Jump to content

Could this be the understatement of the year?


Recommended Posts

A friend drives a 2012 90 csw and very nice it is too. He isn’t an enthusiast maintaining it himself. It goes to a well respected independent for that.

He asked me a question out of the blue about “are my shocks supposed to have a dust cover fastened over the operating rod”?

I said I doubt they are supposed to be secured at the bottom and that at rest it probably protects the rod but not when extended.

He had also sent me the result of a main dealer “health check”, which not only suggested that this was a problem (“boots adrift”) but the cure would cost

front - £757

rear - £521

and also the wiperblades “smearing” - £64

I asked him why he had gone to the main dealer and he said there’s been a recall. The health-check was free at the same time.

I’d appreciate some feedback on the adrift boots issue.

To the title of the post…

The recall was to correct a safety related issue at the front axle. The detail is in the pic and I have asked my mate for some photos of the work done by JLR but I was more surprised to see their description of the consequences of failure. 
 

Quote:

“If the wheel hub assembly and the suspension collapse or detach from the vehicle, vehicle stability will be compromised and the degree of directional control will be minimised, significantly increasing the risk of an accident”.

 

7a7194d7-65fc-4b12-84fd-41091502b166.thumb.jpeg.05294175e2373fb8b3bbf1e0f299f20a.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pictures would be good..

In my opinion it's daylight robbery

For that cost he could buy some outstanding Fox shocks and still have change...

Quite a few years ago we had a BMW 320 Diesel it was serviced at main dealers, I was informed my coil springs were severely cracked and needed changing at a cost of £650 ( 18 years ago ) said cracks was only the plastic coating on the springs starting to come away...

I believe some garages prey on the unwary

Not used a main dealer since until we bought the Ranger, have to say they have been excellent up to now

Regards Stephen

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Peaklander said:

 

7a7194d7-65fc-4b12-84fd-41091502b166.thumb.jpeg.05294175e2373fb8b3bbf1e0f299f20a.jpeg

In addition, what I find most alarming is not rectifying the problem at source ( new stronger axle case )

Safety brackets to increase safety when failing are just a cop out to reduce catastrophic costs to JLR for what is essentially a design error, cost over quality probably caused the issue in the first place

Shocking really

Regards Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter has a Puma 90 that may be affected by this. There's a huge thread on Defender2.net about the axle problem. One point to emerge is that the cracking seems to be on the left only . Another is that the recall was only for 110 and 130( why?), but it happened to a forum member on a 90.

But yeah, JLR are weaselling out of replacing potentially unsafe faulty axle cases. Why am I not surprised?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern (and I'd be questioning them about it) is their assertion that the brackets will "ensure the wheel hub assembly and suspension are restrained in the event of a failure". Personally I'd rather it didn't fail by being fit-for-purpose in the first instance.

What this *seems* to be from their wording is not a fix of the underlying issue, rather a way of minimising the consequences when/if it does fail.

So basically asking passengers in a leaking boat to wear two buoyancy aids instead of one, as an alternative to fixing the hole in the boat...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a long standing recall action on the last batches of Defender.

The friction welded joint on "some" axles in a batch where found to be insufficiently welded, or weak, in which the whole axle end detaches. 

In the early cases this could lead to the whole axle end leaving the vehicle making an extremely dangerous situation.

So rather than LR recalling all the axles for replacement, they issued a "safety fix" in the event that you "could" have a separation event then these brackets "catch" the end of the axle and just stop it leaving the vehicle totally allowing you to keep control of the vehicle and bring it to a safe stop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting this recall action has come up, as my mate who bought a low mileage 2012 90 earlier this year, got a latter from LR in the post last week, telling him to book his truck in for getting this recall action fixed too.

I just find it odd, these trucks haven't had it done already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow ! 

100% agree that they aren’t fixing it - just reducing the impact. 
The basic fact is that even after the bracket is fitted - it could fail and then it’s the customer’s expense. 

Surprised there isn’t some regulatory oversight that would pick that up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another clear indicator of the rapid reduction in manufacturing and material quality of later original Defenders , much like the alucrapium used for rear bodies.

That friction weld process was started with the first RRC back in the late 60's and worked very well .

No amount of retro-bolt in brackets is going to keep the failure safe enough to be stable

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brackets dont have to last far, as even if you don't  notice and don't stop the oil drains and the CWP friction welds up. At 60 mph on a smart motorway with a trailer of live animals you have all sorts of problems

Edited by fmmv
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What actually happened is LR changed the supplier for the axle casing, or there was a change in methods (no one is sure which), but for whatever reason it was changed from friction welded flanges to MIG welded flanges. It was the early batches of these which were found to be failing. There has been a recall for it for years, but they have recently expanded the range of vehicles to which it applies - hence more owners now getting letters. If the weld has failed you get a new axle case, if not you get the brackets.

The issue was fixed on later vehicles, but I would still swap any MIG welded casing out for an older friction welded one if I owned such a vehicle.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Retroanaconda said:

What actually happened is LR changed the supplier for the axle casing, or there was a change in methods (no one is sure which), but for whatever reason it was changed from friction welded flanges to MIG welded flanges. It was the early batches of these which were found to be failing. There has been a recall for it for years, but they have recently expanded the range of vehicles to which it applies - hence more owners now getting letters. If the weld has failed you get a new axle case, if not you get the brackets.

The issue was fixed on later vehicles, but I would still swap any MIG welded casing out for an older friction welded one if I owned such a vehicle.

Ah , that makes more sense re method change, I hadn't realised that. 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it was the change to GMAW from Friction welding. We should note the rears have been GMAW for years prior and problem free. GMAW is not the problem, but LRs weld design is (not full penetration).
 

LR or the supplier probably thought why not do it in the front but forgot the greater bending moment on the joint because of the steering assembly….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, elbekko said:

 It'll take up most of the tensile forces on that weld, and definitely looks chunky enough to do it. It's like a little axle truss on the bottom of the axle.

The one I repaired already had these fitted, axle still failed... Split on the bottom of the weld, the bracket does nothing to support the welded section over the weight of the vehicle pressing down

Regards Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peaklander said:

Here’s the photos. They also show his shockers which have “boots adrift”.

31be0438-361e-48d6-bba8-f7d336a714db.thumb.jpeg.442472b66561023adf6a1b34084f7be1.jpeg

 

3b892a80-75fa-4901-ae7a-3158dff788f6.thumb.jpeg.6aa41ff1354bf99a454e04a95304eb3a.jpeg

 

91b4c991-29a2-4354-b99e-d19438675da6.thumb.jpeg.7ae5b668b57f9b0b4718bea14eac56f1.jpeg

 

I have to admit I've always fitted the dampers the other way up. Now I question this. At least the other way up they wouldn't be able to see if they had boots. Mine are procomp and have gaters attached top and bottom.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, miketomcat said:

I have to admit I've always fitted the dampers the other way up. Now I question this. At least the other way up they wouldn't be able to see if they had boots. Mine are procomp and have gaters attached top and bottom.

Mike

I've always been curious about this. When fitting gas struts to my 110 roof I discussed their use with an engineer at the supplier and he said they always advised (in a vertical application) that they are fitted with the rod downwards and enclosed body uppermost because this allowed the seal to stay lubricated and not prematurely fail. Which seemed reasonable. And would presumably apply to shocks also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i worke in HGV and i have never mounted (oil) shocks with the body up , some shocks come with a instalation paper to state that you have to pump the shock vertical (body down) 10 times to get the oil where it needs to be .. so mounting it upside down wouldn't do any good for it ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stellaghost said:

The one I repaired already had these fitted, axle still failed... Split on the bottom of the weld, the bracket does nothing to support the welded section over the weight of the vehicle pressing down

Regards Stephen

That's concerning. Seems like a design flaw in the bracket, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy