"beamendsltd" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f44df194d%
[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:80cef174d%[email protected]...
>> > In message <[email protected]>
>> > "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:fc2968174d%[email protected]...
>> >> > In message <[email protected]>
>> >> > "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> How widespread is this front differential problem in new generation
>> >> >> Range
>> >> >> Rover?
>> >> >> While at the dealer today I happened across a couple whose RR had
>> >> >> failed
>> >> >> with this problem at 20,000 miles. A lady a couple of miles away is
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> her
>> >> >> third diff. It doesn't sound good. Both these are with pure road
>> >> >> use.
>> >> >> The couple mentioned that they had also had the well known steering
>> >> >> column
>> >> >> seizure and a HVAC problem among others.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do all front diffs fail in the medium term? Is it going to be an
>> >> >> ongoing
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> repetitive occurrence? What is your experience with this vehicle on
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> whole?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Huw
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Good ole' BMW! (LR had very little involvement with the
>> >> > L322 design.........)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Maybe not but it is none the worse for that. Actually, I don't know
>> >> quite
>> >> where you get that idea from.
>> >
>> > I was working there at the time....
>> >
>> >> You might as well say that LR had very little
>> >> involvement in the new Disco3 or RRsport because they both use Ford
>> >> engines,
>> >> ZF gearboxes etc etc.
>> >
>> > Hardly - LR (and all other car makers) buy stuff off the shelf, *but*
>> > they have years of experience of of design and test to rely on. BMW
>> > chose to ignore, to a large extent, all that experience. Indeed, had
>> > they
>> > had their way, their RR would have been built on the BMW platform.
>>
>> But is wasn't was it. Actually the similarity between RR and X5 in the
>> areas
>> of chassis, inner wings, HVAC, electronics and switches, rear door
>> handles,
>> instruments and radios and main running gear, is remarkable. Few are
>> cosmetically identical but the main difference seems to be limited to
>> size
>> and shape of the body and cosmetics, particularly the interior of the
>> cab.
>> And yes, the suspension travel and a transfer box of course.
>>
>>
>
> I'd disagree - but I susspect that I'd be wasting my breath ;-)
Possibly.
> Using "stock" components and just messing about with A Surfaces is
> standard procedure, but that does not make a Skoda into a VW or a
> Bently (except where that is intentional).
>
The fact is that the similarities between X5 and RR are far more marked than
the differences. Just one look at the inner wings, front chassis extensions,
engine bay, ventiation system, switchgear apart from temperature switches,
etc etc. will convince anyone.
None of these are quite identical yet they are only slightly disimilar.
The outer body, dash and general cabin are, of course, quite different.
>> Th
>> > situation was rescued by some LR designers arranging an off-road
>> > (and we're not talking slightly bumpy tracks that seems to be
>> > considered
>> > off-road these days) event in Germany. After a nice hill descent etc,
>> > the BMW execs realised that low box, axle articulation, ground
>> > clearance,
>> > etc etc DID matter.
>> >
>>
>> That is the version we have been fed from the launch. I take it with a
>> pinch
>> of salt. Of course you may come to the conclusion that the new Range
>> Rover
>> Sport, developed under Ford ownership, is approximate towhat BMW would
>> have
>> designed initially if they had their way.
>>
>
> Like it or not - it's true. Personaly, I think the RR Sport is a very
> major nail in LR's coffin as an independant marque. Take away
> LR's reutation for building tough off-road vehicles and whats left?
> Some marketing flim-flam and badge engineering which *will* lead to
> the end of the "real" Land Rover marque, i.e. they just become Fords
>
Being realistic, you have to realise that their main reputation worldwide is
for building unreliable vehicles. They are now on target for gaining a
reputation for quality vehicles.
I remember the same attitude as yours [about RR Sport] when the original RR
was built. This was a much more radical departure for the company than
RRSport or even the Freelander at the time what with those nancy coil
springs and all.
>>
>> >>
>> >> The obvious fact is that today's Land Rover vehicles have the best
>> >> build
>> >> quality ever and it shows in their every fibre. However, their
>> >> reliability
>> >> is still patchy by all accounts. There are several known issues with
>> >> the
>> >> latest RR and I just wonder how widespread they are.
>> >
>> > Current build quality has rather more to do with Ford that BMW I
>> > suspect.
>> > Certainly, morale at Rover was at an all-time low after BMW took over.
>> > After the initial excitement, most staff seemed to long for the Honda
>> > days,
>> > when quality was *really* improving, despite having old designs an
>> > plant
>> > to work with.
>> >
>>
>> Is that Rover or Land Rover you are reffering to?
>
> It made no odds at the time.
>
>> I ask because I certainly
>> never noticed a big improvement in LR build quality under Honda. Honda
>> assemble by robot. LR used to partly assemble by idiot, seldom actually
>> finnishing the assembly properly.
>
> I take it you never vistited that factories? Rover, nee Leyland, under
> the Honda stewardship, led the way for a short time in production
> technology. The Metro line was the most highly automated in Europe
> at launch. Indeed, the Chairman of Honda is on record as stating
> that Honda learned more from Rover than vice-versa.
Yea right! Made good PR though.
And yes, I have been to the LR factory several times to see assembly of
series, Defender, Range Rover and Discovery models. And what a shambolic
discrace they were. High cost, hand assembled with little real quality
control.
I have not been for a while now, I couldn't bear the prehistoric feel of the
place compared to other modern plants such as Jaguar, Honda, SDF and other
plants I visit. Today, apart from the Defender line, I would expect a much
more streamlined, modern and efficient plant with many subassemblies joining
the line from supplier plants just in time.
>
>> I have noticed a change for the better over the last three years. I would
>> not have bought a LR product otherwise. I am too old with much experience
>> of
>> about 10 of their vehicles over the years and have lost patience with
>> stories of impoved quality every few years. This time the difference is
>> tangible. It can be seen and felt in the design and build. It is
>> obviously a
>> better designed and built vehicle. So is the new Discovery.
>
> That would apply to any new vehicle, of any make, as new technologies come
> through. But, as BMW and VW have found, quality issues are closely coupled
> with volume and cost base. Look at what has happenend to Bosch since
> outsourcing work to ex-Eastern Block countries to reduce costs -
> reputation
> out of the window........
>
> As for being better designed, well certainly they have become more
> car-like,
> and if that is what one wants that's fine.
That is not what I mean. Well designed means 'fit for purpose', 'easy to
assemble properly', refined, reliable, economical, desirable, innovative and
durable. Among other things.
It's of no use to me though, if
> I wanted a RR or Disco II, I would want the non-existent base model so I
> don't have to take my work boots off when I get in - exactly the design
> philosphy of the original Range Rover.
Well you lost that when they more or less ditched vinyl seats and flooring
in favour of velour and deep pile carpets back in 1975.
Actually plenty of owners use their Range Rover and Discovery in exactly the
way you mention, as work vehicles. Some from new but a lot more second
owners. There is a great choice of used vehicle on the market today, in very
good condition, that are ripe for work.
On build quality - that, to
> a large extent is down to morale on the lines, as evidenced by the
> improvements in Defender quality over the last few years, using exactly
> the same dasic design.
Build quality of Defender has always been iffy. It is the nature of the
design of the vehicle. In its present form it will always suffer from more
issues than rivals just because there is so much more that can be assembled
wrongly. So many components and panels that need hand alignment, hand
tightening of fastenings and hand finishing. It was a superb vehicle in its
time, and still is in many ways, but well built it has never been. Being
long lasting and very capable are its main positive attributes.
>
>>
>> Teething troubles are common with any new design but I would hope they
>> will
>> be sorted quickly and efficiently. It worries me that the Range Rover has
>> not been the subject of a campaign to sort the front diff drive shaft
>> alignment problem. This does hark back to the old days of LR washing
>> their
>> hands of problems and is not good enough. It is best that these things
>> are
>> brought out into the open so that Land Rover, who know they have a
>> problem,
>> know that *we* know of problems so they cannot brush things under the
>> carpet. That is a very major advantage of electronic media such as this.
>> It
>> ensures that everybody has access to information and that problems cannot
>> be
>> swept under the carpet. Every manufacturer has its occasional problems
>> but
>> the difference between a manufacturer that deserves support and one that
>> deserves no repeat custom is in how genuine problems with their vehicles
>> are
>> rectified. The best will rectify before failure, not after. The worse
>> will
>> let the customer suffer a failure and let him suffer the inconvenience
>> and
>> cost.
>
> That always assumes that there is actually a problem in the first place,
> and this medium (the Internet) is well known for not exactly being a
> reliable source of data.
>
Do you deny that they have a problem with the front drive shaft alignment? I
would be very surprised if you did. Amazed in fact.
>>
>> Until recently LR came in the latter category and from my recent research
>> they still do. Until these practices are exposed they will have no
>> incentive
>> to improve their performance in this area. They have very much to learn
>> from
>> plant and machinery firms in this area. They do not have to go far to
>> learn,
>> just down the road to Massey Ferguson in Coventry would do. This company
>> has
>> improved its quality and new vehicle fault rectification hugely in the
>> last
>> ten years or so and should be applauded for doing so. The slightest fault
>> with a new model is reported back to the manufacturing plants and
>> rectification on the line is done ASAP with compulsary campaigns
>> instituted
>> for both mechanical, electrical and software issues as needed. The
>> company
>> dealers then get in touch with owners and arrange updates as needed.
>>
>>
>
> Problems are reported back to the factory at LR, in some detail - via
> warranty claim data.
> I sure if LR got the same margin as Massey on each unit sold they could
> also afford address each niggle directly.
Although LR manage to make a loss on every vehicle and MF make a small
profit, MF are far more efficient as a company because just look at what you
get for your money. You know what you get for £43000 with LR, a top of the
range Discovery.
With MF you get a top of the range 140hp machine with front and cab
suspention, an infinitely variable transmission with various drive modes
linked to electronic engine management and hydraulics. A hydraulic system
with full electronic computerised control linked to radar and
transmission/engine management. A four wheel drive system with various
automatic functions including both axle diff locks. A PTO and closed centre
'power beyond' for the use of external implements. Climate control, heated
air seat, passenger seat, 600/65r38 low profile radial tyres, electric
heated mirrors, rear wash/wipe, extending automatic hitch, a datatronic
performance monitoring system which measures work done, work rate, fuel
consumption per area, total fuel per job, cost per area, cost per hour, cost
per job, a printout of this data if required and an option of sattelite
navigation for area mapping and control of implements.
All this in 6500kgs of high quality steel, plastic and glass with a sound
level at full power of less than 75dba.
On top again there is three years finance at 1% and a three year warranty
option at only £600.
And when it needs a service or breaks down a service van goes out to do the
job on site with all parts in stock and for only £25/hour.
Absolutely no comparison. The car industry really are a bunch of useless
tankers in comparison.
Comparing verly low volume
> high margin products with medium or high volume low margin products is
> hardly reasonable - ask *any* manufacturer of anything.
>
How you can say they are 'high margin' is beyond me and just laughable.
Nothing sold into agriculture can be classed as more than marginal these
days. The competition for the declining volume is ultra intense and margins
are slim to non existant.
>> >>
>> >> From some simple local enquiries, the front shaft alignment causing
>> >> front
>> >> pinion shaft failure appears common if not universal. It is important
>> >> to
>> >> know whether this is now rectified or whether all vehicles will fail
>> >> on
>> >> an
>> >> ongoing basis.
>> >> Previous experience shows that Land Rover never acknowledge a problem
>> >> themselves. Never recall vehicles to rectify non safety issues and,
>> >> worse
>> >> of
>> >> all, wash their hands of problems after a period. Look out for diff
>> >> failures
>> >> in a few years when LR will not want to know, even though it is
>> >> obviously
>> >> a
>> >> design or build fault from the outset.
>> >
>> > Like I said - it might be LR's problem (not that any of our customers
>> > have encountered it), but BMW created it (personaly I suspect a small
>> > batch of duff components may have created yet another LR urban myth).
>>
>> No, it is an alignment problem at the factory, though whether the whole
>> drivetrain arrives at LR preassembled, I don't know.
>>
>> As you must know, the front diff on these vehicles is fixed to the engine
>> sump and is therefore an unit with the transmission. This allows the
>> driveshaft to be built with no universal joints. There is a rubber
>> coupling
>> at one end and the other is splined to the diff. It appears that if the
>> alignment of the diff with the transfer box is very slightly out, then
>> the
>> shaft will wobble at the diff end resulting in wear and failure of the
>> diff
>> input [pinion] shaft.
>> It is very common and is well known among individual owners and now, as a
>> result of this technology, is widely known.
>
> Is it?
Most certainly.
Are you in denial?
>
>>
>> I have no axe to grind, having just bought a new Range Rover and being
>> very
>> satisfied with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Remember the Disco peeling dash episode where they would not rectify
>> >> vehicles without a specific LR service history? As if a local garage
>> >> changing the oil caused the dash to peel. I ask you!
>> >
>> > and BMW's peeling dashes (3 Series) etc. No one's perfect, but it is
>> > fashionable to slag off certain marques, and unfashionable to critisise
>> > others (Saloon Bar ettiquette).
>> >
>>
>> I'll criticise any damned vehicle that deserves it. This diff problem and
>> my
>> post about it is not a criticism, at least it is not the main point of my
>> post. It is an observation of a problem, and as you say, every
>> manufacturer
>> has its problems from time to time so there is no need to be defensive
>> about what is a superb product. The LR company will ultimately be judged
>> by
>> the number of satisfied owners for its new products though. This depends
>> both on initial satisfaction with the design and buying experience, but
>> more
>> importantly on medium term customer service and satisfaction. They cannot
>> continue to fob this off to a long suffering dealer network. It is the
>> Company which decides on warranty and out of warranty repair
>> responsibility
>> and on non-failure modification and rectification of vehicles already in
>> service. This is an area which has caused much customer dissatisfaction
>> over
>> many years and is an area that they apparently still haven't addressed
>> properly. AFAIK they have not got a non-failure modification and
>> rectification policy other than for safety related items. Not an
>> effective
>> one at any rate.
>
> I'm affraid that last sentence is not true - FMEA is the term.
>
> Still, they could do a Mitsubushi, and just chuck everything in the
> cellar....
>>
Mitsubishi medium and heavy commercial management is irrelevant to the LR
experience. LR should not use Mitsubishi commercial as an example. Best
example to follow is a company that practices 'best in industry'. Better
still, they should strive to actually be that 'best' at all they do.
LR dealers might well rectify some issues when a vehicle is in for service
if they deem it cost effective but they do not actively seek out the
vehicles they have sold due for rectification unless it is a safety issue
under the compulsory recall scheme. If a vehicle is serviced independently
then it is missed and moreover, historically, LR have used the excuse of not
having a 'full dealer history' for not rectifying problems in and out of
warranty.
Again compare that with the above tractor where rectification work is done
by appointment and, if possible, at the owners premises, with no quibble or
cost and warranty is honoured with no service history other than it being
deemed to have received 'adequate' maintenance. An reason to turn down a
warranty here would include obvious abuse and obvious lack of maintenance
such as no grease or seizure/wear due to lack of oil changes.
Huw
