LR3 with only 45K has major failure

[Antichrist]

How is moisture in a weld, moisture in sheet metal, or moisture in a forged part any different?

It's not moisture in the weld metal.
If welds are only visually inspected it's possible to have a weld that visually meets spec, but grind off part of the weld and you find cold lap, which allows moisture in and works it's magic from the "inside".
Cold lap is a very common defect in MIG welding, though with robotic welding one would think the incidence of of that would be nill, once the jigs are set up and the robotics set. Of course, if something causes the parts to shift sligtly before welding, it could happen.

 

[greenmeanie]

that's the right attitude enthusiasts should take. Call it like it is and be honest about it.

Towing some imaginary loyalty party line and then backpedalling just kills credibility. With something this obvious, there is no defense. The pictures of the components speak for themselves.

It's the responsibility of enthusiasts to call it out. That is what makes an "enthusiasts" opinion of value!

You have yet to understand the coments. There is no towing a party line or backpedalling, merely two engineers telling you how the process works.

In summary just so you get it:
1. The parts will have been designed to a spec creating by marketing to target a specific customer. These days that spec is for an SUV and not a hard core off roader. Land Rover is well aware about where they make their money and sadly the current customer is more interested in cup holders than off road capability. The design of the control arm will most likely have been driven by keeping vehicle weight down to a predetermined level to achieve the desired performance that is driven by marketing. Manufacturing cost is always kept to a minimum as that affects profit. Safety critical parts receive a lot of attention to reduce the risk of failure within normal opearting conditions as much as possible.
2. Once designed the parts will have been tested on the vehicle to make sure they perform as expected. It's kind of a legal CYA requirement these days. Occasionally something will get past the testing and show up later as shown in the comment about the D2 earlier and that requires a recall as Rob detailed. This is a BIG deal though and unlikely to occur based on an extremely limited number of failures all with a different cause.
3. Given the ratio of vehicles produced to known failures the evidence points to a manufacturing quality failure and not a design failure. Out of the three known failures we have 1. Some off road event that someone screwed up on and sadly shows that the LR3 is not a hard core off roader, 2. A pothole strike. I don't know the size of the pothole but I do know a lot of vehicles are seriously damaged every year hitting pot holes. and 3. The the original JRA event, whose actual cause requires a root cause analysis.

You say that the pictures speak for themselves yet you offer no failure root cause other than 'They are cheap crap." That is where the 'enthusiast' loses credibility. Muskyman and JSbriggs at least appear to have some history
following this and have offered some informed comment rather than mere hyperbole. That is the correct attitude of the 'enthusiast'.

 

[Mike_rupp]

Greeniemeanie, I don't think you understand the sentiments of the responders here. I think the just of the discussion boils down to this: the LR3 is such a significant departure from the Disco1 / Disco2 that it isn't even in the same league as far as being an offroading vehicle. Stamped steel suspension components might be fine for a soccer mom truck, but Land Rover specifically markets the LR3 as an offroad vehicle. You wrote that the LR3 isn't a hard core off roader, but take a look at the Land Rover site page for the LR3: http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Vehicles/LR3/Overview.htm. The first picture is showing the LR3 on slickrock. "BUILT FOR THE UNEXPECTED." is the caption on that picture.

Let's call it what it really is: misleading advertising. Land Rover has come to the point where it can't back up its claim of offroad prowess and durability. The LR3 is nothing but a nice minivan that can barely go offroad.

 

[proper4wd]

What first hand experience do you have with LR3s, both mechanically and from driving them off road?

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Let's call it what it really is: misleading advertising. Land Rover has come to the point where it can't back up its claim of offroad prowess and durability. The LR3 is nothing but a nice minivan that can barely go offroad.

Wait, wait... is this the crux of your argument? Name one vehicle that DOES live up to it's marketing anymore, please.

BMW M3: Oiling problems, $20,000 motor blows up if you use it on track.

Skyline: Launch Control feature voids transmission warranty.

Lancer EVO: Logs engine data and they void your warranty if you drive it too hard, such as on track, etc.

H2: Don't take it up a dry river bed, or the track rod snaps.

Tundra: Don't actually put 1/2 ton in the bed and then actually drive on a rough road.

The reality of the world today is that not many people ACTUALLY use their vehicles for what they are advertised for, and manufacturers know this. Anybody who has ever driven a newish Land Rover off road knows this because 99% of the comments are "I can't believe you're actually doing that to such a nice truck!"

Porsche is the only maker I know that actually builds their cars to really be used as advertised. And then... most of the drivers lollygag around anyway and I end up passing them in a Focus.

 

[Mike_rupp]

I have changed a tire on one and have been on a few off-road trips with them.

One one of the trips, the owner had to leave his LR3 parked on the side of the trail since he was worried that he might rip off some body panels since he had already dragged the bumper on the terrain. A bone stock D1 with a CDL problem made it through the trail without issue.

Is it necessary for me to own a LR3 before I'm qualified to discuss it?

 

[proper4wd]

No, but you hadn't yet qualified any of your opinions with your first-hand experience.

I don't understand how an owner's desire to not damage his vehicle speaks anything about the vehicle itself. It is easy to say that a bone stock D1 driven by an experienced driver will outperform an LR3 driven by a newbie. How many experienced off roaders are driving LR3s on the trails? Not many. Put a pro driver behind the wheel of an LR3 and a D1 and I think you would be surprised at the results once the human factor is taken away.

 

[greenmeanie]

Greeniemeanie, I don't think you understand the sentiments of the responders here. I think the just of the discussion boils down to this: the LR3 is such a significant departure from the Disco1 / Disco2 that it isn't even in the same league as far as being an offroading vehicle. Stamped steel suspension components might be fine for a soccer mom truck, but Land Rover specifically markets the LR3 as an offroad vehicle. You wrote that the LR3 isn't a hard core off roader, but take a look at the Land Rover site page for the LR3: http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Vehicles/LR3/Overview.htm. The first picture is showing the LR3 on slickrock. "BUILT FOR THE UNEXPECTED." is the caption on that picture.

Let's call it what it really is: misleading advertising. Land Rover has come to the point where it can't back up its claim of offroad prowess and durability. The LR3 is nothing but a nice minivan that can barely go offroad.

Mike,
I have had first hand experience of LR marketing at the dealership here in AZ. They have all the posters of series trucks on the walls and the little models in the cases and the Camel Trophy clothes in the parts department and the off road course in the lot to sell the image. They did, however, ask me to move my 71 88 as it didn't fit with the image of their dealership. They got really upset one time when I showed up in my 101.

The sentiment about the brand is all well and good but the criticism presented in certain quarters was that it was a design failure and this is not the case. The part design is suitable for the SUV but the marketing may not be.

 

[Christian P.]

I am not sure how many people remember the DII front driveshaft issue and how it unfolded. I do, the first thread started with debate just like this. People looking at pics in a thread of a trans with giant holes in it. Engineering based opinions flying, peopledefending the trucks saying it was not a issue...then there was another and another and another. Then after enough of them a pattern was emerging and know 7 years later enough have failed that in the land rover community there is a very solid opinion that you need to watch these things like there is no tomorow because the AC drain drips on them and the cat cooks them and they fail in a very destructive way.

That's exactly what had happened to my DII when I purchased it.
I replaced the driveshaft and after I had to put a new tranny.

Then later I had to replace the entire truck with a Toyota.

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[97kurt]

Am I looking at that pic correctly? The front lower arms attach to the frame at that one spot?

 

[Mike_rupp]

R_Levebre: take a look at the Honda Pilot's tour on their site: http://automobiles.honda.com/pilot/. Compare it to the LR3 and you'll see where I'm coming from. The LR3 is advertised as an offroader. The Honda Pilot is advertised as a minivan / cargo hauler. There is no attempt on their part to build it up as something that it isn't. The LR site discusses the LR heritage and links the LR3 to that heritage. Yet, by your own statement, they aren't "hardcore" offroaders.

 

[greenmeanie]

well this is your opinion.

I inspected one this last weekend and the amount of rust on the lower control arms was alarming.

if the failure had anything to do with the rust then the design and material selection was not correct for the environment it was sold to be used in.

This really should not be a issue that causes huge battles in the Land Rover community. That was never my intention.

I am really let down by the build construction on these, The stamped steel construction is cheap and it is a major departure from the quality that the Marque had become known for.

My opinion is backed up plenty of evidence. How many units out there and how many reported failures? How many reports on the NTHSA (sp?) database? How many recalls? How many known JRA failures - 1.

I agree about the rust issue being bad but I would say that is not to do with the sheetmetal construction but the protective coating applied to the part. That is a design issue although by the sounds of it from places like the Toyota forum plenty of manufacturers are getting caught out by that. Corrosion issues are something I would really watch on these trucks.

LR and quality - sorry, I had to laugh. I now what your sentiment is but I had to laugh.

I think it was about 5 years or so ago that LR came out and announced that they were going to use the RR as the platform to base the new direction of the company on as opposed to the Defender which had bed the bread and butter for the company. I think you are seeing the result of that direction now as I don't think you'll see a solid axle Rover again.

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[greenmeanie]

Hate to say it Musky but a quick tour round Safeway's carpark revealed this:
Toyota 4 Runner late model - sheetmetal control arm.
Toyota 4 runner 90's at a guess - sheetmetal control arm.
Toyota Tacoma - sheetmetal control arm.
RR sport - sheetmetal control arm same as LR3
Nissan Xterra - sheetmetal control arm.
Lexus LX470 - Sheetmetal control arm.
I din't even start pokinga round the cars.

Are you seeing the trend here or am I not aware of how other vehicles are made? I guess all these companies are just wrong with their IFS design and the crashes are just masking the failure rate.

The only 4X4 there that had cast control arms was a Jeep Grand Cherokee but I didn't see a Honda Pilot to check.

Land Rovers can be reliable but they have the quality ratings they do for a reason and it is not preventative maintenance. As you are on dweb I'm sure you can quote more of the issues like leaking sunroofs, galvanic corrosion, the P38 etc. than I can.