 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Am I missing a gearbox mount/bump stop? |
 
|
|
|
| JT7 Member Since: 28 Sep 2019 Location: Sydney Posts: 2   
|
Hi All,
First time defender owner and new to the forum.. While working under my Puma 110 I noticed a space which looks like it should be for a bump stop or mount, can anyone tell me if something is missing here? Thanks in advance...  Click image to enlarge |
||
23rd Oct 2019 5:58am |
|
| topless_matt Member Since: 29 Mar 2015 Location: norfolk Posts: 68  
|
Nope not missing anything from that space, they are all like that.
|
||
|
23rd Oct 2019 6:01am |
|
| GREENI Member Since: 22 Aug 2010 Location: staffs Posts: 10380 
|
No, its normal.
You’re not the first to ask. In fact you’re about the 789th  |
||
|
23rd Oct 2019 6:03am |
|
| JT7 Member Since: 28 Sep 2019 Location: Sydney Posts: 2
|
Great stuff, thanks guys! Plenty more questions to come I'm sure!
 |
||
|
23rd Oct 2019 9:29pm |
|
| Rashers Member Since: 21 Jun 2015 Location: Norfolk Posts: 3488 
|
Does anyone know why it is designed like this?
The bracket seems to cause a load of confusion but I have never heard a definitive reason why it is as it is? |
||
|
24th Oct 2019 7:38am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17362 
|
I can only conclude that it is part of the standard CAD pack for the MT82 box, and nobody at LR was smart enough to realise that it wasn't needed. I suspect that if you look at something like a Mustang that uses the same 'box in a more conventional way, you'll find it is the rear mounting point.
There's no reason why you can't chop the bracket off the cross-member on a Defender (although there is no real advantage in doing so either). It is probably the single most often asked question on the forum, closely followed by "what tyres should I get" and "did you know that Defenders are subject to reduced speed limits" (which they're not, by the way). |
||
|
24th Oct 2019 9:38am |
|
| hank Member Since: 12 Sep 2016 Location: South Wales Posts: 2296 
|
For sure it's a standard MT82 casting, but why would LR go to the effort of designing and fabricating the crossmember like that, to then do nothing with it?
Could be tempted to stick a mounting in there and bolt it down, see what happens. Would provide some lateral restraint to the whole engine/box assembly which twists on its mounts under load > 110 XS Double Cab |
||
|
24th Oct 2019 9:42am |
|
| Matt110 Member Since: 29 Jun 2014 Location: UK Posts: 680
|
Far more likely is that it was added in design of the 2007 on model year change because "that's how they're normally mounted", but that that then caused an NVH issue whereby there was shudder, shake, vibration etc, so the bush and attachment was deleted, but the chassis had already gone through its development gateway and churn was not appreciated..... thus it was left.
Why it wasn't deleted later as a cost saving is anyones guess. Would've thought that would have been a prime candidate! |
||
|
24th Oct 2019 9:44am |
|
| Matt110 Member Since: 29 Jun 2014 Location: UK Posts: 680
|
True but restraint isn't always a good thing...... chassis twists, powertrains should not. You certainly do not want that load put through the gearbox and engine bellhousing joint, or creating stress there. |
||
|
24th Oct 2019 9:46am |
|
| hank Member Since: 12 Sep 2016 Location: South Wales Posts: 2296
|
I see! I guess the designers are the ones in the know, so best to leave it as the LR experts intended > 110 XS Double Cab
|
||
|
24th Oct 2019 10:17am |
|
| Rashers Member Since: 21 Jun 2015 Location: Norfolk Posts: 3488
|
Yes, those people who decided that a galvanised chassis was not going to be required
 |
||
|
24th Oct 2019 10:32am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17362
|
They wouldn't, hence my supposition that it is a standard part of the CAD pack for the gearbox environment.
Expect vibration, roughness and noise if you do this.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any expertise in the TDCi/MT82 installation into the Defender in place of the Td5/R380, and in fact quite the opposite. The physical location (nose in the air), the drive line adaptation (the infamous output adaptor shaft), the fuel system (with next to no diagnostics, the world's most fragile fuel metering valve, and very poor bleeding facilities), the cooling system and cab heater arrangement, and finally the poor integration of the CanBus engine management system into the non-CanBus vehicle, all lack any evidence of investment, expertise, or quality engineering. It is as though the project was handed over to the work experience lads. |
||
|
24th Oct 2019 10:40am |
|
| hank Member Since: 12 Sep 2016 Location: South Wales Posts: 2296
|
Was more of a tongue in cheek comment based on other failings... > 110 XS Double Cab
|
||
|
24th Oct 2019 10:49am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17362
|
We need a tongue-in-cheek emoticon!
|
||
|
24th Oct 2019 12:32pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
