Jump to content

Are Pumas rubbish?


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

A friend was telling me that the newest Land Rover Defenders have been given the accolade of worst 4x4 money can buy??

Having just bought a Puma 90, I'm a little concerned!!

Has anyone else heard this rumour, or is my mate just jealous??

Nige

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's great! It does a comfortable 70 mph on the motorway, and doesn't bang and crash over bumps.

I admit, it probably doesn't have the build quality of the older models, but it's good on fuel and it's new. I'm looking forward to having a decent heater next winter!!

Apparently he saw some ratings on Google that put the Puma at the top of the list for unreliability and poor build quality??

Nige

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, the engine is more powerful, gearbox better ratios, interior far better equipped (even if I do prefer the older layout), air conditioning is much improved. However you will still bang your elbow on the glass, and the cabin will probably start leaking rain sooner rather than later!

On the downside, the chassis steel will undoubtably be thinner and the same goes for the alloy body panels, though this was the case for the Td5s and even late Tdis as well. Cost cutting measures, when the accountants started getting involved in the process.

I'd still have one over any other 4x4, though not in one of those bling stylings ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Puma is the only thing that would tempt me from my 200tdi, basically for the reasons Retroanaconda listed above and especially so with a Richards galv chassis for longevity.

How difficult would it be to retrofit one to a tdi? DO they still use the LT230 transferbox?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did consider a Puma engine, 6spd box and transfer box before buying my Defender 200tdi engine-a few on Ebay but its the loom and electronics that put me off.

That wouldn't bother me too much, I think ECU technology is robust enough now to be a good option. I would be more worried about the finicky nature of the injectors and the DMF that modern diesels seem to be cursed with.

The reason I ask is I've just fitted a tdi200 into my series pickup and have come to the conclusion that it is too rough for a station wagon (next project). So I'm investigating other options - ideally a smooth diesel that can mate with a short nose R380, but the puma option is something I want to explore as well.

G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the op might be refering to a survey of vehicle reliability, published by a used car warranty provider, Warranty holdings I think.

This is a regular survey based on real data. Land Rover in general come last (as usual I think) as the vehicle you're most likely to break down in. I don't know how it rates individual models.

Data will probably be based on vehicles under 5 years old.

The results should come as no suprise to anyone here.

A Google will probably find you the whole survey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably this he's talking about: LINKY

But if you look at the 10 worst models, chart, the Puma isn't there. It's the current Range Rover apparently letting the side down. :D

[EDIT] Actually....they don't have a reliability index for the Defender. Is that because it was off the scale? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably this he's talking about: LINKY

But if you look at the 10 worst models, chart, the Puma isn't there. It's the current Range Rover apparently letting the side down. :D

[EDIT] Actually....they don't have a reliability index for the Defender. Is that because it was off the scale? :P

Yeah, that's the one.

I've been in the motor trade for over 30 years and it still amazes me how carp most vehicles are.

I suppose I see things from a different perspective as I have to fix them, but why anyone buys a new car is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did consider a Puma engine, 6spd box and transfer box before buying my Defender 200tdi engine-a few on Ebay but its the loom and electronics that put me off.

You may need to allow a new bonnet in your budget as they say the bulge is to accomodate the taller engine, but not sure how true that is. Still, a nice idea!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for background info the Puma is basically the same engine that goes into Transits and is generally pretty durable. I am not sure which ones are compatible - but one should be - if you can source one from a chassis cab/ pick up Transit - I think it doesn't have a DMF..

Has anyone looked into this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may need to allow a new bonnet in your budget as they say the bulge is to accomodate the taller engine, but not sure how true that is. Still, a nice idea!!

I read somewhere that the bulge isn't to fit the engine in, but to give a suitable gap between engine and panel for a pedestrian to have a slightly 'softened' hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that the bulge isn't to fit the engine in, but to give a suitable gap between engine and panel for a pedestrian to have a slightly 'softened' hit.

No its for the engine, the bonnet had to be redesigned for the td5 as that was taller than a tdi and touched the strengthening ribs, the tdci is taller still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The engine is taller so it needs a taller bonnet to give enough gap between the engine and bonnet it's, I believe, an EU regulation.

See AULRO here: http://www.aulro.com/afvb/1269244-post13.html

Not wishing to start something but if ive read your link correctly then the information in it is of a purely personal opinion and i too believe the true reason is due to the puma engine being taller and not to give a pedestrian a landing area. :)

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wishing to start something but if ive read your link correctly then the information in it is of a purely personal opinion and i too believe the true reason is due to the puma engine being taller and not to give a pedestrian a landing area. :)

Paul

SO it's out for a series retrofit, then?

Nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wishing to start something but if ive read your link correctly then the information in it is of a purely personal opinion and i too believe the true reason is due to the puma engine being taller and not to give a pedestrian a landing area. :)

Paul

I know what you're saying Paul, its a combination of what we are both saying, the bonnet may need to higher to clear the engine but it needs to be higher again to give enough space between the hard engine components and the 'soft' bonnet. Last nights effort was only a quick search on my phone. Still looking for the article I read before... Its also part of the reason that the 2007 mini had the height of the bonnet and front structure raised.

I will keep looking :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How difficult would it be to retrofit one to a tdi? DO they still use the LT230 transferbox?

This is something I am considering. It appears the transit has a seperate ECU for the engine, but whether or not this can be coaxed to work on it's own is a bit unclear.

Having tried this 2.4 DUratorq in the transit I think it would make a lovely engine if we could work out how to make it run, they sell for about 700-1000 pounds on ebay and make a lot of sense IMO

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