Thread: Faulty TD5 Oil Pump Bolt - Update

I wonder what luck V8 owners have had with getting engines replaced by LR or even some of the cost covered.

I've had to replace the motor in my P38A owing to the slipping liner syndrome. At the time I bought it, this problem wasn't widely known. Now it is and it would make me think twice about buying an early 4.0/4.6 V8 LR.


Ron

Is this Problem in all the TD5's or just some of the earlier ones?

Robbo

I believe it's only a problem in some of the early TD5's i.e. 1999. Definitely in the discos, possibly also defenders, as they have the same motor, no doubt made in the same place. Have a look at this link:

http://www.landyonline.co.za/issues/td5_oilpump.htm

and this is the reply from the owner of that web site, after I emailed him about how I had the exact same problem:

"Hi Michael

Thanks for your mail, sorry to hear about your vehicle though. These vehicles were all assembled in the UK where someone didn't do what they were supposed to, hence the problem wherever the vehicles landed up."

So, the motor gets built in the UK, the apprentice doesn't put Loctite on a bolt like he is supposed to, the car comes to Oz on a boat, Mick buys it, we go on our Xmas holiday and on the 01/01/06, the engine shats itself. Priceless.

Ron

Not sure about that one. Since having this happen to me, I've done some research and found that the Trade Practices Act allows anyone to claim for personal injury or damage to private property resulting from a defect in the product. There is also the issue of "Merchantability". An implied warranty of merchantability is a warranty implied by law that if a merchant (meaning someone who makes an occupation of selling things i.e. Land Rover) sells something, that merchant is guaranteeing that the goods are reasonably fit for the general purpose for which they are so intended, regardless of any written warranty, unless the fault was divulged to the buyer at time of sale.

The fact that the engine was produced and was faulty at manufacture and the fault was not brought to the attention of the first buyer, and then myself as the second buyer, is evidence that the vehicle was not "fit for the general purpose for which they are so intended". i.e. the vehicle needed to have been of merchantable quality, fit for its purpose, and free from defects - this was obviously not the case.

Mick

Mick: You're on a track which has much evidence. I understand this rule to be: "This product does not work for the purposes of which it is intended." GQ

PM on the way re earlier.

Well, it just gets worse. No doubt someone from LR reads this forum, as LR Customer Care rang me back today and they have mysteriously reneged on their committment to pay for the 2nd hand motor. They rang Purnell Motors and ordered them to stop all work on it. Value of the car at the moment - $0.

I now have to pay for everything.

Thank you very much LR, you won, good on you, hope you're proud.

you need to remember this is a public forum and that sometimes it pays to keep your cards close to your chest until it is time to play your hand. The maddening crowd will always encourage a willing player.

sorry to hear your having a hard time.

Sorry to hear your luck is going from bad to worse. If it is a definate manufacturing issue you might try consummer affairs and maybe Land Rover HQ again. Keep all correspondence and reference everything each time. Persistance sometimes helps.
Good luck