L405 Range Rover Hybrid - Broken Crankshaft - 2015
Discussion
daemon said:
MrBGR said:
I can assure you I am not "getting upset for little reason" when you spend over £100k on a car you don't expect this to happen in the first place!
Correct. However, irrespective of the price of the car, you have the right to have any problems rectified under warranty - thats whats happening here?MrBGR said:
You are totally incorrect, I have already tested my theory and it could effect the ongoing value as the car now has "a story", after all there are plenty of others out there for sale, anyway why should I be in a "could" situation!
If i walk into any dealer and give them any reason to devalue my trade in they will. Not necessarily because they should, but because they can.Surely all you need here - and bearing in mind you've already told us you've opened negotiations for another new car from them - is an assurance and proof they are not valuing your car at under market value?
MrBGR said:
You are also contradicting yourself "being repaired to the highest standard possible" but you also state "for a crankshaft to snap at this mileage would mean it was out of balance/had a defect from day one"
So they can't make right it in the first place but they can repair it really well!
I dont see any contradiction? There was a fault, they replaced the engine? Faults - unfortunately happen. You have so far received the level of support and rectification that anyone would expect in the same situation, whether it be a £10,000, £100,000 or £1,000,000 car.So they can't make right it in the first place but they can repair it really well!
The dealer is trying go down that route of negotiating on a new car which could get me out of this situation, but yet to see the deal!
As I have tried to express the dealer are doing all they can but Land Rover seem not interested, I guess as it has been stated it is for the dealer to sort, which I guess they are by replacing the engine.
They have also made a bit of a mistake as I am not missing the difference in size of the Range Rover as the Sport I am using is really good, maybe time to look at other similar to the Sport!?
Maybe these people will bring out a more reliable version for import
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landwind_X7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landwind_X7
daemon said:
You're entitled to the remainder of the warranty being honoured. No more, no less. If you were so inclined, i'd push for them to pay for an extra years warranty, however this seems a moot point as you're planning on changing the car anyway?
Your interaction / communication should be through the dealer, who will communicate with LR UK if required. Unless you are escalating the issue to LR UK (and therefore out of the hands of your local dealer), then i wouldnt have thought they will want to comment / commit / step on the dealers toes.
As I run my own businesses I need to keep my options open, my plan was to change the car in 6 months or so but that plan could always change, I guess my issue is that the future options could now be compromised.Your interaction / communication should be through the dealer, who will communicate with LR UK if required. Unless you are escalating the issue to LR UK (and therefore out of the hands of your local dealer), then i wouldnt have thought they will want to comment / commit / step on the dealers toes.
The dealer has been good whilst playing the "political game" with Land Rover and keeping me as happy as they can, but at the end of the day a new engine is going in...
I agree and my plan is to push for at the very least they give me an extra years warranty so that if I do have to keep the car then I will have just over 2 years covered if anything else goes wrong!?
If I do sell the car then the new owner will also have a decent warranty just in case!
Andy-6ufnp said:
I suggest you look at fullfatrr.com, sign up and post on there. Some of the comments on here are just out of order and typical of some of the lifeless dross on this forum.
I have experienced several issues with my L405's and I wouldn't bother posting questions on here any more.
Thank you, I will take a look at fullfatrr.com.I have experienced several issues with my L405's and I wouldn't bother posting questions on here any more.
I stopped using PistonHeads years ago because of, as you say, the dross but I thought I would give it another go!
Most of the replies have been really helpful and have confirmed/helped with my thinking and approach.
I think (hope) I could do ok with the dealer on a new car as I have been very loyal to them over the years, but I am really in two minds about Land Rover and the future.
saaby93 said:
All youre looking for is the engine warranty to be extended to to the same as if it was new
Doesn't sound unreasonable (unless they think its going to pack in again
)
Which is what's in place automatically. The engine is warranted for three years from the car's first registration date. After the replacement, the engine will be warranted for... three years from the car's first registration date.Doesn't sound unreasonable (unless they think its going to pack in again
)Max_Torque said:
The mild hybrid system is the ZF transmission integrated system:
ZF_transmission_integrated_mild_hybrid
The eMachine sits on the crankshaft output, after the torque convertor. The extra torque loadings don't get into the crank, and even if they did, the small increase in load is irrelevant. However, when the lock-up clutch is, er, locked up, then the rotational inertia of the eMachine is now referenced to the crank, so there is a good chance that the firing load torsional vibrations now are sunk more at the back end of the crank than before, which will lead to a change in crankshaft bending (amplitude and modes). So, is this indicative that JLR haven't done their homework? No idea, i guess we'll see if more failures occurs in the next few months / years!
This is a Full Hybrid so the ZF 'box is the 8P70H (Note the absence of the H before the P, denoting lack of torque converter and a new H at the end, denoting Hybrid). The machine sits in place of the torque converter (sandwich motor), a wet clutch connects the engine side to the gearbox side (Aisin units have a dry clutch). The problem of pullaway control is tackled with a variation of the lock up clutch located on the output shaft.ZF_transmission_integrated_mild_hybrid
The eMachine sits on the crankshaft output, after the torque convertor. The extra torque loadings don't get into the crank, and even if they did, the small increase in load is irrelevant. However, when the lock-up clutch is, er, locked up, then the rotational inertia of the eMachine is now referenced to the crank, so there is a good chance that the firing load torsional vibrations now are sunk more at the back end of the crank than before, which will lead to a change in crankshaft bending (amplitude and modes). So, is this indicative that JLR haven't done their homework? No idea, i guess we'll see if more failures occurs in the next few months / years!
I had the same thought process as yourself regarding the failure mode (powertrain in fully locked condition), you may be on to something here. Removing the torque converter is not as easy at it sounds because of the sheer magnitiude of the compromises that this will throw up. Was the driveline designed to work without the damping effects of a fluid coupling for example? As you'll say we'll need to wait and watch.
Dont know who makes Land Rover crankshafts but they had a problem with 300TDI engine with a batch of faulty cranks which were breaking. When discovered the remaining cranks were disposed of as scrap but Im led to believe that they somehow found there way into the aftermarket supply and the whole problem started again.
MrBGR said:
Willy Nilly said:
If you are referring to a Range Rover Sport, what is it if it isn't a Land Rover?
Similar size to a Sport but not a Land Rover... ;-)You really are quite belligerent "Willy", read what I said, but not a Land Rover...
when they start moaning when the car breakdown. Enjoy your German "reliability".
TooMany2cvs said:
Which is what's in place automatically. The engine is warranted for three years from the car's first registration date. After the replacement, the engine will be warranted for... three years from the car's first registration date.
No, I don't think that's right; new main dealer parts have a warranty of their own separate to any holistic vehicle warranty, so if the engine assembly broke two years from now - outside of the vehicle warranty but within the part warranty - the replacement engine is covered but the labour isn't.mwstewart said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Which is what's in place automatically. The engine is warranted for three years from the car's first registration date. After the replacement, the engine will be warranted for... three years from the car's first registration date.
No, I don't think that's right; new main dealer parts have a warranty of their own separate to any holistic vehicle warranty, so if the engine assembly broke two years from now - outside of the vehicle warranty but within the part warranty - the replacement engine is covered but the labour isn't.octane83 said:
Max_Torque said:
The mild hybrid system is the ZF transmission integrated system:
ZF_transmission_integrated_mild_hybrid
The eMachine sits on the crankshaft output, after the torque convertor. The extra torque loadings don't get into the crank, and even if they did, the small increase in load is irrelevant. However, when the lock-up clutch is, er, locked up, then the rotational inertia of the eMachine is now referenced to the crank, so there is a good chance that the firing load torsional vibrations now are sunk more at the back end of the crank than before, which will lead to a change in crankshaft bending (amplitude and modes). So, is this indicative that JLR haven't done their homework? No idea, i guess we'll see if more failures occurs in the next few months / years!
This is a Full Hybrid so the ZF 'box is the 8P70H (Note the absence of the H before the P, denoting lack of torque converter and a new H at the end, denoting Hybrid). The machine sits in place of the torque converter (sandwich motor), a wet clutch connects the engine side to the gearbox side (Aisin units have a dry clutch). The problem of pullaway control is tackled with a variation of the lock up clutch located on the output shaft.ZF_transmission_integrated_mild_hybrid
The eMachine sits on the crankshaft output, after the torque convertor. The extra torque loadings don't get into the crank, and even if they did, the small increase in load is irrelevant. However, when the lock-up clutch is, er, locked up, then the rotational inertia of the eMachine is now referenced to the crank, so there is a good chance that the firing load torsional vibrations now are sunk more at the back end of the crank than before, which will lead to a change in crankshaft bending (amplitude and modes). So, is this indicative that JLR haven't done their homework? No idea, i guess we'll see if more failures occurs in the next few months / years!
I had the same thought process as yourself regarding the failure mode (powertrain in fully locked condition), you may be on to something here. Removing the torque converter is not as easy at it sounds because of the sheer magnitiude of the compromises that this will throw up. Was the driveline designed to work without the damping effects of a fluid coupling for example? As you'll say we'll need to wait and watch.
Maybe it's this:
http://ukcar.reviews/rangerover-l405-2012-problems...
2012 Land Rover L405 Range Rover 3.0L TDV6: crankshaft bearing failure
http://ukcar.reviews/rangerover-l405-2012-problems...
2012 Land Rover L405 Range Rover 3.0L TDV6: crankshaft bearing failure
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff