There are now hundreds of reports on the internet from owners of the Land Rover Discovery, Discovery Sport, Range Rover Sport and Evoque diesel models but these still represent only a fraction of the total population. It is a systematic design fault so the total number of affected cars could easily run into the tens of thousands. Popular forum threads are here for the Discovery 5 and Discovery Sport (2400 posts on this one alone). Most owners don't really understand the technicalities behind these early services and this allows JLR to shield the true nature and extent of the problem behind generic references to general DPF shortcomings, the introduction of EU6 emissions regulations and "driving style". JLR dealers and CRC invariably tell owners that their cars are "performing normally". Thousands of copies of JLRP00100 are now circulating but, unless they slip up and allow a group legal challenge to gain traction, the problem looks to have been contained by the provision of "goodwill" oil changes. Be aware, though, that the automatic provision of free oil changes will probably cease at the end of the warranty period, according to an email sent recently to two different DS owners.
Many Discovery Sports and Evoques have been rejected but there's no known report of a successful D5 rejection.Anyone successfully rejected the vehicle and had a replacement on this basis ?
In a nutshell the problem on the DS and Evoque is one of insufficient heat in the DPF caused by too much pipework between the engine and the canister that houses it. This is what is meant by "hardware and architecture" in the text of the SCN and the known facts make it virtually impossible to rebut a strong and determined assertion that this hardware architecture doesn't work properly. An owner with a measure of technical knowledge should therefore find it easy to construct a rejection argument on the basis that the car is "not of satisfactory quality" and "not as described" under ss9 and 11of the CRA 2015.
For the 3.0L TDV6 Discovery there isn't, as yet, the same level of confidence about the root cause, mainly because no-one has researched it in sufficient detail or produced a robust theory as to the cause which could be independently verified. In the case of the 2.0L Discovery Sport (this applies equally to the Evoque because it shares the engine and the floor pan) DEKRA were asked to comment on the too-cold hypothesis and they agreed that it was indeed the distance between the engine and the DPF and the total reliance on "active regeneration" using post injection that was to blame. Then, in what might be considered a landmark PR cock-up, JLR wrote to me on 24th October 2017 admitting openly that normal driving didn't get the exhaust hot enough for passive regeneration to work, hence the need for additional active regeneration. Subsequently Honest John started to link DEKRA's findings with the fact that these cars all shared the D8 floor pan from the Freelander and began re-stating confidently that this is a design issue that can't be fixed.
Logic suggests that the Discovery 5's problem is linked somehow to that of the Discovery Sport and Evoque because it is described in the same breath in JLRP00100 as being attributable to "hardware and architecture" differences causing longer and more frequent periods of post injection during active regeneration. But anyone currently wishing to reject on the basis of "not of satisfactory quality" would probably struggle to prove that it's a design issue until it can be shown, at least "on the balance of probabilities", that this is the case. There's always "not as described" but unfortunately there's no reference to 16,000 miles in any of the marketing materials and, worse, the handbook actually does say that the service period can be reduced depending on driving style. Good luck if you are affected with this.