Could this be the understatement of the year?

[Stellaghost]

1 hour ago, elbekko said:

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

I don't think the bracket is a design flaw, the bracket is purely there to stop the wheel and swivel coming adrift from the vehicle

On the dampers, I have also not seen factory dampers fitted like that, after market.......my Fox shocks are as the picture

Regards Stephen

[steve b]

1 hour ago, elbekko said:

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

If the casing cracks the stresses become dynamic and from what I remember of Stress Analysis lectures back in 1981 that changes things a whole lot from the static stress bending moment in an intact case. That bolt on is a visual security aid only. Should never have reached the roads. 

 Wallpapering over the cracks comes to mind. 

Steve

[Peaklander]

So on the damper ‘boot adrift’ question, is it a split points decision?

Would inverting them help the damper adrift observations at the main stealers?

I don’t think I’ve ever handled these kind of dampers so I really don’t know.

[Stellaghost]

8 minutes ago, Peaklander said:

So on the damper ‘boot adrift’ question, is it a split points decision?

Would inverting them help the damper adrift observations at the main stealers?

I don’t think I’ve ever handled these kind of dampers so I really don’t know.

Standard dampers have boots on as far as I'm aware, are they standard dampers, they may have been changed before his ownership ???

Regards Stephen

[hurbie]

on my Eurover project , i have original Landrover heavy-duty shocks , en these don't have boots but a metal sleeve over the top to protect the rod from dirt .

[Peaklander]

So even when they extend, do the boots remain attached and you can’t see the rod?

[hurbie]

18 minutes ago, Peaklander said:

So even when they extend, do the boots remain attached and you can’t see the rod?

the sleeve is connected to the top part of the damper , and maybe when at full length you can just see the rod , on normal stance it's closed and you can't see the rod.

when fully compressed the sleeve is maybe 2 cm off the botom .

[hurbie]

i think this is fully extended : 

http://www.miparts.com/oem/RTC4637

[Peaklander]

Yes sorry. I see that with the metal. I meant on these rubber boot ones.

[sean f]

Since the shock cover either metal or rubber boot is only there to keep it clean I don't see how having it in place or not is any form of safety issue, from my experience the metal type of cover (seem to be older "standard" shocks) easily fill with dirt and rubber boots can do the same. I can see that having them might prevent some scratching, chipping or corrosion on the chrome rod so having them missing might reduce the life of the shock as the rod rusts but on the other hand being able to see the rod allows it to be checked easier. So long as the shock actually works I would just keep going and change it out when it fails.

As for which way up a shock should go I would assume it would depend on the make and type, I have generally fitted them with the body down but not for any reason other than that's the way I have always done it.

The axle bracket does seem like others have said a bit of a bodge to reduce the risk if a known problem with the axle happens, better to fit a properly welded axle, an axle should not snap like that unless it is being seriously abused, I have seen people snap the end off but it has always been the bolts failing after a big impact or the tube bending never a crack.

[Escape]

As above, the boots may offer some protection but can fill up with dirt and trap moisture (especially the rubber ones), but are definitely not safety critical. Most shocks are mounted with the body down, which helps to keep the rods out of the dirt as they will be higher. On rear shocks or P38 ones, that have a pin one side and an eye the other, you don't have a choice but to mount the body down. I'd say the dealer is taking the p!ss hoping to make an easy buck (no surprise there!).

[fmmv]

So, if I wanted to swap out a potetially failing axle case, on a Puma 90 could I get any earlier case within reason, say 300 tdi era Disco? Then would I have to fit a new Panhard bracket, but apart from that, straight swap?

[Snagger]

I’m pretty sure the damper shroud condition is not a legal consideration, only the operating condition of the damper matters.  I put my 109 through many MoTs with the boots missing from the ProComp dampers with no problems (it was only after fitting the boots that the trouble started as they trap condensation and cause rapid rusting of the low quality pistons).  They do appear to be inverted - the piston is normally at the top and the oil filled body at the bottom.  Remote reservoir dampers (like Fox) are often installed inverted to more easily accommodate the reservoirs, but they would have been designed to be fitted that way.  I don’t think normal dampers will always work correctly if fitted inverted.

LR should certainly be dealing better with the recall, replacing suspect axles before they break.  I’d get Trading Standards involved and would not settle for that pathetic bracket.

[Snagger]

14 hours ago, fmmv said:

So, if I wanted to swap out a potetially failing axle case, on a Puma 90 could I get any earlier case within reason, say 300 tdi era Disco? Then would I have to fit a new Panhard bracket, but apart from that, straight swap?

Is the Panhard bracket any different between models?

[fmmv]

I think the Panhard was changed facelift td5 time, YRM show different beackets. The bolt size changed I'm sure.

[Anderzander]

I hadn’t realised that. 
 

Gwyn Lewis’ site says this for his bushing kit:

Quote

Fits:- All Defender 90, 110, 130 Panhard Rods, Late TD5 and PUMA (M16 Bolts)

**Note** This bush Kit is to fit all later Straight Panhard Rods that are fitted using M16 Bolts. Earlier TD5s have a Bent Panhard Rod fitted with M14 Bolts. The cross over year is around 2002.
If you have an earlier TD5 with Bent Panhard Rod you will need Part Number SFP0194K.
(Later Left Hand Drive have Bent Panhard Rods but uses the M16 fixing Bolts)

 

[Snagger]

I didn’t know that.  Still, if the geometry is the same, can you not just drill or ream out the bolt hole to 16mm rather than replacing the entire bracket, or just get the earlier bush and fit a 14mm bolt at the chassis end?

[Very Rural]

I thought people might be interested in the latest stance taken by JLR on this.

I received the letter regarding the N706 recall, in September. I have been try ever since to get the 'Sticking-plaster' brackets fitted by a main dealer.  I booked the vehicle in, waited a whole day for the work to be done, and eventually, after being told that it wasn't quite ready yet, drove it home. Next morning I looked underneath, - no brackets!

I looked at the paperwork that I was given, all official JLR documentation, "N706 recall work carried out". It obviously hadn't been. I contacted the dealer, who couldn't at the time give a reasonable excuse. Nearly 3 weeks later, I was told that because the vehicle had a replacement chassis they couldn't fit the brackets....??

I have pressed the main dealer further on this, & am now effectively told that JLR will not allow them to carry out recall work on a vehicle that has a non-standard chassis. The chassis is an OEM type from Marsland. 

It's a 2012 110CSW, in near perfect condition with 33,000 miles only. What am I supposed to do now? I've tried other main dealers, but they don't really want to get involved. So I now have a potentially dangerous & unsafe vehicle. if the worst happens, bearing in mind that the recall is still outstanding on JLR's history log, then will an insurance company pay out for the resultant mess & possibly fatality?

 

David.

[Peaklander]

Wow. That’s a development! I have no idea what I would do, except go in person to the dealer and ask again and then refer upwards whilst there with the local ‘boss’.

[hurbie]

3 hours ago, Very Rural said:

It's a 2012 110CSW, in near perfect condition with 33,000 miles onl

why did it need a new chassis then ?

[Jocklandjohn]

3 hours ago, Very Rural said:

I thought people might be interested in the latest stance taken by JLR on this.

I received the letter regarding the N706 recall, in September. I have been try ever since to get the 'Sticking-plaster' brackets fitted by a main dealer.  I booked the vehicle in, waited a whole day for the work to be done, and eventually, after being told that it wasn't quite ready yet, drove it home. Next morning I looked underneath, - no brackets!

I looked at the paperwork that I was given, all official JLR documentation, "N706 recall work carried out". It obviously hadn't been. I contacted the dealer, who couldn't at the time give a reasonable excuse. Nearly 3 weeks later, I was told that because the vehicle had a replacement chassis they couldn't fit the brackets....??

I have pressed the main dealer further on this, & am now effectively told that JLR will not allow them to carry out recall work on a vehicle that has a non-standard chassis. The chassis is an OEM type from Marsland. 

It's a 2012 110CSW, in near perfect condition with 33,000 miles only. What am I supposed to do now? I've tried other main dealers, but they don't really want to get involved. So I now have a potentially dangerous & unsafe vehicle. if the worst happens, bearing in mind that the recall is still outstanding on JLR's history log, then will an insurance company pay out for the resultant mess & possibly fatality?

 

David.

Interesting part of that is the document you were given stating the work has been carried out. As the recall 'fix' is "the work" and it has NOT been done, that looks awful like a breach of contract and a dangerous one at that. Imagine if you assumed the vehicle HAD been repaired and decided to sell it on with 'recall completed' I think you' might be in some trouble if it failed on the new owner.

If the recall is "safety" of an axle which is aknowledged by the manufacturer to be defective, and they've deliberately not done ithe work but told you they have...well.... I'd say they're on dodgy legal ground. Why? Well because of another detail: the recall has no exclusion clauses ie it does NOT state that a 'repaired vehicle' (in your case a chassis) excludes you from the fix. If thats the case then ANY other component fitted that they deem to be non-standard is potentially an exclusion. Shocks? Actually ON the axle? Sorry not standard. Bushes? Sorry not standard. etc etc etc

What would I do? I'd be back to the dealer with the "Recall Complete" document and ask them for a written explanation of why the work was not done. I would take the JLR recall letter too and point out that as it is sent to you, and you are named as the vehicle owner, (my personal opinion is that) you are legally entitled to have it done as JLR has said so, and have actually entered into a contract with you by inviting you to have the work undertaken "for safety reasons".

I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, simply what I would do (I have been in slightly similar situations, and used these methods to point out liability). The fact remains - the liability lies with them to repair, not on you to NOT repair the vehicle (eg to fix a chassis, shocks, bushes, propshaft, UJ's etc) because doing so with "non-standard" parts might preclude you from subsequent remedies to their acknowledged failings.  And I'm going to repeat the important part: nothing in the bit of letter posted at the start of this thread states there are exclusions because a vehicle has been repaired in any way. It simply states the vehcile component is defective, we accept liability, it needs fixing, bring it to us.

[Very Rural]

As far as I can understand it, on the latest information given by the dealer yesterday, is that they have effectively 'washed their hands of it', & they have given me a contact number at JLR where I will be told exactly what I have already stated, that JLR have told the dealers not to carry out the modification if a replacement chassis has been fitted. As far as I can see, there is no reason that the brackets won't fit, but who really wants that as a temporary fit? It's only temporary & failure say, on a motorway could easily lead to a major pile-up & possibly deaths, as I am informed, has happened in the EU.

There has been an incident locally, where the axle casing cracked & the vehicle ended up in a hedge, The result was not a simple thing to fix, as apart from a new axle, there was severe damage to the steering & bodywork. This particular work was not carried out by a main dealer, but a local LR specialist. My local Main Dealer, apparently does not have permanent staffing of mechanics, but calls them in from a central pool, when there's more than an oil-change to be done.

To answer hurbies question; the reason for the chassis swap, which was only completed in July of this year, was because there was so much rot on the original,- front outriggers & rear crossmember - a total replacement was going to be more economic & would last longer that a few pieces being patched in & fitting just a new rear crossmember. The original chassis on the later TDCi Defender are rubbish compared to the earlier versions I've had Land Rovers for years, a 1st generation Range Rover Vogue, a Defender

TDI 300, a Defender TD5, a a series 1 late Discovery, & currently the 110 Defender. None of the others have rusted as badly as the 110. I had it 'Before 'n' after' chassis treated, but most of the corrosion I suspect was from the inside out.

So back to my problem, I'm an OAP, live up in an extremely rural position, access only by a proper 4x4,  up a steep muddy track & I use the Defender together with a large 4 wheel trailer to get everything up & down to my cottage & workshop. So, I am  totally reliant on it, & had poured my savings into the 110 in order that it will last me until someone else drives it down for my final journey...!  No, I can't afford a new Defender, & even if I could, they are too wide to access my location.

[Sigi_H]

Some years ago I bought a TD5 front axle body for 150 € and built a completely new one with Ashcroft Diff Lock and stronger components (Tibus shafts) for my 83 Oneten. Then axle swap. Everything is very fine since 150000km.

I hope the front is now as strong as my Salysbury in the rear.

Older complete Front axles aren´t that expensive, will cost more, but save time. I´d think about a replacement, because everything I read ... the LR solution is dangerous.

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Sigi_H

[fmmv]

JLR should be ashamed. Ok, these are not new vehicles. But by contrast I have a 2009 Ford and it has just been recalled for a problem with airbags. It was off the road when I got the recall letter so I was bit tardy arranging to take it in  But just after, Ford wrote to me again, obviously news of it being done hadn't reached them. So clearly they are trying hard to do the right thing.

These problems do happen, mistakes are made, things emerge later. Credit to Ford for doing the right thing. JLR seems to just hope its OK and cover it up. They would do well to note what happened when the Post Office tried that.

[Retroanaconda]

Just get the brackets and fit them yourself?

Or as above get a 300Tdi/Td5 axle casing for £50 and swap your parts over. Just need to drill the panhard bracket out for the larger bolt size I think, rest should just bolt up.