Just had my annual service carried out by my local independent, excellent service as usual

Unfortunately it revealed that my near side front lower suspension arm bush has split

I was surprised because I hadn’t heard anything untoward when going over speed bumps or broken tarmac, often a sign something’s not right.

I’ve owned several D3/4’s and L322’s over the years and with the L405 having covered only 48k it’s the lowest mileage I’ve done where suspension work is required

It’s booked in to be done but can’t help think the 22 inch wheels it’s run on most of it’s life have contributed to the early demise of the bush?

Most of my previous Land Rovers ran on 18’s or 19’s and most of those reached 70k before work was required.

Who do you use out of interest? 2011 4.4 TDV8 Vogue SE Buckingham Blue with Ivory and clear glass = "Rory"
New Defender D300 90 on order so "Rory" will be going to a new home....!
1974 Series 3 Lightweight = "Millie"
My preferred specialist: www.glenrands.co.uk
--------------------------------------------------

J Hollick Ltd in Kings Langley.

They are a Land Rover independent specialist who I’ve been using a few years now and can’t fault them

48K is low, that's for sure.

Can't speak re. L405 but you'd think it'd be similar to a L322. With both my L322's, I've replaced the nearside lower arm first, followed usually a year later by the offside. Normally a job done around 70+K as you say.

Are you driving on local / country roads perhaps? Could it therefore be due to road quality, or as you suggest are balljoints and bushes subject to more impact with the lower profile tyres on bigger rims? It would be interesting to see what other forum members have experienced with a) The general suspension wear rates of the L405 and b) Failure mileage of lower arms on FFRR's with bigger rims (21" and up).

With regard to the state of the roads though... please indulge me whilst I get on my soapbox...

<rant> The potholes on the local roads around us seem worse than ever since council budgets were axed. No doubt the bat conservation officer's office will still be fully funded, whilst roads are going to rack and ruin, full of pot-holes with non-existent (faded) road markings, un-cleared surface water drains and encroaching hedges and trees. </rant>

Jon 1992 RR Classic 3.9 efi Vogue
===================
Both my fatties now gone...
Previous: 2011 L322 4.4 TDV8 Vogue SE /// 2002 L322 4.4 V8 HSE /// 2009 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 XS /// 2004 Defender 90 TD5 /// 1993 110 V8 Snatch Landrover /// 2005 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 SE (Aus) /// 1990 110 Isuzu 3.9 County (Aus) /// 1976 Series III Trayback (Aus)

I'd have thought that the relentless spread of the urban disease of speedbumps (aka traffic "calming") contributes more to premature suspension/wheel/tyre damage than local or country roads.

If the car did not come with 22s as stock then they will cause issues with prematurely wear on some of the suspension items. mainly because when they were testing the car the suspension would have been designed around a specific wheel and tyre size. I see this across lots of cars where people put different wheel / tyre combinations on. 2012 Vogue 4.4 TDV8 - Current
2014 Navara V6 - Gone
2004 Vogue TD6 - Gone
Grand Cherokee - Gone
Discovery V8 (LPG) - Gone
Discovery TD5 - Gone

22 is a stock size for the L405

AFAIK the suspension is the same regardless of whether the car comes with 20, 21 or 22’s

Like most parts of the UK, the road surfaces around here vary from poor to really poor

Just luck of the draw I guess. Putting a positive slant on it and assuming I keep the car until it’s covered 100k, they would have needed replacing at some point. So as long as I don’t have to replace them for a 2nd time I guess I’m going to get good use out of the new ones.

As Alistair mentioned, 405 was designed for 22’s. Won’t be the reason. I’d just put it down to bad luck.

All pre 15my cars are prone to front suspension bush failure...

Is this due to a modification of the suspension generally or an update of the control arms.

If the latter does that mean new one’s will have better longevity?

I’m unable to look right now but if you search my old threads, there is a TSB for this (technical service bulletin) on JLR main dealers retro fitting 12,13,14MY cars with 15MY front suspension.
This would be done to rectify issues like yours sir...
Mine was done last year and involves changing front dampers, ARB, ARB actuators, all lower arms and valve block...

Thanks Craig

That doesn’t sound cheap

Seatown wrote:

I'd have thought that the relentless spread of the urban disease of speedbumps (aka traffic "calming") contributes more to premature suspension/wheel/tyre damage than local or country roads.

You should see the state of the roads where I live in North Lincolnshire...  1992 RR Classic 3.9 efi Vogue
===================
Both my fatties now gone...
Previous: 2011 L322 4.4 TDV8 Vogue SE /// 2002 L322 4.4 V8 HSE /// 2009 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 XS /// 2004 Defender 90 TD5 /// 1993 110 V8 Snatch Landrover /// 2005 Discovery 3 2.7 TDV6 SE (Aus) /// 1990 110 Isuzu 3.9 County (Aus) /// 1976 Series III Trayback (Aus)