 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Loss of drive... Output shaft gone (i think) |
 
|
|
|
| conora Member Since: 19 Jan 2018 Location: hertfordshire Posts: 25  
|
thanks for the help guys!
Going to get it dropped off to CSK this week. Chris has worked on my car before, always very helpful and knowledgeable! |
||
6th Feb 2021 10:21pm |
|
| jst Member Since: 14 Jan 2008 Location: Taunton Posts: 8051  
|
So its def output shaft then? Cheers
James 110 2012 XS Utility 130 2011 M57 bespoke Camper 90 2010 Hardtop 90 M57 1988 Hardtop |
||
|
6th Feb 2021 10:55pm |
|
| nitram17 Member Since: 08 Jun 2014 Location: newcastle Posts: 2261 |
Anybody got this one piece shaft in their truck........ it looks an ingenious solution to get rid of the joint .....however if its an alignment issue as many think will this not just cause more complex and expensive problems proximal to the joint? edit.....sorry joe i missed your post about the alignment concerns ..i suppose we wont know untill enough trucks fitted with the lof shaft have done a few thousand miles. How long does the bearing usually last? Last edited by nitram17 on 7th Feb 2021 11:09am. Edited 1 time in total |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 1:51am |
|
| foggydave Member Since: 29 Nov 2012 Location: Midlands Posts: 263 
|
LOF have just got some new stock of their Extreme spec solid drive shaft.
|
||
|
7th Feb 2021 6:34am |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018 
|
Exactly ~ and there's form there from the past: "PE07019 LAND ROVER NEW RANGE ROVER 2003 POWER TRAIN:DRIVELINE:DIFFERENTIAL UNIT Land Rover 20070404 20070815 FRONT DIFFERENTIAL/DRIVESHAFT FAILURE IN RESPONSE TO AN INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER SENT BY THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI), FORD STATED THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE REPORTED FRONT DIFFERENTIAL/DRIVE SHAFT FAILURES IS A MISALIGNMENT OF THE JOINT BETWEEN THE TWO COMPONENTS.CERTAIN LEVELS OF MISALIGNMENT MAY OVER TIME CAUSE AN UNEVEN WEAR OF THE SPLINES.CONTINUED WEAR OF THE SPLINES MAY RESULT IN A SHEARING OF THE SPLINES AND THE INABILITY OF THE DRIVESHAFT TO TRANSFER TORQUE TO THE FRONT DIFFERENTIAL. TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE IN THE FIELD, FORD INITIATED A SERVICE CAMPAIGN IN JUNE 2003 TO CORRECT THE MISALIGNMENT ISSUE AND, IF NECESSARY, REPLACE THE FRONT DRIVE SHAFT AND/OR DIFFERENTIAL.THE SERVICE CAMPAIGN COVERED MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 AND MY 2004 VEHICLES BUILT FROM APRIL 18, 2002 THROUGH JULY 3, 2003.IN PRODUCTION, FORD INTRODUCED A CHANGE TO THE LUBRICATING GREASE OF THE JOINT IN FEBRUARY 2003 AND A CHANGE TO THE ASSEMBLY PLANT ALIGNMENT PROCESS IN JULY 2003 TO ADDRESS THE MISALIGNMENT AND WEAR ISSUE. ODI IDENTIFIED ONE CRASH RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.THE CRASH INVOLVED A SUBJECT VEHICLE BEING STRUCK IN THE REAR AFTER BECOMING DISABLED BY A FRONT DIFFERENTIAL/DRIVESHAFT FAILURE AND PULLING TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA07-012) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF FRONT DIFFERENTIAL/DRIVESHAFT FAILURES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION." and "EA07012 LAND ROVER NEW RANGE ROVER 2003 POWER TRAIN:DRIVELINE Land Rover 20070814 20081210 08V635000 FRONT DIFF. / PROPELLER SHAFT FAILURE SUMMARY:IN A LETTER DATED DECEMBER 2, 2008, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED NHTSA THAT LAND ROVER IS CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF MODEL YEAR (MY) 2003 THROUGH 2005 RANGE ROVER VEHICLES BUILT AT THE SOLIHULL (UK) ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM JANUARY 3, 2002 THROUGH FEBRUARY 22, 2005, TO REPLACE THE FRONT DRIVESHAFT JOINT (NHTSA RECALL NO. 08V-635, LAND ROVER RECALL NO. P041). THE FRONT DIFFERENTIAL COUPLING SLEEVE AND THE PROPELLER SHAFT MAY BE MISALIGNED RESULTING IN SPLINE WEAR OVER TIME, WHICH MAY EVENTUALLY RESULT IN THE SPLINES SHEARING.THE DEFECT CONDITION CAN RESULT IN A LOSS OF PROPULSION AND SUBSEQUENT VEHICLE DISABLEMENT IN THE ROADWAY OR ON THE SHOULDER OF THE ROADWAY. FURTHERMORE, THE DEFECT CONDITION CAN ALSO CAUSE LOSS OF THE TRANSMISSION LOCK FUNCTION WHEN THE VEHICLE IS SHIFTED INTO THE PARK POSITION.THE LOSS OF THE TRANSMISSION LOCK FUNCTION CAN CAUSE A VEHICLE ROLLAWAY CONDITION IF THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IS NOT APPLIED AND THE VEHICLE IS UNATTENDED BY THE DRIVER. IN JULY 2008, LAND ROVER INITIATED A SERVICE ACTION (Q041) INSTRUCTING DEALERS TO INSTALL A REDESIGNED FRONT PROPELLER SHAFT, FRONT DIFFERENTIAL COUPLING AND HEAT SHIELD KIT TO ADDRESS THE MISALIGNMENT AND SUBSEQUENT SPLINE WEAR.THIS IS THE SAME REPAIR PROCEDURE THAT WILL BE USED IN SAFETY RECALL 08V-635.APPROXIMATELY 48 PERCENT OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES (18,000) HAVE HAD THE REMEDY PERFORMED UNDER SERVICE ACTION Q041 AS OF DECEMBER 2, 2008. ODI BELIEVES THAT SUDDEN LOSS OF MOTIVE POWER WITHOUT WARNING AND FAILURE OF THE TRANSMISSION LOCK FUNCTION ARE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES THAT, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HIGH FAILURE RATE OF THE SUBJECT COMPONENTS, REPRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY AS STATED IN A RECALL REQUEST LETTER SENT TO FORD AND LAND ROVER ON NOVEMBER 6, 2008.LAND ROVER DOES NOT AGREE, BUT IS CHANGING ITS CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM TO A SAFETY RECALL AS ODI REQUESTED. LAND ROVER NOTED THAT IT WAS AWARE OF ONE ALLEGED ACCIDENT; HOWEVER, IT WAS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURY OR VEHICLE DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALLEGED ACCIDENT.LAND ROVER'S RECALL RESOLVES THE SAFETY DEFECT CONCERNS PURSUED BY THIS INVESTIGATION. THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS IS CLOSED." What are the actual issues various upgraded parts are supposed to address? Do they just push the issue elsewhere; or inadvertently fix the issue when correctly aligned on replacement. |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 7:24am |
|
| Devon-Rover Member Since: 22 Jan 2015 Location: South Devon Posts: 917 
|
Oddly enough I do. It was a painless install and piece of mind that I have removed a failure point in the driveline that shouldn't of been there. Also can be found on Fb, Ytube, Insta & Twitter @4WDSouthwest |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 9:12am |
|
| nitram17 Member Since: 08 Jun 2014 Location: newcastle Posts: 2261 |
How many wiles have you done so far devon ?I guess you dont share joes concerns about moving the problem up the drivetrain?Time will tell i suppose.
|
||
|
7th Feb 2021 11:48am |
|
| Dinnu Member Since: 24 Dec 2019 Location: Lija Posts: 3424  
|
Lots discussed in the thread, linked below. Also a good illustration on possible misalignment.
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic62521-135.html 1988 90 Hard Top, 19J Diesel Turbo, Shire Blue - Restoration ongoing 2012 90 CSW, 2.2TDCI, Santorini Black |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 12:31pm |
|
| nitram17 Member Since: 08 Jun 2014 Location: newcastle Posts: 2261 |
The question is do you go with the Ashcroft or the LOF shaft? Im going to retire soon and my income will drop but i am hoping to keep the truck so i am building up a repair fund while im still working and a parts stock to reduce the hit of future costly repairs .to that end which shaft solution and cluch replacement do folk think s the best for longevity?
|
||
|
7th Feb 2021 1:33pm |
|
| shropshiredefender Member Since: 05 Jun 2017 Location: Shropshire Posts: 834  
|
I had an Ashcroft joint fitted as a matter of preventative maintenance at around 110k miles, the original was well on its way out.
The transfer box was replaced 30k miles later, the Ashcroft joint was checked and there was no wear or damage. Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right. |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 1:47pm |
|
| Dinnu Member Since: 24 Dec 2019 Location: Lija Posts: 3424
|
Mine had Ashcroft already installed, but I had the option to change as I had to drop the transfer case because the Ashcroft shaft was not installed correctly causing an unpleasant oil leak. I stuck with Ashcroft as it lubricates the splines making them last longer (I do not think it will last forever). I also have the question if the lof shafts moves the problem elsewhere. 1988 90 Hard Top, 19J Diesel Turbo, Shire Blue - Restoration ongoing
2012 90 CSW, 2.2TDCI, Santorini Black |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 1:56pm |
|
| Bluest Member Since: 23 Apr 2016 Location: Lancashire Posts: 4216 
|
Notram, just my thoughts to your question.
We don't truly know the reason why the original shaft fails I don't think. The lack of lubrication doesn't help, but given that some have done many hundreds.of thousands of miles without issue it suggests there might be something else at play, which is variable across vehicles. I think a reasonable guess, but by no means certain, would be varying misalignment between gearbox/extension housing/transfer box. Most are within an acceptable tolerance bit is you get a combination of tolerance such that they all make the problem worse maybe that is where you short life and some multiple failures of the shaft. Neither the Ashcroft nor the LOF solutions fix that problem (if indeed that is the problem). The Ashcroft solution gives you a shaft that can better tolerate the splines fretting by providing lubrication. It s a bit of a sticking plaster to misalignment, but it seems to work and certainly can't make anything worse. The worry with the LOF shaft is that if you subscribe to the misalignment theory, they are providing a shaft which is super strong but has no ability accommodate misalignment, therefore could transfer the stress of the misalignment to other parts of the transmission which aremore costly and inconvenient to fix than the adapter shaft. If misalignment is not a problem then the LOF shaft looks like a better solution to me and it's consoderably cheaper. If it is misalignment, I'd go Ashcroft. So it all boils down to deciding what think might be the cause of the original failure. The best we can hope for is that a number people some miles on the LOF one and report back how goes. Be especially interested in those that fitted it after the original failed rather than as preventative maintenance. 2007 110 TDCi Station Wagon XS |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 3:01pm |
|
| Devon-Rover Member Since: 22 Jan 2015 Location: South Devon Posts: 917
|
The shaft was changed at 55K As a precaution the same with the clutch. it was done before any problems had become apparent with them. the only complaint was a minor weap of the gearbox output seal so if your going to go to the effort of dragging the T box out to do that then there isn't much more faff to drag the rest out. Now my tuppence on it. I can see the point made on there being an alignment issue but in my eyes it would have to be minor enough to mean it wasn't a production issue, (i.e. so far out the T box wouldn't bolt to the adaptor housing) and for it not to show in the 2000's when Eng was developing the Puma-Mt82 combo for defender fitment. my thinking is thus Soo there is a shaft running through a bearing that the cup (or entire lof shaft) bolts firmly too. This then goes through the STD lr shaft and goes into the transferbox. The mainshaft gear is also supported with two bearings. To me forward and aft of this problem area is a mainshaft gear in the Tbox and a outputshaft of the Gbox both firmly set in their orientation. So to me out of alignment is going to be caused by the machining done to the adaptor housing casing. A) they are mated together just enough out to be bolted together on the production line B) the MT82 shaft bearings are machined out of square with the box casting B) the LT230 casing is incorrectly machined so the mainshaft gear bearings cause the mainshaft to not to sit 'right'. C) the female cup on the splines that mate to the Gbox are either incorrectly machined or the bottoming face that sit up tight to the Gbox output shaft isn't true so causing a very minor variation in runout. Has anyone stuck a DTI on it yet? Either way just like the old LT77 days and the drive flanges of today having an unlubricated dry spline interface is to me asking for trouble, any vibration or possible misalignment meaning unforeseen movement still isn't good. So to me removing the offending article is the way to go. I don't' have existing major wear or failure at the current mileage. By fitting something that is going to be less tolerant of any (If any) possible is alignment is going to stress the bearings so in the future in my particular vehicle it will show up in gearbox or Transfer bearing wear and associated noise. TBH it's a risk I'm willing to take as it's going to be easier to deal with than a sudden bang and associated loss of drive at the most inconvenient moment. It was back in 2005 whilst in the middle lane of the M5 southbound I down changed to pass some slower cars and I lost drive. The landy ( a friends 1995 300TDI 90) had manged to snap the mainshaft clean in half. Now it's quite a heart flutter to get a 90 + trailer and load across a lane (uphill) of now faster moving traffic to reach the hard shoulder whilst slowing down quite a lot, this after doing the has it jumped out of Hi-range and does the difflock do owt? It's not something i want to do again in a hurry so having Schrödinger's output shaft is a no from me.  Also can be found on Fb, Ytube, Insta & Twitter @4WDSouthwest |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 5:13pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17444 
|
I think in a nutshell that the problem is that there are two shafts, each supported by two bearings fitted into separate casings, that are supposedly rigidly connected via a coupling of a design which will fail if not perfectly aligned (the splined joined is not designed to tolerate any articulation whatsoever).
The mainshaft of the gearbox is carried by a bearing at the clutch-end of the box and another at the rear end. There should be no difficulty machining this accurately and since there is no evidence of problems in any other application of the box (well, no problem similar to this one anyway) it is reasonable to assume that Getrag has mastered the art of making these. There are two bearing carrying the input gear in the LT23, and although closely spaced these will align the gear precisely. Again, there is no real evidence to suggest that Landrover (or whichever supplier Landrover used to buy the LT230 from) has any particular problem making these. There have been input gear spline issues due to fretting, and it is possible that misalignment could have been a factor, but improved lubrication appeared to solve this long ago. So in my opinion it is reasonable to conclude that either of these components is satisfactory, certainly in isolation. Joining the two gearboxes each of which contains its own rigidly mounted shaft is the extension housing (manufacturer unknown, but it may or may not come to LR with the Getrag box, anyone here know who makes it?) which has to join the two gearboxes together so that the two shafts are in total and precise alignment, but axially and radially. The smallest misalignment will result in the splined coupling flexing with every revolution, something it is not designed to do, which will inevitably cause fretting of the splines. In the thousands of vehicles which Landrover in in its wisdom built with no lubrication whatsoever of this coupling, the failure caused by this will be very quick, and unlubricated even a perfectly aligned shaft will fail. A decently lubricated shaft, even if misaligned, will probably last a respectable time (and this is why the Ashcroft upgrade is a good solution). It is very poor engineering to have two rigidly-mounted shafts in separate housings whcih must be perfectly aligned, and the correct engineering solution would have been to fit an articulated shaft (like a short propshaft) between the two boxes. The fact that LR didn't, suggests that not only have all the real engineers now left the company (no doubt to be replaced by "designers") but also that the installation of the Ford engine was very much done on the cheap, a view that is supported not only by the design of the fuel system, but by just about every other aspect of the installation (the nose-up attitude that lead to lubrication issues on the t-box, the sump that would get a hole ripped in it by the propshaft, the turbo hoses that chafe on the steering column, the cooling system, the list goes on. If you compare the quality of the TD5 installation with that of the TDCi, there is simply no comparison. The Ashcroft shaft seems to me to be a good upgrade since it will allow for some flex, with decent lubrication, and I imagine will last for high mileages. The LOF solution is one I am less sold on, since it adds a third inflexible shaft into the setup and will very likely move the problem (either to the LT230 input splines, or the MT82 output splines). What would be best would be an upgrade that replaces the adaptor shaft with one with an engineered coupling allowing deflection in all the required directions. |
||
|
7th Feb 2021 6:45pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
