I am certainly not going to get embroiled in a very heated debate on the virtues otherwise or not of the TDV6 engine. However, I personally know of 3 failures of a friends vehicle and immediate family which is too close for comfort ! :-

1. Brothers RR - total engine destruction - it literally lunched itself on its own internals
2. A good friends Discovery - engine blown
3. The same vehicle - the replacement engine in the same vehicle again lunched itself - I.e. that Discovery is on its 3rd engine.

In all cases a “contribution” in one form or another was received - however these were very young low mileage examples - if anyone thinks a manufacturer or dealer is going to stand by a vehicle after its 2nd, 3rd owner, 4 or 5 years old or more - or with non LR service history then expect to be very disappointed.

The above 3 examples in 2 vehicle was enough for me. Yes, many many people have had absolutely no
issues with that engine and so have many other friends of mine. Just make an informed decision on the risks and either have a damn good warranty, buy at the right price, and / or a contingency fund.

As said above I am certainly not going to get involved in a heated debate - I quite frankly have better things to do 2021 L405 Vogue SE 4.4 V8 DIESEL ~ #17

knwatkins wrote:

Being an engineer I have a significant number of technical reports on this very subject.

No, it has not been resolved. The fundamental design of the engine is the same.

Please enlighten us, so this is not just heresay that JLR have made no changes to the V6 bearing retention architecture whatsoever, where is this documented? (“No, it has not been resolved.”)

I am also a mechanical engineer by profession, and I would very much like to see documented proof and statistics, not just unsubstantiated opinion.

This proposed evidence could be used in a class action against JLR, perhaps it is time for this, if those who have the evidence will come forward, and the numbers of vehicles are substantial enough?  “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” -where’s the fun in that?

A person who rebuilt his 3.0 D4 engine after the crankshaft broke posted pictures of the new genuine LR crankshaft beside the original. At least some of the bearing oil holes were obviously in different places on the new crankshaft, particuarly noted in the main bearing adjacent to the break where it was possibly 90 deg different. This showed that the crankshaft design and or finishing has indeed changed, possibly when the reported Ford updated crankshaft design was produced before Ford Australia would use the 2.7 in the locally produced Territory or possibly before Ford USA would use the the 3.0 engine in its trucks, albeit with at least different inlet manifolds. The Ford revised 3.0 crankshafts were reportedly then fitted to the 3.0 engines that Ford was supplying LR for its varous vehicles.

One of my sons has my ex-3.0 MY10 D4. I've recently discovered that a Castrol improved spec non-DPF oil has been available since 2012, with the improvement primarily for improved wear for stop-start engines. The D4 will start using that oil with the next oil change in case it helps with bearing and crankshaft survival.

Gremlin500 wrote:

Please enlighten us, so this is not just heresay that JLR have made no changes to the V6 bearing retention architecture whatsoever, where is this documented?

knwatkins wrote:

No, it has not been resolved. The fundamental design of the engine is the same.

Er, that bit?

I didn’t mean to be rude or start an argument, -I was only asking the question: where oh where is the written evidence with dates, VIN.numbers etc?
Or, isn’t there any?
Otherwise it all becomes a bit like, “A guy at the pub told me that……”  “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” -where’s the fun in that?

I think you need to go back, read and understand the context. For a start, the context of my post concerned the crank webs, not how the bearings are held in place and fundamental does not mean 'no design change whatsoever'

No more replies from me on this thread, I have better things to do than respond to extracts of posts taken out of context in an attempt to provoke an arguement. It really isn't in the spirit of this forum. Kev

2014 L405 RR Vogue SE 4.4 SDV8 in Corris Grey
2010 L320 RRS HSE 3.0 TDV6 in Stornoway Grey

Two prime examples above of peeps saying one thing and meaning another, not explaining things in clear & concise English, we are not clairvoyant and can only read the written words, not the unwritten ones.

I would have thought that a change of bearing architecture WOULD be a fundamental change, i..e affecting the performance of the engine in a fundamentale way? It would certainly have to be signed off by JLR engineering.

Sorry, but no offense was intended, only asking questions to try to get to the bottom of this puzzle.
I suppose it will take a JLR insider to finally spill the beans, in the meantime, yes of course there is a risk, in not knowing the truth, but conjecture has no place.  “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” -where’s the fun in that?

There’s a suggestion that the US version of the engine (for the F150 and now the new Ranger/Amarok, and also made in Dagenham) has a revised bottom end.

Gremlin500 wrote:

Two prime examples above of peeps saying one thing and meaning another, not explaining things in clear & concise English, we are not clairvoyant and can only read the written words, not the unwritten ones.

JLR wanted the whole engine to be 2" longer due to concerns about the crank

PSA said no, as it then wouldn't fit the transverse cars. Being owned by Ford, JLR had no choice in the matter


Allegedly...

Many thanks to all those who have responded with relevant information, I have a much clearer view of the issue now and as the dust should have settled from the agitators trying to pick a fight in defence of the TDV6 can we return to the topic of my first post?
It's clear that the TDV6 has/had some design errors which resulted in some of them destroying their own crankshafts, all I'm looking to do is minimise the risk of this happening to me if I should choose to buy a TDV6 and it is clear that from some of the posts there were significant changes to the crank oilways and bearing locator tabs during the engines life.
As Vogue's post shows and the fact that JLR have chosen to make some goodwill payments suggests that they have accepted that there is a problem so I can understand why they wouldn't announce a "cure" as every owner would be expecting a new engine fitted gratis weather it had failed or not.
Hence my question(s) - do the newer engines fail? My feeling is that 2017 onwards don't seem to have any problems?
Any post facelift cars with snapped cranks? can any of those who have first hand experience of the problem remember what year the cars were?

Yes it does still happen unfortunately Cass. It's worth noting that not all cranks give way are as a result of spun bearings. Whilst the redesigned bearing retention method was a great control to implement, it is a little bit of a red herring w.r.t. crank fractures.

As Philip mentioned above in this thread, the issue is still occurs on the D5 and this vehicle wasn't launched until 2017.

Hope this helps. Kev

2014 L405 RR Vogue SE 4.4 SDV8 in Corris Grey
2010 L320 RRS HSE 3.0 TDV6 in Stornoway Grey

Thanks Kev
It's all info that helps, I doubt that there will ever be any solid info about this so all I can do is piece together whatever bits are available.
There will always be a few random failures on any motor type but if it seems that the failures reduced significantly after say 2017 then I'd be happy to look at 2018 on.
I'd be interested in what the professional repairers might have noticed about failures on newer cars?

Give Joe Short a call at Oval Autos. He knows the engines inside out and he rebuilds the TDV6s on a daily basis, along with some enhancements to give them the best chance of survival post-rebuild. He'll be able to give you an expert opinion based on the numbers he gets through his doors based on model year. He's very approachable. Tell him I sent you. Kev

2014 L405 RR Vogue SE 4.4 SDV8 in Corris Grey
2010 L320 RRS HSE 3.0 TDV6 in Stornoway Grey

knwatkins wrote:

The main issue is down the fundamental design of the bottom end to support a transverse mounting arrangement for installation into the Citroën C5, Citroën C6 and Peugeot 407. This leaves the crank web or cheek to contain less mass than what would typically be present in a robust design.