Discovery Sport Forum banner

Service interval

1M views 3K replies 215 participants last post by  Past master 
#1 ·
My DS, first registered in November 2015 has covered 8910 miles.
A few days ago, on the InControl App, a Service Due Alert message appeared advising that my car is due for a service.
This coincided with an occasional message (on first start up of the day) saying that the oil level is low. This message did not stay, but disappeared once the tyre setting message had been displayed. I checked the oil level on the dipstick and it is showing full.
I spoke to my dealer who says that maybe due to the type of driving I have been doing (!!) the car needs an oil and filter change.
Anybody else had a similar experience?
 

Attachments

#3,178 ·
PhilMabbots17 said:
As part of Jaguar Land Rover's routine continuous improvement engineering activities, additional engineering work has been completed to enable increased distances between services.

Action to be taken

Unsold vehicles must be repaired prior to handover of the vehicle for retail sale.
At the next opportunity, you are requested to repair the vehicle.
The time for a class action is possibly approaching.

Until last week, they have consistently maintained that their cars are free from any faults in respect of oil dilution and that any shortfall in service mileage is due entirely to driving style, just as it says in the handbook. But suddenly, after 3 years of stonewalling, all the 17MY cars and up to 45,000 of the 18MY cars are going to receive an update which includes "engineering work to enable increased distances between services".

Why? There's nothing wrong with the service interval according to JLR. Will this engineering work raise the nominal service interval from 21,000 miles to some higher figure, say 30,000 miles?

Or will it raise it from some value below 21,000 miles to some higher value, one that is closer to 21,000 miles?

If it's the latter, they're effectively admitting that the nominal mileage was never achievable .
This is the 64,000 dollar question that everyone should be putting to their dealer or preparing to send to their solicitor.

Dear JLR Dealership

When I bought a Discovery Sport diesel from you 2 years ago you told me to expect that I could drive it for 21,000 miles between services. In the first 18 months of my ownership it required two additiional oil services at 8,000 miles and 16,000 miles due to oil dilution exceeding the safe limit of 6%. When I queried this you pointed me to the handbook and said that there was nothing wrong with the car, rather that I had caused the high diesel dilution with my incorrect driving style. You gave me some guidance as to how I could improve my driving style in the future.

I gather that you have now introduced a software update to my car which JLR described in a service bulletin as "engineering work to enable increased distances between services". I understand that no physical engineering work was performed in conjunction with the software update and that all it does is to raise the trigger level at which the Service Required message will appear on the dashboard. Instead of appearing when the diesel dilution reaches 6% it will now only display when it has reached 10%. In the attached document published by JLR engineering in 2017 it clearly states that:

* Continued vehicle operation with high oil dilution will result in engine failure.

* Engineering has identified a population of vehicles with oil dilution at 6% or greater. If these vehicles continue to run without an oil change, there is a further risk of engine damage. These customers are to be proactively notified of the action via letter.

According to your previous statements, the low service mileage that I experienced had been wholly the result of my driving style because nothing was found to be wrong with the car itself: in your own words of 23 August 2018, "workshop tests have revealed that the vehicle is operating normally". Despite having repeated those statements to me quite forceably on several ocasions, it appears that you have now installed new software which, according to the manufactuer, exposes my £45,000 car to a risk of total engine failure!

This begs the obvious question: was this vehicle faulty all along? If not, then why on earth have you modified the software - without my permission - with something that, according to JLR itself, will now expose it to the risk of serious damage less than a year before the end of the manufacturers warranty.

Kindly explain your actions.

Yours etc,

Very Angry of Tunbridge Wells.
 
#3,179 ·
"Engineering work" doesn't necessarily mean on end user vehicles, could be rig / vehicle work within LR simulating oil dilution over high mileages.

It's a new engine as we know, and we believe oil dilution has probably been known in LR for almost as long as it's been in the cars. If we assume testing has been taking place since then, after several years there's a point when positive test results could allow changes to the dilution thresholds.

Speculation, of course.....
 
#3,180 ·
Dashnine said:
"Engineering work" doesn't necessarily mean on end user vehicles, could be rig / vehicle work within LR simulating oil dilution over high mileages.

It's a new engine as we know, and we believe oil dilution has probably been known in LR for almost as long as it's been in the cars. If we assume testing has been taking place since then, after several years there's a point when positive test results could allow changes to the dilution thresholds.

Speculation, of course.....

Jaguar Land Rover Plc
Ingenium will also come to market as one of the most tested and proven Jaguar Land Rover engines ever. Before the first Ingenium engine is sold, it will have already undergone the equivalent of more than eight years of the toughest, most punishing testing that Jaguar Land Rover engineers could devise. These tests include a huge range of integrity and durability testing, including more than 72,000 hours of dyno testing and 2 million miles of real-world testing to ensure these engines deliver - and continue to deliver.
No need to waste any more engineering money when they had 500,000 eager owners to do it for them!

I think its more likely that they just looked at the total number of DPF, EGR, crankshaft, turbo charger, balancer shaft and whole engine failures that two years of completely unchecked dilution had produced (18% to 20% I think GLLR said)…. let their bean counters do the sums and then just chose the cheapest option. More speculation of course....
 
#3,182 ·
PhilMabbots17 said:
Dashnine said:
"Engineering work" doesn't necessarily mean on end user vehicles, could be rig / vehicle work within LR simulating oil dilution over high mileages.

It's a new engine as we know, and we believe oil dilution has probably been known in LR for almost as long as it's been in the cars. If we assume testing has been taking place since then, after several years there's a point when positive test results could allow changes to the dilution thresholds.

Speculation, of course.....

Jaguar Land Rover Plc
Ingenium will also come to market as one of the most tested and proven Jaguar Land Rover engines ever. Before the first Ingenium engine is sold, it will have already undergone the equivalent of more than eight years of the toughest, most punishing testing that Jaguar Land Rover engineers could devise. These tests include a huge range of integrity and durability testing, including more than 72,000 hours of dyno testing and 2 million miles of real-world testing to ensure these engines deliver - and continue to deliver.
No need to waste any more engineering money when they had 500,000 eager owners to do it for them!

I think its more likely that they just looked at the total number of DPF, EGR, crankshaft, turbo charger, balancer shaft and whole engine failures that two years of completely unchecked dilution had produced (18% to 20% I think GLLR said)…. let their bean counters do the sums and then just chose the cheapest option. More speculation of course....
Feel free to trawl the forum for examples, but haven't a lot of balance shaft failures been on newish cars, before oil dilution could strike? A lot of DPF failures were due to the faulty batch and EGR, crankshaft and turbo failures have hardly been rife either. And I think we've heard of one whole engine failure with 11.25 litres of fluid in the sump, the extra 5 litres was hardly likely to have been due to oil dilution alone.

Here I go again speculating, but I wouldn't say there have been a lot of mechanical failures (yet) due to oil dilution, but by all means carry on LR bashing.
 
#3,183 ·
More details here from an EU monitoring organisation, nothing about this on DVSA. Discovery Sport

Search for recalls on any car (any product for that matter,,,) here - ec.europa.eu
To find these particular recalls enter Brand = Land Rover & Category = Motor Vehicles

With the EU spotlight focused at last on Ingenium emissions it will be interesting to see what else JLR is forced to admit that it lied about.
 
#3,185 ·
TeddyBear said:
If we assume testing has been taking place since then, after several years there's a point when positive test results could allow changes to the dilution thresholds.
Bone.GIF
Can just imagine the meeting .....
Increase acceptable dilution to 10%
See how owners cars fair with that
Too many blown engines we can reduce to 8%
Calculated company oil saving is £xxxxxx.

👍

Simple solution would be:
Leave at 6%
Swallow pride , revert to annual servicing in all sales bumph.
Sell a five year plan, with annual service/ every 10,000 miles
Happy customers
 
#3,186 ·
I don't think that they ever had anywhere near enough budget to deal honestly and professionally with this. Once the fateful decision had been made in 2015 to go to market with a car that they knew needed three times as much servicing (due to three times as much post injection) as the brochures and other marketing materials stated, the die was cast. JLR's abyssmal performance from that point on betrays a sequence of short-term decisions, each one designed with three objectives in mind: 1) admit nothing and keep covered all prior nefarious activity, 2) modify the deception as necessary to fool as many people as possible for the longest period of time, and 3) always choose the lowest cost option consistent with objectives 1) and 2).

The evidence for this is all available on these pages and it is contained in JLR's own statements. To prove it, just ask your dealer this:

This begs the obvious question: was this vehicle faulty all along? If not, then why on earth have you modified the software - without my permission - with something that, according to JLR itself, will now expose it to the risk of serious damage less than a year before the end of the manufacturers warranty.

Kindly explain your actions
 
#3,187 ·
To be honest I don't see any point asking your dealer about this, it's neither their fault, or within their power to answer it.

We will never get JLR to admit in writing something that will legally put them in an awkward position. We know most of it.

The only thing in my mind that doesn't stack up is how JLR engineering could come up with a solution that got as far as making production that didn't work. I'm sure they are not that bad.

The more likely reason it doesn't work is because thanks to VW/Bosch, the system they had designed and tested could not be used in its intended form, and suddenly they had to use the ECU operating without any cheats going on. This is kind of verified by the DS actually coming out as meeting emission targets in independent testing.

The real blame here lies with VW/Bosch. Personally I think JLR should sue them to recover the costs and if they wanted to make us happy, also the cost of properly fixing it. But that's unlikely to happen.

There's still time for JLR to drop service schedules to something more reasonable, and also publish testing results to back that up, in terms of oil dilution % vs. engine wear, which would be the open and honest thing to do. They could also be honest, and if legally can get away with it make it clear where the blame lies, and encourage people to consider that when making their next purchase. I don't see why they should play nice here, VW haven't. Might even boost their sales in the UK and non-German countries.
 
#3,188 ·
Ian_S said:
To be honest I don't see any point asking your dealer about this, it's neither their fault, or within their power to answer it.

We will never get JLR to admit in writing something that will legally put them in an awkward position. We know most of it.

The only thing in my mind that doesn't stack up is how JLR engineering could come up with a solution that got as far as making production that didn't work. I'm sure they are not that bad.

The more likely reason it doesn't work is because thanks to VW/Bosch, the system they had designed and tested could not be used in its intended form, and suddenly they had to use the ECU operating without any cheats going on. This is kind of verified by the DS actually coming out as meeting emission targets in independent testing.

The real blame here lies with VW/Bosch. Personally I think JLR should sue them to recover the costs and if they wanted to make us happy, also the cost of properly fixing it. But that's unlikely to happen.

There's still time for JLR to drop service schedules to something more reasonable, and also publish testing results to back that up, in terms of oil dilution % vs. engine wear, which would be the open and honest thing to do. They could also be honest, and if legally can get away with it make it clear where the blame lies, and encourage people to consider that when making their next purchase. I don't see why they should play nice here, VW haven't. Might even boost their sales in the UK and non-German countries.
Well said and good point, VW got away with it far to easy, diesel is a dying breed as become impossible to meet ever more stringent targets. Petrol / hybrid all the way going forward for new cars, honesty is best policy JLR!
 
#3,189 ·
Have been following thread for a while
Have an early model 2.0 diesel delivered sept 2015
Have changed oil regularly (at least every year)
This time decided to change oil at 6mths approx 6k miles myself .
Day after oil change service notification light came on 1700 miles to service, remote app also showing service due. Interestingly service due range increased over next few days to 1800 miles and now gone, service notification in app also gone.
Has the service due reset itself.
???
 
#3,190 ·
Ian_S said:
To be honest I don't see any point asking your dealer about this, it's neither their fault, or within their power to answer it.

We will never get JLR to admit in writing something that will legally put them in an awkward position. We know most of it.

The only thing in my mind that doesn't stack up is how JLR engineering could come up with a solution that got as far as making production that didn't work. I'm sure they are not that bad.

The more likely reason it doesn't work is because thanks to VW/Bosch, the system they had designed and tested could not be used in its intended form, and suddenly they had to use the ECU operating without any cheats going on. This is kind of verified by the DS actually coming out as meeting emission targets in independent testing.

The real blame here lies with VW/Bosch. Personally I think JLR should sue them to recover the costs and if they wanted to make us happy, also the cost of properly fixing it. But that's unlikely to happen.

There's still time for JLR to drop service schedules to something more reasonable, and also publish testing results to back that up, in terms of oil dilution % vs. engine wear, which would be the open and honest thing to do. They could also be honest, and if legally can get away with it make it clear where the blame lies, and encourage people to consider that when making their next purchase. I don't see why they should play nice here, VW haven't. Might even boost their sales in the UK and non-German countries.
There may be the odd libellous phrase in the 'speculation' above - be careful, use questions rather than statements.... it's not just you, it's the forum owner and possibly mods as well who'd be held responsible.

I can't imagine JLR would want their moment of glory in court over such a topic, but lawyers are lawyers!
 
#3,191 ·
Ian_S said:
To be honest I don't see any point asking your dealer about this, it's neither their fault, or within their power to answer it.

We will never get JLR to admit in writing something that will legally put them in an awkward position. We know most of it.

The only thing in my mind that doesn't stack up is how JLR engineering could come up with a solution that got as far as making production that didn't work. I'm sure they are not that bad.

The more likely reason it doesn't work is because thanks to VW/Bosch, the system they had designed and tested could not be used in its intended form, and suddenly they had to use the ECU operating without any cheats going on. This is kind of verified by the DS actually coming out as meeting emission targets in independent testing.

The real blame here lies with VW/Bosch. Personally I think JLR should sue them to recover the costs and if they wanted to make us happy, also the cost of properly fixing it. But that's unlikely to happen.

There's still time for JLR to drop service schedules to something more reasonable, and also publish testing results to back that up, in terms of oil dilution % vs. engine wear, which would be the open and honest thing to do. They could also be honest, and if legally can get away with it make it clear where the blame lies, and encourage people to consider that when making their next purchase. I don't see why they should play nice here, VW haven't. Might even boost their sales in the UK and non-German countries.
But while there's no evidence that JLR have done any actual testing - and every likelihood that they haven't, based on the way they have behaved in relation to other espects of this saga - I would be horrified, given what it says in JLRP00100 at the prospect of having my car exposed to the possibility of severe damage caused by undetected high oil dilution. This risk only arising because they had tinkered with a vital warning system that according to JLRP00100 was put there in the first place precisely for this reason. My contract was with the dealer, not JLR. If I still had one of these I would want them to tell me in writing what was going on. If that letter didn't produce a credible and acceptable explanation then I would at least know what I had to do when something went wrong.

I think that you could be right about the decision to disable any "cheat software" being the cause of the original dilution problem. That became very likely once it was established that an EU6 -compliant XE/XF style DPF either wouldn't fit in or, more likely, just about fitted in but was so close to the bulkhead that it created an enormous fire risk (remembering that it has to be heated to 600 deg C). But blaming VW for something that JLR decided to do? That is ridiculous. It's like Ronnie Biggs suing Bruce Reynolds for making him take part in the Great Train Robbery. "Sir, sir! The big boy made me do it...". You were, of course, joking?

JLR is in an awkward position with this and the organisation as a whole looks ridiculous. But it doesn't know that because plc's aren't conscious and therefore can't be reflective or feel embarrasment or remorse. All that exists are the people in different departments with their different functions. I think the reason that we have been told about 10% diesel dilution is the same reason that JLRP00100 was written and immediately leaked and the same reason why we learned about there being no passive regeneration, the same reason we found out in the first place about SCRF (not DPF), the same reason that we found out about heat, etc, etc. The record shows that in each case the information originated with engineers. I think this is no mere coincidence. I believe that they wanted their customers to know the truth about what was really going on and that they used whatever channel was available, passing the information out via their own people, usually without the mule being aware.

If you look at this from each department's standpoint in turn: Sales, Marketing, PR, Engineering, Customer Service, etc, then the picture that emerges is that each department has done its job professionally and to the best of its ability in extremely difficult circumstances. But this set of circumstances didn't just get dropped on the company, they were deliberately and knowingly created by the executive management's initial decision to sell the car knowing that it didn't do what it said on the tin. Same with CO2 emissions, this would have been another conscious decision signed off at the highest level.

Research has shown that the executives who create the "personality" of any large cororation often exhibit personality disorders that present with the symptoms of psychopathy. And frequently, organisations that experience "a flash in the pan" before floundering financially do so because the board of directors has failed to keep such mania in check.

We could bear this in mind as the next few months unfold.
 
#3,192 ·
Ian_S said:
To be honest I don't see any point asking your dealer about this, it's neither their fault, or within their power to answer it.

We will never get JLR to admit in writing something that will legally put them in an awkward position. We know most of it.

The only thing in my mind that doesn't stack up is how JLR engineering could come up with a solution that got as far as making production that didn't work. I'm sure they are not that bad.

The more likely reason it doesn't work is because thanks to VW/Bosch, the system they had designed and tested could not be used in its intended form, and suddenly they had to use the ECU operating without any cheats going on. This is kind of verified by the DS actually coming out as meeting emission targets in independent testing.

The real blame here lies with VW/Bosch. Personally I think JLR should sue them to recover the costs and if they wanted to make us happy, also the cost of properly fixing it. But that's unlikely to happen.

There's still time for JLR to drop service schedules to something more reasonable, and also publish testing results to back that up, in terms of oil dilution % vs. engine wear, which would be the open and honest thing to do. They could also be honest, and if legally can get away with it make it clear where the blame lies, and encourage people to consider that when making their next purchase. I don't see why they should play nice here, VW haven't. Might even boost their sales in the UK and non-German countries.
If I was a guessing person Bosch will deny it all as was proven when they even went to court.....but lost and were heavily fined in the USA over VW
 
#3,193 ·
Dashnine said:
Ian_S said:
To be honest I don't see any point asking your dealer about this, it's neither their fault, or within their power to answer it.

We will never get JLR to admit in writing something that will legally put them in an awkward position. We know most of it.

The only thing in my mind that doesn't stack up is how JLR engineering could come up with a solution that got as far as making production that didn't work. I'm sure they are not that bad.

The more likely reason it doesn't work is because thanks to VW/Bosch, the system they had designed and tested could not be used in its intended form, and suddenly they had to use the ECU operating without any cheats going on. This is kind of verified by the DS actually coming out as meeting emission targets in independent testing.

The real blame here lies with VW/Bosch. Personally I think JLR should sue them to recover the costs and if they wanted to make us happy, also the cost of properly fixing it. But that's unlikely to happen.

There's still time for JLR to drop service schedules to something more reasonable, and also publish testing results to back that up, in terms of oil dilution % vs. engine wear, which would be the open and honest thing to do. They could also be honest, and if legally can get away with it make it clear where the blame lies, and encourage people to consider that when making their next purchase. I don't see why they should play nice here, VW haven't. Might even boost their sales in the UK and non-German countries.
There may be the odd libellous phrase in the 'speculation' above - be careful, use questions rather than statements.... it's not just you, it's the forum owner and possibly mods as well who'd be held responsible.

I can't imagine JLR would want their moment of glory in court over such a topic, but lawyers are lawyers!
Agree , but I very much doubt JLR would be happy to drag their dirty washing into a court room for all to see. .?
 
#3,194 ·
Barnsh said:
Dashnine said:
Ian_S said:
To be honest I don't see any point asking your dealer about this, it's neither their fault, or within their power to answer it.

We will never get JLR to admit in writing something that will legally put them in an awkward position. We know most of it.

The only thing in my mind that doesn't stack up is how JLR engineering could come up with a solution that got as far as making production that didn't work. I'm sure they are not that bad.

The more likely reason it doesn't work is because thanks to VW/Bosch, the system they had designed and tested could not be used in its intended form, and suddenly they had to use the ECU operating without any cheats going on. This is kind of verified by the DS actually coming out as meeting emission targets in independent testing.

The real blame here lies with VW/Bosch. Personally I think JLR should sue them to recover the costs and if they wanted to make us happy, also the cost of properly fixing it. But that's unlikely to happen.

There's still time for JLR to drop service schedules to something more reasonable, and also publish testing results to back that up, in terms of oil dilution % vs. engine wear, which would be the open and honest thing to do. They could also be honest, and if legally can get away with it make it clear where the blame lies, and encourage people to consider that when making their next purchase. I don't see why they should play nice here, VW haven't. Might even boost their sales in the UK and non-German countries.
There may be the odd libellous phrase in the 'speculation' above - be careful, use questions rather than statements.... it's not just you, it's the forum owner and possibly mods as well who'd be held responsible.

I can't imagine JLR would want their moment of glory in court over such a topic, but lawyers are lawyers!
Agree , but I very much doubt JLR would be happy to drag their dirty washing into a court room for all to see. .?
As I said.
 
#3,195 ·
Is it ridiculous though?

Obviously no-one held a gun to JLR's head, however the alternative is somewhat hard to swallow as well.

Let's assume there was no diesel gate, and that the Bosch ECU in question ran the engine to meet all EU6 emissions targets perfectly. In this scenario what we are effectively saying is that the JLR exhaust engineers had all that time to design, test and get into production an architecture that just doesn't work. It didn't just miss it's targets by say 1000 miles, it's massively off. That would have shown up very early on in the design cycle. Early enough to have known that and had enough time to do something about it. Instead we are supposed to then believe that they just went, ah well, we can just cover it up and pretend it's all down to driving style. That same engineering team then leak details in order to highlight just how bad their own design is.

To me that seems more ridiculous.

It seems more likely that what was effectively a last minute, but major change was forced onto them very late in the day, and that JLR were too far down the line to stop as presumably they had also terminated their supply of diesel engines from Ford. So they had only one option which was to get Ingenium out regardless. Unfortunately there was no magic engineering fix, and a rather annoyed engineering arm of JLR have been keen to make details known so they don't get all the blame.

It's a massive co-incidence that other manufacturers than VW have been caught cheating diesel emissions using the same Bosch ECU that VW appear to have developed with Bosch, and that JLR who use the same ECU, but didn't launch their Ingenium engines using this transverse architecture until just a few months after the whole thing erupts, suddenly have a massively under-performing system, that exhibits strong similarities to 'fixed' VW engines...

Had VW not actively engaged in cheating, would Bosch have had a 'clean' diesel ECU to sell to other car manufacturers? Would JLR and others find themselves where they are now? If you'd have had to use the ECU the way it is now, would you have come up with a different solution in the first place?

Someone said JLR don't want to wash their dirty linen in public, but they are doing so, just not in a court of law. But is all the above supposition is actually true, then why not? Being British about it isn't exactly working out well, and if at the root of all this, it's not their fault....

Of course the new Evoque will be very interesting. If that hasn't properly fixed this issue then maybe it is JLR's engineers at fault, as they have known about this for long enough to ensure a heavily revised platform would perform correctly. Other manufacturers have managed it since...)
 
#3,196 ·
Ian_S said:
Is it ridiculous though?

Obviously no-one held a gun to JLR's head, however the alternative is somewhat hard to swallow as well.

Let's assume there was no diesel gate, and that the Bosch ECU in question ran the engine to meet all EU6 emissions targets perfectly. In this scenario what we are effectively saying is that the JLR exhaust engineers had all that time to design, test and get into production an architecture that just doesn't work. It didn't just miss it's targets by say 1000 miles, it's massively off. That would have shown up very early on in the design cycle. Early enough to have known that and had enough time to do something about it. Instead we are supposed to then believe that they just went, ah well, we can just cover it up and pretend it's all down to driving style. That same engineering team then leak details in order to highlight just how bad their own design is.
But what if it went like this.

Well before production, during the later stages of design sign-off, say around March 2014, a big inter-departmental squabble kicks off between Design and Engineering over space for the Ingenium and its closely-coupled DOC-DEF device. Engineers say that it won't fit in to the available space. Design say the lines of the car are set in stone and refuse requests to move the hard-points. The engineers lose the argument and tell management that the L-550 can't launch with Ingenium, therefore the first ones have to go out with the Ford Duratorq. It's only EU5 but that doesn't matter as EU6 isn't mandated for all new vehicles until September 2015. So the engineers, still licking their wounds after losing the battle for space with McGovern, now have two jobs to work on. The first is to complete the installation of the Ford 2.2 which they know is a waste of time because it's going to be replaced just as soon as they can complete job number 2. This is more complicated because they will need a totally new exhaust system, quite unlike any they have produced until this point. Nevertheless, they dutifully set about trying to find a way to make it work. Job 1 delays the shipments of the L-550 Ford until early 2015 and they only manage to get 83, all demonstrators, out the door before the curtain is pulled over calendar 2014. The clock is now ticking loudly for Job No, 2.

We know that JM's SCRF coatings were brand new and still being actively sold during 2014 with headline-grabbing claims about SCRF being quicker to warm up than conventional SCR systems - provided that it's fitted in a "closely-coupled" configuration. The chemistry looks promising but the architecture still presents a problem as McGovern's Design team aren't prepared to concede an inch of space, so the engineers get their pencils and slide-rules out again and come up with what we have now. It's not perfect but it works, provided that it's used with EDC17 and its infamous "special features". Mmmmm… yep, and you know what guys? Not only is this design elegant and clean enough to pass the emissions tests, but it can actually go all the way to 21,000 miles if it's run the right way with a bit of help from Bosch. No dieselgate at this stage. So the brochures are printed, the extended service interval suddenly becomes a major selling point and everything in the garden looks rosy. The fleet buyers are drooling as they line up with their chequebooks.

Then, Holy Shit! 18th September 2015 happens and the automotive world rocks on its foundations. Some of the SCRF cars have already escaped into the wild, but they can't afford to let any more out. So that day all shipments of Evoques and Discovery Sports is suddenly and inexplicably stopped. And it stays that way for another 2 months. Then Wham!! Half way through the following year, the first cars start yelling out for an oil change service at 8,910 miles.....

....pick up the trail of what happened next on page 1.

It's all speculation, naturally. But when you look back through the evidence there's nothing to contradict this version of history.
 
#3,197 ·
I think the reason that maybe wasn't the way it happened is that the solution had to also fit the existing Evoque. That was already set in stone and not a new car like the Discovery Sport. If there was no room in the Evoque then the DS would have to follow...

Interestingly on the new Evoque there is presumably even less room in the engine bay as there is now an electric motor attached to the engine crankshaft.
 
#3,198 ·
Hi, just wondering how you can tell (easily) whether or not the DS has these fixes - N289 etc - apples or not?

My DS has always suffered from calling for an early oil service, in my two years since taking delivery it has consistantly been every 6 months each time needing an oil and filter change. The first time it happend they actually said to me it was oil dilution issue from the factory.

It's going in next week for it's first (2 year) service hence why I'd like to check what software versions it has.

Thanks
 
#3,199 ·
There's no easy way of telling, apart from creating yourself a topix account and seeing if there's any outstanding service actions against your car for these updates. I hesitate to call them fixes as they increase the oil dilution threshold from 6.1% to 10% which will make services seem like they're required less often but won't change the rate of dilution build up unless they have found some other tricks to help reduce it.

These updates will get applied when the car is at at the dealer for its service.
 
#3,200 ·
I'm not sure that increasing the threshold is all it does. My car seems much more "driveable" after the update - I get the impression it has also set the engine to rev a bit higher - ie change gear earlier, which might have been done to affect emissions. Could be I'm imagining it.
 
#3,201 ·
Thanks guys, might call them before it goes in next week and ask them to prove that N289 has been applied to the car. Otherwise I can see the car having to go back in again for another oil change in 6 months time.

Worried that although I have a service plan, and to date any oil change has been covered under warranty, next time they will try and charge me for it 🙁
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top