I'd probably be 50/50 on whether to keep the USB sockets or replace with a cig lighter socket, these days USB sockets could be more useful than a cig lighter socket... though of course cig lighter to USB adaptors are inexpensive and easily available.
If it's just for the pump then as a temporary measure (or perhaps even permanently) you could use a cig lighter socket that connects to the battery with crocodile clips?
I had an enquiry yesterday from someone asking about converting a 4L Xreg P38 to LPG, they hadn't bought the car yet...
Edit - Heh just noticed the one for sale is an N reg so can't be the same one like I was expecting.
Thanks Tom @Bolt
The parts Tom sent me arrived yesterday, now as soon as I get a bit of time I can check, clean and re-pack the bearings using the new seals.
That worked out great!
Cheers Tom,
Simon.
Heh, I replied to your phone txt message before I saw your last post above.
OK if you're happy to do it that way... Thanks a lot!
Simon
Sorry the delay for my reply, I knew my laptop battery was about to die and it did die just I clicked send on my last message, put the laptop on charge just while I added another coat of varnish to a piece of wood I'm making for the boat.
Thanks very much Bolt, yes please!
I know UFP made bearings, seals, axles, etc, for a wide range of trailer manufacturers, not just boat trailer manufactures. I just want to make sure any seals I buy are the correct ones for my my boat trailer that gets dipped in seawater, stainless retainers for the axle seal etc, pretty much the exact spec that MagicTiltParts lists and made by UFP / Dexter. If you're sure you can get the same spec from the local trailer place that's great, any doubt I'd prefer them to come from MagicTiltParts or one of their dealers.
I had to think twice whether we still have a landline hehe, I don't think we do or if we do we don't have a phone plugged into it. But if you use Whatsapp on your phone we could talk for free that way? It's 615pm here and I'm just about to leave work to go shopping, promised my son I'd play a computer game with him after that, so today might not be the best time. But I could send you money for those parts now and more money when we know how much packing and shipping costs will be if you like?
Thanks again @Bolt :)
Simon
Thanks for the reply @Bolt
It is OD 1.98" ID 1.38" but I don't know the thickness.
I believe it is a bit special anyway, being made especially for boat trailers that get dipped in saltwater. It could be a special part that only fits axles supplied to the trailer makers by UFP / Dexter.
I think the best bet would be to buy the exact UFP part that MagicTiltParts lists on their website
Asking for a favour, maybe a bit of an odd request but I'm not trying to get anyone to send me illegal substances hehe.
This is a link to the seal part I need https://magictiltparts.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=72 , ideally I need 8 of those but 6 would suffice if 8 wouldn't fit in a padded envelope.
I need some axle seals for my boat trailer, the trailer was made by MagicTilt in Florida using components (like axle stuff) sourced from another US company called UFP (maybe now known as Dexter Group). I contacted the trailer manufacturer who told me they don't keep records more than 10 years but if I removed a hub and sent them pictures and measurements they'd be able to tell me what parts I need. I sent them the info and this is the list of parts they sent me...
PE1101 is the part number to the bearing kit ( see below )
BEARING KIT 1-1/16″[UFP STYLE]
Kit Includes:
Part Description QTY
PE1400 BEARING 1-1/16″ [44649] 2
PE1710 RACE 1″ OR 1-1/16″ [44610] 2
PE2015 1-1/16″SEAL [UFP] [198-138] 1
PH2012 COTTER PIN 1/8″X1-1/4″[UFP AXLE] 1
I can buy all those parts in the UK except the PE2015 1-1/16" SEAL [UFP] [198-138] seals. The seals are an odd size at 1.98" OD and 1.38" ID and I can't even find any info on how wide the seals are. I think maybe the seals are an odd size in all dimensions so UFP / Dexter Group could have the monopoly in supply of replacement components to match the axles etc they sold the trailer manufacturers. It seems my best bet to make sure I'm buying the correct seals would be to buy the UFP / Dexter Group seals they listed but MagicTilt parts, UFP / Dexter Group and none of the dealers I've contacted so far have been willing to sell to me in the UK.
That same link again... https://magictiltparts.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=72
8 Of those ideally but 6 would suffice.
The reason why I want 8 is because the trailer has 4 wheels, I'm not going to change the bearings yet but want to clean and regrease them which means removing the rear bearings which means removing the rear seal, it's very likely the rear seals will be damaged during removal. So that's 4 seals I need even though I'm not changing the bearings yet. I'll buy 2 sets of bearings in the UK to keep as spares but I'll need 2 spare seals to go with the spare bearings, so now we're up to a total of 6, but I might as well buy 2 extra seals while I'm at it since they're difficult to get hold of in the UK and they're only $4 each.
If there's someone in the US happy to do it the idea is I send them money to cover buyng 8 of those seals, shipping to them, shipping from them to me in the UK and the cost of a padded envelope. They would probably want to open the package the supplier sent to them and put in a new padded envelope to satisfy themselves it is just 8 axle seals and not illegal stuff they'd be forwarding to me.
I understand if nobody is up for it, in which case I'll ask my daughter-in-law's aunt who lives in Louisianna to do it for me. The reason I'm asking here first is because she's not familiar with vehicle / trailer parts and because she might feel obligated if I ask and not say if she wasnt comfortable with it, while there might be people on this forum who are more familiar with sending small vehicle parts over the pond and wouldn't offer to get involved if they were not comfortable with it.
SImon
Last year I filled my boat fuel tank for winter storage and added fuel stabiliser, it was fine when I used it in the spring but the fuel was only stored in the tank 5 months. This year I bought an electric pump, disconnected the hose from the fuel filter / water separator, connected the electric pump to the fuel hose and used that to empty the boat tank into jerry cans, from jerry cans I filled my car tank and the missus' car tank, dumped the first half gallon because it was discoloured and smelled off. Start of this coming season I'll put a jerry can of fresh fuel in the boat tank and pump it back out (into jerry can and into a car again) just to rinse the boat tank before filling and reconnecting the fuel hose to the engine filter / water separator.
My car runs on LPG / propane too, I convert vehicles to run on propane for a living. The system on my car injects propane in vapour form and the vapour needs to be under more pressure than on Gilbert's system, the higher pressure means vapour is more likely to condense back to liquid unless its heated so my system's pressure reducer / vaporiser needs to be a little warm before it can vaporise propane, which means the engine has to start and run for a short time on petrol in cold weather until engine heat has warmed the vaporiser up a little. I think my car took longer to start on the old petrol I pumped out of the boat. I used to fill the boat tank with E5 fuel thinking it'd store longer/better than E10 in case I didn't use the boat for a while and for winterising but when I started using the boat more I switched to E10. I decided to empty the boat tank this year because I knew most of the half tank lof E10 still left in it had been in there a few months by the end of the season, topping it up to full with fresh fuel and adding stabilisr might've left it OK to use by the start of this coming season but if it 'went off' I'd have wasted a full tank of fuel.
Heh old fuel in your supercharged Rangerover... Well that was a curveball! But we should've asked, just wouldn't expect anyone to do all that testing and change components without checking how it ran with fresh fuel if the fuel in the tank was a couple of years old lol. The ECU on supercharged Rangerovers is quick to point to faults if any of many aspects seem off. For example on most engines if you disable the evap purge system by disconnecting the purge valve electrical connection they'll give a fault code for the open circuit connection but nothing else or if you disable the evap purge system by clamping the purge pipe from the valve to the engine there'll be no fault detected at all. But on supercharged Rangerovers if you disable the evap purge system by clamping the pipe the system is sensitive enough to detect it isn't getting any flow on the evap purge pipe, it messes up fuel trims and make it point to a MAF problem. I think maybe you were getting cam position related errors because it wasn't getting as much bang from cylinders firing as it expected due to the old fuel. I'm pleased it sees sorted now.
I can see both graphs now, haven't had a good look at the one I couldn't see before yet. But the thought occurs - If the reader is getting the units so far wrong maybe it's getting something else wrong too, we can't be certain that it is even reading the correct fields / data set from the ECU. I would try a different reader on it before going much further because if it's not showing correct data it could be completely misleading, if a different code reader showed data closer to what we might expect it might point to the problem straight away.
Advancing cam timing a few degrees normally gives more low rpm torque, and vice/versa so retarding cam timing gives more high rpm torque.
The whole subject can be confusing because cam timing is normally expressed in terms of crankshaft rotation not cam rotation, so if a cam were said to be 60degree advanced it'd be 60 degrees at the crank or 30degrees at the cam, still way too much advance though. Same with the lobes, so could make a 180degree cam that opened inlet valves for just the 90degrees of intake stroke, though of course in practice cam duration is longer than 180degrees to open the valve just before tdc and close it just after tdc.
Still there's the question why it's reading 60degrees. Have you tried a different OBD live data reader on it to compare the field names, units and figures? I'm inclined to think the cam timing figures should be negative if the cam is retarded and positive if it's advanced, with 0 degrees achieved with the actuator adjusting timing to somewhere near half way around it's working range if you know what I mean. Ignition timing readings certainly do that (have negative readings for after top dead centre timing, which can occur during idle and cranking/starting conditions), I know ignition timing is more clear cut because there's a definite point when sparks occur, unlike cam timing that has the gradual valve lift and return lobes, but engine/OBD designers could have said OK we'll call base ignition timing 5degrees after top dead centre, we'll make OBD call that point 0 degrees and any advance over that -5degrees will show on OBD as positive, so timing at tdc would show on OBD as 5degrees advance. They don't do this though, instead ignition timing readings in OBD show actual readings which are obviously usually positive (advanced) but in some conditions are negative. I think the cam timing readings are supposed to do the same.
There's nothing to say cam timing should definitely be the same on both cylinder banks at idle. Not sure (or at least I don't remember) if they're usually much diffierent on your engine but it seems some engines use different timing on different banks to make one cylinder bank do most of the work during idling, I think they might do this to make the engine use a bit less fuel during idling in a similar way to how some engines using cylinder shut down to save fuel. I know of some V6's that adjust cam timing so one of the banks does around 10% more work (and uses around 10% more fuel) than the other bank at idle, the ECU dials this in at idle by adjusting the cam timing.
I can't see the latest graph, Google says I need permission, I clicked to ask you for permission.
I can see the good Rover graph.
Done a bit of digging, apparently they do show comparative difference between aimed for and actual cam timing. But I'm not sure if the field names and units are correct in your readings, why does it show cam timing at 60degrees, shouldn't a base reading be close to zero degrees? I know cam timing can't really be 60degrees out because the engine wouldn't run as well as it does (or not at all, might even get valve to piston contact if it were that far out) but I'd be looking into why the data says 60degrees.
Fuel injection doesn't need to be very complicated and could be fitted to most old-skool engines for an immediate improvement over a carb in terms of power and fuel economy, also lets not forget lower engine wear due to decreased bore wash and the improvement in cold starting performance... As recently as the early 90's I remember having to help some people get their carb'd engines started in the works carpark but fuel injection made starting an engine turnkey in any weather conditions. When fuel injection first became common it was fitted on engines that were designed for carbs like the Rover V8's, Ford Pinto engines, etc, comparatively simple engines that an owner with some mechanical skills might be happy to dig into to change head gaskets and other big jobs. Fuel injection didn't really affect the simplicify of the engine itself, if you were happy to do the head gasket on teh carb'd version you'd be happy to do the head gasket on the fuel injected version. It's aspects ike VVT and complicated multiple cam timing chain setups that makes people who would once be happy to dig into an engine not want to dig into it... If you want to pull the head(s) on a modern engine there's nearly as much work involved in just removing the timing stuff than there used to be in the full job of pulling head(s). The VVT and 4 valves per cylinder do give the engine a flatter torque curve over its full rpm range compared to (say) a pushrod or SOHC engine but it comes at the cost of much more complexity for diagnosing valve train problems and work digging into engines... And you've got to wonder if it's worth it, because the engines are bigger for the same cubic capacity while the gains are probably only around 10% compared to a SOHC of same cubic capacity and those gains are mostly right at the top end of the rev range near the red line. In the same space as a modern VVT engine you could have a bigger old-skool engine that would make the same power and be a lot easier to work on.
I remember years ago when I had a different job, finish work at 6am after a night shift, drive the couple of miles home, have some breakfast, then think to myself shall I go straight to bed or shall I change the clutch in my car / whip the cylinder head off to fit the head I'd been flowing and had fitted a different cam in. Plenty times I did the work on my car then went to bed for a few hours before the girlfriend finished work and called round. Did the work just in the yard, no cranes or lifts, just had a jack and a few bricks, chain block bolted through a girder across the top of the garage door and set of tools. Relatively easy access to everything compared to modern cars. I used to buy/read magazines like 'Fast Car', people / kids would build and modify engines themselves. Then increasingly often there'd be articles in the magazines about someone who had built / modified a car but when you read into it they didn't actually do the work themselves, instead they through money at it and got specialist companies to do the work for them, some of them had probably never lifted a spanner lol.
Like I said, to get fuel trims to settle in after a reset it's best to set off driving immediately after starting the engine, don't let the engine idle warming up while watching fuel trims or you might have problems with fuel trims not being learned. You'll see some unusual fuel trim readings following relearn after a reset.
Of course if there are other problems such as bad injectors or vacuum leaks they will need to be fixed before it will work properly too.
It's unusual for lamda equivalence ratio readings to stay exactly on 1, they should at least fluctuate a little from between say 0.998 and 1.002. During fuel-off over-run they should shoot up to well above 1 (say 1.999). Are you looking at lambda equivalence readings or command (aimed for) lambda equivalence? During high boost both should come down to maybe 0.85 when the engine should get a rich mixture.
I forget how the supercharged Rangerover engines PCV systems are piped up, usually a PCV valve allows plenum vacuum to suck fumes out of the inside of the engine but not blow boost pressure into the inside of the engine.
After reading your post #9 I was under the impression you were seeing command / called for cam timing figures plus also seeing read / actual cam timing figures. After reading your post #11 I'm not so sure what readings you see now, it's probably a good idea to ask you again what readings you see, what field names does your OBD reader term them..?
I think you're saying you believe the 9 degrees reading is a calculated field, command timing minus actual timing (or in other words calculated discrepancy / calculated how much it still needs to adjust cam timing on that cam)? I'm not so sure, usually OBD doesn't show you how much an ECU thinks it has to change things, they usually shows actual readings and some show aimed for readings... E.g. Similarly a vehicle with wide band lambda probes will show actual mixture (lamda equivalence ratio) and will probably show command mixture (command equivalence ratio) but won't show a calculated field for the difference between and actual mixture, it won't show you how much it wants to adjust mixture by to achieve command mixture.
I've re-read the thread and see you've had / have problems with the chains? I wonder if the base timing is correct (if the chain is on the sprocket in the correct position and not say a tooth out)? If the cam sprocket were say a tooth too advanced on the chain the actual timing would be more advanced than it should be (or vice / versa) which could cause the VVT not to have enough range of adjustment to be able to achieve command timing, or at least not within range of the usual PWM it thinks it should give the cam timing mechanism to achieve comman timing. If that were true then you might always see a difference between command timing and actual timing because the VVT doesn't have enough scope for adjustment to achieve command timing.
How many teeth are on the cam sprockets? Maybe we could calculate how many degrees base cam timing would be out if it's sprocket were on the chain one or two teeth out? E.g. If there were 36 teeth on the cam sprocket then a tooth out would mean 10degrees of cam rotation out.
When installing the sprockets and tensioners did you relieve the tension on the tensioners? I skipped through a Youtube video, a guy working on one of these engines used a 'hand grenade pin' to relieve tensioner tension https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be_O42OoDpE
I don't know much about cam timing aspects on these particular engines but I'll pass on a few thoughts.
You can usually check cam sensor signals using a cheap oscilloscope.
The ECU normally aims for a particular cam timing because that timing makes most power at the given rpm, which usually means the particular timing traps most charge in the cylinders. Since there are 2 cylinder banks if one bank has less great timing than the other cylinder bank it won't trap as much charge as the good bank. Not trapping as much charge means it won't need as much fuel for mixture to be correct, which can be reflected in fuel trims being more negative on the bad bank and more positive on the good bank because they're both fed from the same MAF and normally both banks flow 50% of the intake air. You could check fuel trims to see if they give any clue one cylinder bank is trapping more charge than the other.
If you've got a blockage in the exhaust, say a blocked cat, it prevents the cylinder bank breathing as well. If it can't pump exhaust out it can't get fresh charge in, so again fuel trims go more negative.
I know of a few engines / ECU's that generate cam timing associated (cam sensor, cam actuator) error codes if the exhaust is blocked or (rarer) if a lambda sensor or knock sensor is failing.
You're seeing readings for cam timing and other readings for actual cam timing. Might expect cam timing to be aimed for cam timing, actual cam timing to be cam timing readings. Similarly the ECU probably sends data via OBD for aimed for mixture (lambda equivalence) and actual mixture.
Fuel trims work like this... An ECU has a base map/table (picture a spreadsheet) that might have rpm on one axis and airflow or manifold pressure or throttle position on another axis, numbers in table cells tell the ECU how long to pulse injectors. That's the basis of an open loop system (one that doesn't have lambda sensors). A closed loop system (that has lambda sensors) has the same but also has a table for long term fuel trims and a momentary stored value (not a table) for short term fuel trims. The injectors are pulsed for whatever length the base table says + long term trim% + short term trim%. If the lambda sensors say the engine is running lean the value of STFT increases, if the lambda sensors say the engine is running rich the STFT decreases. If the momentary STFT remains positive for long enough it starts to increase the stored LTFT, if the momentary STFT remains negative for long enough it starts to decrease the stored LTFT. Whenever you change throttle position or rpms change the new length of time to pulse injectors for is read from the base table, the LTFT is also looked up from its table and added to the base table value but the STFT is reset to zero but the STFT will never stay at the same value for long.
You can imagine that when the vehicle is first built it has it's base map but the stored LTFT's are all zero. At this point at (say) 2000 rpm with (say) 10grams per second airflow the mixture won't be exactly correct... let's say it's 8% lean. So the STFT's very soon increase to +8% to compensate and bring the mixture correct. Now since the STFT's are hanging at +8% positive they start to steer the stored LTFT's, first maybe by just +1%, so now we have the base map figure +1% LTFT and if we stayed with +8% STFT the mixture would be 1% too rich so the STFT decreases to +7%. Then it would follow LTFT became +2% and STFT +6%, until eventually we end up with LTFT at +8% and STFT at 0%. Then as we drive around we change throttle position and rpm, but when we next use 2000rpm with 10grams per second airflow the stored LTFT for those conditions will already be at +8% so now the mixture is correct without the STFT needing to adjust mixture by very much at all. Eventually when all LTFT's have been learned in this way we can vary throttle position and rpm and mixture will be very close to correct all the time with very little need for adjustments from STFT's and this helps to improve driveability and mpg while decreasing emissions.
The Ford/Jag derived engines are a bit more complicated because they also adjust injector pulse length for fuel pressure which they read from the electronic fuel pressure sensor, and they can and do change fuel for different conditions.
They are fitted with wide band lambda sensors. It is difficult to interpret a lean or rich reading from a wide band lambda sensor using just read voltage or amp readings, it is better and more accurate to read 'lambda equivalent value' (or whatever terminology the scan tool or OBS system uses) using an OBD scan tool. A lambda equivalent value of 1 is correct (stochiometric) mixture, below 1 is rich (e.g 0.9 would be around 10% rich), above 1 is lean. Or some ECU's / scan tools will show mixture in terms of mass ratio in which case 14.7:1 would be correct, below 14.7:1 rich and above 14.7:1 lean. But you don't really need to see / read lamba values for purpose of diagnosing the problems you're having because it seems the lambda sensors are working and because you can get the info you need about mixture from the fuel trims.
If LTFT's are as high as 19% with STFT's +-7% it's not too surprising error codes pointing to 'system too lean' are occurring. The +19% will be close to the maximum LTFT's are allowed to be steered to, so if STFT is positive when LTFT is +19% we might expect a lean error code.
If the trims are highly positive around idle but decrease with increasing engine load it could point to a vacuum leak, because vacuum leaks have most effect when there is most difference between atmospheric and manifold pressure. If the trims are consistently highly positive it points away from a vacuum leak for the same reason, but might point more toward a MAF generally under-reading airflow problem. But like I said fuel pressure can also be a problem on these engines.
Incidentally what fuel are you using in it? Ethanol has a different stochiometric ratio to petrol, a higher percentage of ethanol in petroll naturally causes higher fuel trims than neat or low enthanol petrol.
Old school narrow band lambda sensors like 0>1V sensors are quite generic, in most cases you can use any sensor of the same type in any car if you cut the connector off and splice the wires in. But wide band sensors are different, you need the exact spec sensors to suit the car.
I believe there have been a lot of knock-off dodgy or slightly incompatible MAF sensors for these cars.
At this point I would recommend following my original advice to clear fuel trims, let the engine cool fully down, start it and immediately set off driving without letting it idle before setting off for the drive. If your scan tool doesn't have a function to clear fuel trims you can do it anyway by causing a 'very hard' error such as causing a misfire with a disconnected fuel injector, i.e.unplug a fuel injector and drive it (it is difficult to access injector plugs on a 4.2SC, but you could snip a wire at the injector multiplug at the rear end of a fuel rail), then reconnect the injector and when you clear the error codes it will also reset the fuel trims. During this driving don't stick to a certain throttle position and rpm for more than (say) 20 seconds, keep slightly changing throttle position or rpms. This is because during this time since LTFT's start at zero STFT's might need to be highly positive or negative, the STFT's are also limited in extent of range they can be steered to and if they reach close to the maximum or minimum instead of the LTFT's being steered the ECU sees it as an error condition and won't steer the LTFT's so you get a mixture related error code anyway. But by continually adjusting throttle / rpm the STFT is reset to zero and the 'clock' for timeout for rich/lean mixture is reset, while before STFT reaches maximum/minimum it will steer LTFT's. I also believe the Ford/Jag engine related ECU's have an underlying 'master' fuel trim... If the old skool model for a closed loop system was base table + LTFT + STFT the Ford/Jag wideband systems would be base table + master + fuel pressure + LTFT +STFT with 'master' kind of being learned one time during initial running when the vehicle was new or after resetting fuel trims (or after clearing a hard error which invokes clearing fuel trims), if the master is wrong fuel trims might never work within range and without having mixture related error codes occur.
Josh didn't send me quite as much info in his initial PM to me but this was my reply...
Hi Josh,
Just seen your message. I'll be happy to try and help.
You didn't say if it's standard or LPG converted? If it's LPG converted does the problem occur on petrol / LPG / either fuel?
Assuming it isn't LPG converted....
First of all I advise checking 'freeze frame data' to see under what conditions the fault codes are triggered. If the faults are triggered under very light engine loads there's a chance a vacuum leak is causing them.
It's also worth monitoring / checking fuel trims under various driving conditions, if fuel trims are generally highly positive the fault codes could be due to a duff MAF sensor.
I'm not sure if the V165 allows you to clear learned fuel trims, if it does it might be a good idea to try clearing learned fuel trims then allow the engine to fully cool down then start it and immediately start driving and using a wide range of engine loads. The 4.2 SC engine management system seems to base some sort of underlying idle base fuel trim on a kind of average of fuel trims learned when the engine is under load, so my thinking is perhaps the underlying idle fuel trims were for some reason learned wrong / too lean, in which case restting all trims and re-learning might see underlying idle fuel trims relearned correctly.
There's also the possibility of incorrect fuel pressure. The 4.2 SC fuel pump is variable output controlled by a fuel pump control module which is controlled by the ECU, so the ECU can 'command' a certain fuel pressure and the pump / module are supposed to deliver that pressure. The ECU can compensate for fluctuating fuel pressure but only within a certain range, so if there's a problem with the pump or module fuelling could be wrong due to a fuel pressure problem. But I think this is one of the less likely problems because most likely if there was a fuel pressure problem the ECU would generate a fault code for incorrect pressure.
If the lambda sensors are not the correct spec for the car or are worn out this could cause the error codes you're getting.
I think the MAF is likely but it's worth going through the above before changing the MAF.
Hope that helps.
Time flies, I've been a member just over 9 years yet never owned a Rangerover. Have converted many to LPG including for several owners who are members of this forum, swapped messages and spoken on the phone with many more.
Thanks for help and other offers of help over the years Gordon, particularly for around the time it was looking like LPGforum might be shut down.
Who plans on still running a P38 in 2035?
Morat wrote:
Comma does oil with Zinc. It sold as "Motorsport" but I think that's just to let them put what they want in it.
https://www.commaoil.com/en-gb/product/moove/moove/comma/engine-oil/motorsport-5w-50/pdf/tds
0.1% / 1000ppm. It's not as high as some, but up there. It's also very high VI and pretty cheap on Amazon at £32 for 5l
Thanks Miles, I didn't know about that one or I might have bought some before finding the Valvoline, high in zinc and as a fully synthetic oil would expect it to have detergents(?). The 5W grade will make it thinner when cold than the 20W Valvoline but I'm not sure whether that would be an advantage, disadvantage or make no difference.. could be concerned that the 5W is thin but it matches the 5W of the synthetic used in the road going versions of the same year same model engine and the boat will never be used in freezing coniditons anyway.
Like you say, I think labelling something as motorsport does free them to make and sell it if it wouldn't be legal (maybe for want of a better word) to sell it for use on the road, same with high wattage bulbs etc.
I bought 2 tubs of the Valvoline stuff because shipping was the same price for one or two.
Pete12345 wrote:
Maybe the title should be changed to "What Oil for my Boat" . . . . ???
Thorst wrote:
That's not as good clickbait...
th.
Heh, OK fair points and sorry to you both if you don't think it relevant here. Like I said I thought it relevant here because of the flat tappets and detergent aspects, I've read some members on here mention ZDDP before. I don't own a P38 but have done oil changes for a few owners, usually putting in whatever oil they ask me to put in, usually with no or little thought about ZDDP or detergent.