41jules1967 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:40 amAlso it's possible that JLR management have put the 'offending' brochures out of harms way, if they make claims they now know to be inaccurate. Not a cover up or conspiracy, merely, "we don't use those as there's a mistake in them". In any case, under the right circumstances, 2 year 21k service intervals were achievable, even on yours so technically true, even if not for you or I.
There are a number of assumptions and false statements in this paragraph and I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I shall take them in reverse order, to ensure that the narrative follows a consistent path.
I have a private email from a JLR engineer based at the factory which states categorically that [due to the known faults as described elsewhere] NO Discovery Sport 2.0L Ingenium diesel is capable of making it to 21,000 miles without raising the oil dilution above the "safe" level. It didn't matter then and it doesn't matter today (after supposed improvements in the system), how the car is driven, it is a proven fact (shown by JLR's own ageing tests) that the car cannot do it. This is why N289 was needed to raise the diesel dilution tolerance to 10%.
From September 2015, any Ingenium diesel that did make it to 21,000 miles or 2 years before having its first service did so only because it was fitted with faulty in-vehicle service software (Q627). This known bug prevented the "service required" message from appearing in the IC, except where the driver started the car (unusually) by turning on the ignition with the lever in "P" and the brake pedal not depressed. Some of these cars when examined were found to have upwards of 20% diesel dilution according to the one serving JLR engineer, and one ex-JLR, now independent, engineer I have spoken to. Other service staff have reported the same thing on here. Over a fifth of the engine oil in the worst cars consisted of the less-volatile molecules of diesel fuel.
All the cars sold from 1st Spetember 2015 were suffering from the Q627 fault. Some people (none of them conspiracy theorists) see a curious coincidence in the fact that a car known to suffer from a systemic design fault that results in extremely high diesel diluton (high enough to cause engine failure according to JLR) should be released onto an unsuspecting public with a fault in the very alerting system that was put there to prevent engine failure occurring.
Take a moment to consider these twin phenomena:
1) Extremely high levels of oil dilution, coupled with,
2) Faulty high oil dilution detection software.
The probablity of two such faults occurring completely unbeknownst to the manufacturer is so vanishingly small that it doesn't warrant serious consideration. On the other hand, to deliberately allow this to happen while simultaneously making false marketing claims, would constitute reprehensible, possibly fraudulent, behaviour. And yet here we are - we know that it happened. What's more it can be proved. Neither explanation makes sense - yet one of them must be the truth.
Jaguar Land Rover knew that the rate of diesel dilution accumulation was going to be extremely severe due to the too-cool, elongated DOC-DEF-SCRF after-treatment design and they possessed this knowledge before a single vehicle was handed over. A sensible, responsible, company would have ensured that the warning system functioned correctly in such circumstances. But JLR did nothing. It's not even possible for JLR to deny knowledge of Q627. This fault was system-wide on several Land Rover and Jaguar models and it predated the faulty exhaust system.
So it appears that JLR sold cars with no effective high oil-dilution warning system, while being aware that these same cars would generate extremely high oil dilution. At the same time, in order to keep the sales coming in, the brochures claimed falsely that the cars would benefit from extended 21,000 mile service intervals.
But there was a warning, at least for some owners. The InControl App was also privy, through a back-door network service, to the same parameters that were supposed to trigger the non-functional "service required" message in the IC. Had it not been for the electronic communications between the car and the InControl App no-one would ever have known about the high diesel dilution. If you didn't use the InControl App you remained in the dark about what was happening under the bonnet.
So what happened when these InControl App owners discovered that their cars were requesting services at 8,000 miles and went to their dealer? The answers came out from the service departments like they had been pre-loaded onto machine gun belts: . . . . just ignore it. . . the car is right, the App is faulty. . . .it's a software fault . . . . service interval not reset for this model . . . bad batch of filters . . . . wrong oil . . . . wrong software,.. Not a single one said, "It's your driving style". Instead, they denied (as per their instructions) that the high dilution was real. Only much later, once people began testing their oil and questioning the veracity of these ridiculous unfounded explanations, a new myth emerged from JLR - well, OK, the dilution is real but it's nothing to do with the car, it's being caused by the drivers themselves. Really? Well why has it taken you until now to work this out?
Regarding your second sentence, having already twisted the story at least twice to keep owners in the dark, rewriting history a third time by misrepresenting a few brochures would be nothing. It's in JLR's financial interests if the brochures are represented the way they currently are, because the fewer used car owners that know about this, the better for the bottom line. I was trained to always look out for the means, the motive and the opportunity.
Your first sentence is not logically sound, based on the evidence. The 17MY European brochure (LRML XXXX/16) does contain the statement that servicing intervals have been extended, albeit adding that this is only for the 4WD cars. This is not the explanation.
If this wan't a deliberate act intended to obfuscate the history of oil dilution and confude owners of certain models regarding their eligibility to free oil services, then it must be put down to simple incompetence.
I am just presenting some specific evidence to show that the former explanation is not merely some fanciful notion. On the contrary, it is strongly suggested by logical interpretation of the strange, as yet unexplained real world events that occurred from 2014/5 onwards.
41jules1967 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:40 am
Sure they may not be 100% UK brochures. There are aspects that don't match my car exactly too, (all the dashboard pics have a CD changer in them) but it's close enough for a general idea and remember when you say "European Brochures" they are in English so clearly not intended for foreign audiences, more likely they're the 'base' stock brochures that don't detail any country's specific line up, but rather serves as a starting point for customisation.
With respect, they are not even 1% UK Brochures. Whatever their antecedents, they contain too many differences (some of which are actually counter-intuitive in the real world) when compared to the hard copies to be able to demonstrate heritability either way. As an object-oriented programmer with experience of version control systems, I think all one might state with certainty is that they are probably derived from some common ancestor. Definitely, the one has not been created from the other.
They may well be "close enough for a general idea" for some people, though as a previous BMW 8 series "brochurist" myself, I can't think of anyone who might fall into this category. Generally, the people who seek out brochures to go with their car usually place a high price on accuracy and objectivity. That's why the actual brochures for recent Land Rover models fetch £20 to £30 when they come up on eBay.
A little research quickly reveals that JLR produces precise brochures for individual sales territories, each one carefully worded (presumably for contractual purposes, e.g. "goods must be as described") to reflect the options available where the vehicles are being sold. Thus there are brochures available on the internet for North America, South Africa, Europe, Malaysia and so forth. The brochures for Malaysia, for instance, like many of those available in European states, (especially eastern Europ) are in English. The official language of Malaysia is Malay, not English.
Therefore I don't think these brochures have been lifted from some generic pile of "stock brochures".
I would be keen to hear from anyone who actually knows what is going on. Maybe CRC would care to comment?