Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 76

Thread: Are OZ disco 5 suffering from fuel in oil and early service warning issus?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    22
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mac_and_Cheese View Post
    Reading that service notice it seems to only affect the 6 Cylinders, does anyone know if this is also affecting the 4 pots?

    Cheers, Tom
    Yes I spoke to the service technician and a salesman at my dealership this morning and it is affecting 4 cylinders as well.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    35
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by meremortal View Post
    Yes I spoke to the service technician and a salesman at my dealership this morning and it is affecting 4 cylinders as well.
    Damn, thanks mate

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,829
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Engine Oil Diluted With Fuel (the facts for 2018) - YouTube
    Maybe usage is the cause. Just like DPF it needs a good run often!
    2014 SDV6 HSE - LLAMS, Custom Drawer storage system https://www.box.com/s/jem0ilac3cner2mexq64

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shanegtr View Post
    DPF's are a side effect of increasing emission targets/specs so at this stage without further technology thats what we are stuck with if you want a new diesel vehicle. So really LR is no worse off than everyone else using a DPF. However in my first video I posted there are better ways to activate a regen cycle by using a differential pressure on the DPF and the extra fuel doesnt have to be injected into the cylinders (its jsut conveniant as they are already there), would eliminate unnessasary injection of extra diesel into the engine.
    From what I've seen, most cars with DPF mainly just have a blocked DPF warning, not an oil dilution warning - so I'll bet theres a few diesel engines out there that may very well have similar issues, however the owners may have no idea its going on. As the disco warning seems to me to be a calculated warning then you really have no idea if the actual dilution rates are more or less then the specified 6.1% without testing the oil. But yes left unchecked it will have detrimental effects on engine life, however it seems LR has done something to mitigate that somewhat.
    I have been actively involved in this issue in the UK and you'll find hundreds of my posts on the discosportforums.co.uk website. Working with other forum members and using information gained directly from company engineers, JLR executive office letters, presentations on the soot-burning performance of the selective catalytic reduction filter coatings from Johnson Matthey and other sources we produced a working theory as to why the DS is worse in this regard than other diesels. The findings were then independently checked and confirmed by DEKRA and a popular motoring column in the Daily Telegraph and they confirmed that this is the issue:

    * A diesel oxidation catalyst positioned in-line about 12-15 inches after the turbo outlet is too cold in normal driving to effect any passive reduction whatsoever.
    * The three-way SCRF now collects practically all the soot and needs an active regeneration every 200-250 miles (sometimes less).
    * The SCRF is so far back (after the DEF injection and about 36 inches from the turbo outlet) that it takes a minimum of 10 minutes of post injection to get up to the 580-600 degrees required for soot burning to start.
    * The SCRF must be kept at this temperature for a further 20-30 minutes to complete the burn of a full soot load (36%).
    * A new definition of "Normal driving" from JLR (to avoid clogging the DPF) is journeys of minimum 15 to 30 minutes at a speed of between 31 and 62 mph including "some journeys of one hour".
    * A blast up the motorway will not clear the SCRF because its too far back.
    * The oil dilution is a direct consequence of the higher than expected active regeneration activity caused by absence of passive regeneration.
    * 70% of all vehicles in a survey required an oil change before 12,600 miles due to oil dilution.

    Looking at the exhaust layout for the TDV6 you have the same loosely-coupled DOC-DEF-SCRF configuration as in the 2.0 litre DS and Evoque. It might be instructive to look at the work that's been done on the DS then compare the hardware and architecture there to that of the D5 to assess whether the reason for the early service due to oil dilution is likely to be the same. The problem is present in all the transverse-mounted engines with this exhaust layout but (in the UK at least) so far it has NOT been reported on the in-line 2.0 litre D5 where the engine is mounted in-line.

    I described this problem in my rejection letter to JLR and said that from my perspective this issue rendered the vehicle "not of satisfactory quality" and "not as described" in the brochure. In the UK there is legislation granting a right to reject faulty goods in these circumstances and I had no hesitation in using it to get out of a potentially very expensive situation. The number of secondary failures is what worried me the most; at the time of the rejection the vehicle had done less than 10,000 miles and needed £4,000 worth of work to change the whole SCRF, the LP EGR valve and the LP EGR heat exchanger.

    The company still refuses to acknowledge the problem but most people with any degree of technical understanding are now quite satisfied that the above description adequately explains Stuart Woodcock's use of the words "hardware and architecture differences" between this layout and that to be found in the XE/XF which was the basis of his comparison. There is much more to be explained about WHY this happened but much of this is still speculation at present.

    Best regards

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    1,718
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by verydiscosport View Post
    I have been actively involved in this issue in the UK and you'll find hundreds of my posts on the discosportforums.co.uk website. Working with other forum members and using information gained directly from company engineers, JLR executive office letters, presentations on the soot-burning performance of the selective catalytic reduction filter coatings from Johnson Matthey and other sources we produced a working theory as to why the DS is worse in this regard than other diesels. The findings were then independently checked and confirmed by DEKRA and a popular motoring column in the Daily Telegraph and they confirmed that this is the issue:

    * A diesel oxidation catalyst positioned in-line about 12-15 inches after the turbo outlet is too cold in normal driving to effect any passive reduction whatsoever.
    * The three-way SCRF now collects practically all the soot and needs an active regeneration every 200-250 miles (sometimes less).
    * The SCRF is so far back (after the DEF injection and about 36 inches from the turbo outlet) that it takes a minimum of 10 minutes of post injection to get up to the 580-600 degrees required for soot burning to start.
    * The SCRF must be kept at this temperature for a further 20-30 minutes to complete the burn of a full soot load (36%).
    * A new definition of "Normal driving" from JLR (to avoid clogging the DPF) is journeys of minimum 15 to 30 minutes at a speed of between 31 and 62 mph including "some journeys of one hour".
    * A blast up the motorway will not clear the SCRF because its too far back.
    * The oil dilution is a direct consequence of the higher than expected active regeneration activity caused by absence of passive regeneration.
    * 70% of all vehicles in a survey required an oil change before 12,600 miles due to oil dilution.

    Looking at the exhaust layout for the TDV6 you have the same loosely-coupled DOC-DEF-SCRF configuration as in the 2.0 litre DS and Evoque. It might be instructive to look at the work that's been done on the DS then compare the hardware and architecture there to that of the D5 to assess whether the reason for the early service due to oil dilution is likely to be the same. The problem is present in all the transverse-mounted engines with this exhaust layout but (in the UK at least) so far it has NOT been reported on the in-line 2.0 litre D5 where the engine is mounted in-line.

    I described this problem in my rejection letter to JLR and said that from my perspective this issue rendered the vehicle "not of satisfactory quality" and "not as described" in the brochure. In the UK there is legislation granting a right to reject faulty goods in these circumstances and I had no hesitation in using it to get out of a potentially very expensive situation. The number of secondary failures is what worried me the most; at the time of the rejection the vehicle had done less than 10,000 miles and needed £4,000 worth of work to change the whole SCRF, the LP EGR valve and the LP EGR heat exchanger.

    The company still refuses to acknowledge the problem but most people with any degree of technical understanding are now quite satisfied that the above description adequately explains Stuart Woodcock's use of the words "hardware and architecture differences" between this layout and that to be found in the XE/XF which was the basis of his comparison. There is much more to be explained about WHY this happened but much of this is still speculation at present.

    Best regards
    Thanks for that write up, throws a bit more vehicle specific information at the current issue.
    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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,279
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Thanks for that.

  7. #37
    Celtoid is offline ChatterBox Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, QLD, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by verydiscosport View Post
    I have been actively involved in this issue in the UK and you'll find hundreds of my posts on the discosportforums.co.uk website. Working with other forum members and using information gained directly from company engineers, JLR executive office letters, presentations on the soot-burning performance of the selective catalytic reduction filter coatings from Johnson Matthey and other sources we produced a working theory as to why the DS is worse in this regard than other diesels. The findings were then independently checked and confirmed by DEKRA and a popular motoring column in the Daily Telegraph and they confirmed that this is the issue:

    * A diesel oxidation catalyst positioned in-line about 12-15 inches after the turbo outlet is too cold in normal driving to effect any passive reduction whatsoever.
    * The three-way SCRF now collects practically all the soot and needs an active regeneration every 200-250 miles (sometimes less).
    * The SCRF is so far back (after the DEF injection and about 36 inches from the turbo outlet) that it takes a minimum of 10 minutes of post injection to get up to the 580-600 degrees required for soot burning to start.
    * The SCRF must be kept at this temperature for a further 20-30 minutes to complete the burn of a full soot load (36%).
    * A new definition of "Normal driving" from JLR (to avoid clogging the DPF) is journeys of minimum 15 to 30 minutes at a speed of between 31 and 62 mph including "some journeys of one hour".
    * A blast up the motorway will not clear the SCRF because its too far back.
    * The oil dilution is a direct consequence of the higher than expected active regeneration activity caused by absence of passive regeneration.
    * 70% of all vehicles in a survey required an oil change before 12,600 miles due to oil dilution.

    Looking at the exhaust layout for the TDV6 you have the same loosely-coupled DOC-DEF-SCRF configuration as in the 2.0 litre DS and Evoque. It might be instructive to look at the work that's been done on the DS then compare the hardware and architecture there to that of the D5 to assess whether the reason for the early service due to oil dilution is likely to be the same. The problem is present in all the transverse-mounted engines with this exhaust layout but (in the UK at least) so far it has NOT been reported on the in-line 2.0 litre D5 where the engine is mounted in-line.

    I described this problem in my rejection letter to JLR and said that from my perspective this issue rendered the vehicle "not of satisfactory quality" and "not as described" in the brochure. In the UK there is legislation granting a right to reject faulty goods in these circumstances and I had no hesitation in using it to get out of a potentially very expensive situation. The number of secondary failures is what worried me the most; at the time of the rejection the vehicle had done less than 10,000 miles and needed £4,000 worth of work to change the whole SCRF, the LP EGR valve and the LP EGR heat exchanger.

    The company still refuses to acknowledge the problem but most people with any degree of technical understanding are now quite satisfied that the above description adequately explains Stuart Woodcock's use of the words "hardware and architecture differences" between this layout and that to be found in the XE/XF which was the basis of his comparison. There is much more to be explained about WHY this happened but much of this is still speculation at present.

    Best regards
    Hi,

    Thanks for that info.

    Are you saying the set-up is once again the issue causing failures that do not occur on same or similar components in other vehicles (Jaguars)?

    Don't quote me as my input is heresy through forums but I owned one of the first D4s in Australia and they had all sorts of issues with 'blown' turbos.....which was bemusing since similar equipment had been used in other JLR products without issue. Turns out the four 'off-chassis experiences' I had ....and thousands of other D4 owners had, was in fact, not the turbos at all. It was something to do with the set-up on the V6 Twin Turbo specific to the D4. Is this history repeating itself?

    In the end the problem really was very minor but was exacerbated by a complete lack of knowledge in Australia of the car that was being sold and supported. It was a common issue around all the niggly concerns I had with my car....JLR in Australia, just didn't have the experience, the training or the parts.

    In time nothing was really that wrong with the car and once the knowledge base improved and spares availability got up to speed (now surpassing most brands) it was an awesome machine to own .... DPF worked fine too :-)

    D4 number 2 has been flawless.... :-)

    It's very disappointing that lessons maybe getting relearned, but for this OP and others with concerns, if the trend stays the same the issues will get worked out as the things I've experienced before get addressed.

    Fingers crossed guys :-)

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Celtoid View Post
    Hi,

    Thanks for that info.

    Are you saying the set-up is once again the issue causing failures that do not occur on same or similar components in other vehicles (Jaguars)?
    In JLRP00100 the "hardware and architecture" comparison is made between XE/XF (in-line Ingenium) on the one hand and DS, Evoque, D5, RR and RRS transverse diesels on the other. The XF uses a close-coupled DPF which gets very hot due to its proximity to the engine so that passive regeneration works properly, then active regeneration is quick and effective when required to empty the filter. The explanation I gave above is believed to be valid for the Evoque and DS 2.0L diesels with the transverse Ingenium engine only and needs some refinement for the D5.

    The reason is that the 3.0L V6 exhaust architecture on the D5 is not the same as on the smaller SUVs. The components on the DS/Evo (backwards from the engine) are DOC-DEF-SCRF, the engine manual for the D5 TDV6 indicates that it has CAT-DPF-DEF-SCR. The DPF is still a considerable distance back from the hot turbo outlet so the narrative account in the SCN still applies, but the remainder of our understanding (the "how", as opposed to the "what") comes from confidential comments reportedly made by a JLR engineer in the context of the DS and Evoque. His comments don't necessarily shed any more light on problems with the bigger vehicles. Here's the architecture of the D5 TDV6 3.0L exhaust next to that of the Discovery Sport - on the latter 17.50.01 is the DOC (oxidation catalyst) and 17.50.20 is the SCRF (for the uninitiated this is a combined 3-way selective catalytic reducer on filter device (SCRoF)).





    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Balancer Shaft Whine and other Ingenium 2.0D Problems

    SSM73697 - Discovery Sport Forums
    N128 January 2018 - Discovery Sport Forums
    N025v4 - Discovery Sport Forums
    N118 - Discovery Sport Forums

    Links to recent JLR publications providing more on the Ingenium 2.0 L diesel problems.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    22
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by verydiscosport View Post
    I have been actively involved in this issue in the UK and you'll find hundreds of my posts on the discosportforums.co.uk website. Working with other forum members and using information gained directly from company engineers, JLR executive office letters, presentations on the soot-burning performance of the selective catalytic reduction filter coatings from Johnson Matthey and other sources we produced a working theory as to why the DS is worse in this regard than other diesels. The findings were then independently checked and confirmed by DEKRA and a popular motoring column in the Daily Telegraph and they confirmed that this is the issue:

    * A diesel oxidation catalyst positioned in-line about 12-15 inches after the turbo outlet is too cold in normal driving to effect any passive reduction whatsoever.
    * The three-way SCRF now collects practically all the soot and needs an active regeneration every 200-250 miles (sometimes less).
    * The SCRF is so far back (after the DEF injection and about 36 inches from the turbo outlet) that it takes a minimum of 10 minutes of post injection to get up to the 580-600 degrees required for soot burning to start.
    * The SCRF must be kept at this temperature for a further 20-30 minutes to complete the burn of a full soot load (36%).
    * A new definition of "Normal driving" from JLR (to avoid clogging the DPF) is journeys of minimum 15 to 30 minutes at a speed of between 31 and 62 mph including "some journeys of one hour".
    * A blast up the motorway will not clear the SCRF because its too far back.
    * The oil dilution is a direct consequence of the higher than expected active regeneration activity caused by absence of passive regeneration.
    * 70% of all vehicles in a survey required an oil change before 12,600 miles due to oil dilution.

    Looking at the exhaust layout for the TDV6 you have the same loosely-coupled DOC-DEF-SCRF configuration as in the 2.0 litre DS and Evoque. It might be instructive to look at the work that's been done on the DS then compare the hardware and architecture there to that of the D5 to assess whether the reason for the early service due to oil dilution is likely to be the same. The problem is present in all the transverse-mounted engines with this exhaust layout but (in the UK at least) so far it has NOT been reported on the in-line 2.0 litre D5 where the engine is mounted in-line.

    I described this problem in my rejection letter to JLR and said that from my perspective this issue rendered the vehicle "not of satisfactory quality" and "not as described" in the brochure. In the UK there is legislation granting a right to reject faulty goods in these circumstances and I had no hesitation in using it to get out of a potentially very expensive situation. The number of secondary failures is what worried me the most; at the time of the rejection the vehicle had done less than 10,000 miles and needed £4,000 worth of work to change the whole SCRF, the LP EGR valve and the LP EGR heat exchanger.

    The company still refuses to acknowledge the problem but most people with any degree of technical understanding are now quite satisfied that the above description adequately explains Stuart Woodcock's use of the words "hardware and architecture differences" between this layout and that to be found in the XE/XF which was the basis of his comparison. There is much more to be explained about WHY this happened but much of this is still speculation at present.

    Best regards
    Thanks so much for this incredibly comprehensive explanation of the issue. My All New Discovery is in again today getting it's second oil change. It's done 9740 kms. The service technician assures me it's over eager software and will be resolved with a software update. I'm less inclined to believe him and more inclined to believe that it is a genuine fault with the car and that it literally is not fit for purpose for my style of driving which is very much what you describe. Will be prepping for legal action following this service unfortunately. Last thing I want to be doing at the moment but I also don't want a car that needs an oil change every 5000kms.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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!