 litre engine appears to be some sort of pariah when it comes to reconditioning (in most cases after a "crankshaft" failure).

I have no experience whatsoever with this engine apart from servicing mine, however looking at the Parts illustrations and from my general reading of associated literature, it seems to me that it is not a complex nor sophisticated engine by any stretch of one's imagination!

I've successfully rebuilt FORD Cosworth 4 cyl FVA/BDA/BDG engines, 1950's Bentley 6 cylinder engines which are far more complex than the FORD Disco engines, AND ( and this is my main point!) using a local Hobart engine reconditioning business to do such jobs as tunnel boring/checking, cylinder boring etc.

I fail to understand why the 3.0 engine is causing grief to Repairers.
Maybe they are not checking bearing crush which I would imagine is very important in such an engine which doesn't use bearing shell locating tabs?

Why should a Disco engine be such a problem to overhaul?

Considering the original Service Bulletins are only concerning the rotation of the bearing shells causing the oil supply to get blocked, thus in some cases causing the crankshaft to instantly seize then possibly break; surely the replacement of the c/shaft, check tunnel bore, replace bearings etc etc will suffice?

As far as I am aware there has never been any mention by LR of "bad" crankshafts. It has only been surmised and proclaimed by the Forum Experts, not by LR.

My 2013 has just clocked 173,000. In the event I draw the short straw and have an engine failure up to or around 250,000, provide the engine block doesn't get irrepairably damaged I will simply get a new crankshaft from LR, and "do" the bottom end with new pistons/rings. The heads will remain untouched as that part of the engine appears to have a good 'record'.

Or am I missing something?

I agree but just looking here and in the UK there are very few successful rebuilds done, parts seem to be available so not sure what's going on.

Originally Posted by Discodicky

I must confess that I'm very bewildered re the comments that the 3.0 litre engine appears to be some sort of pariah when it comes to reconditioning (in most cases after a "crankshaft" failure).

I have no experience whatsoever with this engine apart from servicing mine, however looking at the Parts illustrations and from my general reading of associated literature, it seems to me that it is not a complex nor sophisticated engine by any stretch of one's imagination!

I've successfully rebuilt FORD Cosworth 4 cyl FVA/BDA/BDG engines, 1950's Bentley 6 cylinder engines which are far more complex than the FORD Disco engines, AND ( and this is my main point!) using a local Hobart engine reconditioning business to do such jobs as tunnel boring/checking, cylinder boring etc.

I fail to understand why the 3.0 engine is causing grief to Repairers.
Maybe they are not checking bearing crush which I would imagine is very important in such an engine which doesn't use bearing shell locating tabs?

Why should a Disco engine be such a problem to overhaul?

Considering the original Service Bulletins are only concerning the rotation of the bearing shells causing the oil supply to get blocked, thus in some cases causing the crankshaft to instantly seize then possibly break; surely the replacement of the c/shaft, check tunnel bore, replace bearings etc etc will suffice?

As far as I am aware there has never been any mention by LR of "bad" crankshafts. It has only been surmised and proclaimed by the Forum Experts, not by LR.

My 2013 has just clocked 173,000. In the event I draw the short straw and have an engine failure up to or around 250,000, provide the engine block doesn't get irrepairably damaged I will simply get a new crankshaft from LR, and "do" the bottom end with new pistons/rings. The heads will remain untouched as that part of the engine appears to have a good 'record'.

Or am I missing something?

That crossed my mind when my top end failed in my replacement D3. Had I the time I would have like to keep the engine and try. I didn't.wonder if you might like to call and see if GW have D4 engines now? New & Reconditioned Engines Melbourne | Grant Walker Parts

It still suggests D3 only.

This site mentions D4! Jeep/Land Rover Used & Reconditioned engines, Gearboxes & Transmissions

Originally Posted by Discodicky

I must confess that I'm very bewildered re the comments that the 3.0 litre engine appears to be some sort of pariah when it comes to reconditioning (in most cases after a "crankshaft" failure).

I have no experience whatsoever with this engine apart from servicing mine, however looking at the Parts illustrations and from my general reading of associated literature, it seems to me that it is not a complex nor sophisticated engine by any stretch of one's imagination!

I've successfully rebuilt FORD Cosworth 4 cyl FVA/BDA/BDG engines, 1950's Bentley 6 cylinder engines which are far more complex than the FORD Disco engines, AND ( and this is my main point!) using a local Hobart engine reconditioning business to do such jobs as tunnel boring/checking, cylinder boring etc.

I fail to understand why the 3.0 engine is causing grief to Repairers.
Maybe they are not checking bearing crush which I would imagine is very important in such an engine which doesn't use bearing shell locating tabs?

Why should a Disco engine be such a problem to overhaul?

Considering the original Service Bulletins are only concerning the rotation of the bearing shells causing the oil supply to get blocked, thus in some cases causing the crankshaft to instantly seize then possibly break; surely the replacement of the c/shaft, check tunnel bore, replace bearings etc etc will suffice?

As far as I am aware there has never been any mention by LR of "bad" crankshafts. It has only been surmised and proclaimed by the Forum Experts, not by LR.

My 2013 has just clocked 173,000. In the event I draw the short straw and have an engine failure up to or around 250,000, provide the engine block doesn't get irrepairably damaged I will simply get a new crankshaft from LR, and "do" the bottom end with new pistons/rings. The heads will remain untouched as that part of the engine appears to have a good 'record'.

Or am I missing something?

Seems like a lot have tried. I wish you well when you do yours and if you succeed a full tutorial with pictures would be very helpful. Cheers

Originally Posted by Discodicky

As far as I am aware there has never been any mention by LR of "bad" crankshafts. It has only been surmised and proclaimed by the Forum Experts, not by LR.

Because if LR admit to a problem with the crankshafts they have just opened themselves up to all the claims for repair of the ‘faulty’ engines.

Originally Posted by kelvo

Because if LR admit to a problem with the crankshafts they have just opened themselves up to all the claims for repair of the ‘faulty’ engines.

It doesn’t matter what the reason for the engine failure. It’s still a faulty engine if it dies at an unreasonable age. That’s the key - LR feels their cars are end of life once the warranty ends.

Originally Posted by kelvo

Because if LR admit to a problem with the crankshafts they have just opened themselves up to all the claims for repair of the ‘faulty’ engines.

That's the annoying thing.
Via the two Service Bulletins that have been issued by them, LR has in fact freely admitted a problem with c/shaft bearing assembly during engine manufacture, thus regardless of any so called perceived crankshaft problem by Forum people, they have still theoretically shot themselves in the foot anyway.

That's why I don't understand as to why owners have not pursued their failures with more vigour against LRA than appears to be the case. Particularly engines with low klms under say 150,000.

BTW, I went to the Hobart dealership today and established that Genuine LR parts (brgs, crankshaft etc) are available.
I wonder if the parts from the "Indie" places where many of us purchase our parts are in fact Genuine?
Are they inferior willfit parts which don't cut the mustard for a successful rebuild?
Is this a reason why there have been apparent failures following rebuilds?

Food for thought.

Originally Posted by Discodicky

I must confess that I'm very bewildered re the comments that the 3.0 litre engine appears to be some sort of pariah when it comes to reconditioning (in most cases after a "crankshaft" failure).

I have no experience whatsoever with this engine apart from servicing mine, however looking at the Parts illustrations and from my general reading of associated literature, it seems to me that it is not a complex nor sophisticated engine by any stretch of one's imagination!

I've successfully rebuilt FORD Cosworth 4 cyl FVA/BDA/BDG engines, 1950's Bentley 6 cylinder engines which are far more complex than the FORD Disco engines, AND ( and this is my main point!) using a local Hobart engine reconditioning business to do such jobs as tunnel boring/checking, cylinder boring etc.

I fail to understand why the 3.0 engine is causing grief to Repairers.
Maybe they are not checking bearing crush which I would imagine is very important in such an engine which doesn't use bearing shell locating tabs?

Why should a Disco engine be such a problem to overhaul?

Considering the original Service Bulletins are only concerning the rotation of the bearing shells causing the oil supply to get blocked, thus in some cases causing the crankshaft to instantly seize then possibly break; surely the replacement of the c/shaft, check tunnel bore, replace bearings etc etc will suffice?

As far as I am aware there has never been any mention by LR of "bad" crankshafts. It has only been surmised and proclaimed by the Forum Experts, not by LR.

My 2013 has just clocked 173,000. In the event I draw the short straw and have an engine failure up to or around 250,000, provide the engine block doesn't get irrepairably damaged I will simply get a new crankshaft from LR, and "do" the bottom end with new pistons/rings. The heads will remain untouched as that part of the engine appears to have a good 'record'.

Or am I missing something?

Fully agree, at the end of the day it's just another ICE. They can be rebuilt, and if you know what you are doing, should not be any different than any other engine rebuild. Do your homework and source genuine or parts from reputable aftermarket vendors and / or go to a reliable engine rebuilder.

Dropping in a replacement secondary engine is just a stop gap as you don't know the service history of that unit at all. A new engine drop in would be great but is cost prohibitive and it appears that supply is limited /nil. Rebuilding with what you have means (apart from replacing the broken bits), you have everything else.

Originally Posted by Eric SDV6SE

Yes there are failures, but the actual failure rate looking at the global population of those engines is something like 0.01%..

Cant see how that figure is anywhere close to the mark,for Aus anyway,and i doubt more would fail in Aus than anywhere else?