I have in front of me the official LR Workshop Manual wherein it states, The cylinder head is of aluminium construction.  IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REFACE THE CYLINDER HEAD IF IT BECOMES WORN OR DAMAGED.  This warning is repeated several times throughout the Td5 section.  Also, the manual states that, The cylinder head and the camshaft carrier are machined together as an assembly.  If bearing surfaces in either component are damaged, both components must be replaced as an assembly. This has me a little worried about the long term ownership of the Td5 engine.  Besides the array of computer control units and sensors, which I imagine are impossible to service, and an extremely high pressure fuel delivery/injector system (1500 bar at injector), we are presented with major mechanical components which are disposable. Is this engine designed as a replaceable one and not a rebuildable one??? Any LR people out there who will - hopefully - prove my assumptions wrong? I hate to think of trying to service the ACE system in years to come! Regards, Marc Johnson

I have in front of me the official LR Workshop Manual wherein it states, The cylinder head is of aluminium construction.  IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REFACE THE CYLINDER HEAD IF IT BECOMES WORN OR DAMAGED. My Audi cylinder head was ground when I burnt a hole between two cylinders, so the LR one's not ungrindeable because it's aluminium!

mechanical components which are disposable. Is this engine designed as a replaceable one and not a rebuildable one??? It sounds like an 'use once and throw away' type of cheapo engine. This is not to say that its initial life might not be a long one [if you are lucky] but it sounds as if it is not a premium rebuildable engine. Good if the initial purchase price reflected its 'cheap' build but we are expected or intended to regard it as, and pay for, a premium product. Bad news I reckon. Huw

It sounds like an 'use once and throw away' type of cheapo engine. This is not to say that its initial life might not be a long one [if you are lucky] but it sounds as if it is not a premium rebuildable engine. Good if the initial purchase price reflected its 'cheap' build but we are expected or intended to regard it as, and pay for, a premium product. Bad news I reckon. Huw Fortunately the long lived and easily repairable 200 Tdi will be around for a very long time yet. Its a shame because I understand the Td5 is a great engine as far as performance and efficiency is concerned, certainly better than the Tdi's. Recently spec'd a new 110 SW for Ghana and was still able to get a 300 Tdi for Africa. Guess that says something about the reparability of the Td5. John Lubran

or engineers, and workshop manuals have been written accordingly Not talking specifically about the TD5 here, but I think I should explain the difference between a premium quality engine and a throwaway engine. A premium engine will have replaceable components and wearing parts and surfaces while cheap engines will not. An example of premium medium sized diesels are Perkins 1000 series which have valve seat inserts, dry cylinder liners, replaceable camshaft bearings etc. etc. Similarly JD and others but not including NH Powerstar and Cummins B. The latter two might well have a high operational life to a point, but they do not have cylinder liners and can only be rebored a finite number of times. Examples of a premium diesel in a Landrover are the range of VM engines installed in some Range Rovers. Like them or loathe them, these engines are quality products that with a bit of luck should last for a very long time. Quality should not be confused with short term reliability as this is only one aspect of quality. Since the TD5 only uses a single chain to drive the timing gear [duplex would cost LandRover only pennies more] and the camshaft does not seem to run in bushes, then I would class it as a cheapo build indeed. A few years down the road and wear of the camshaft would mean a new head in all probability, which would probably not be economic. Unfortunately LandRover are not alone going down the route of giving a finite life to major components of their vehicles. They probably reckon that they will have more satisfied customers and repeat sales if greater emphasis and money is spent on efficiency and short [100/150k miles] term reliability and refinement than on long term reparability with a higher purchase price. Who is to say that they are wrong? Huw