There used to be a scrapyard called Doncaster Motor Spares, I went there quite a lot with my dad as a kid and went there by myself as a teenager. Back then they had a muddy yard with cars rocking on top of each other and if you wanted an obscure part the owner/staff would let you have a walk around the yard yourself to find the part you wanted and remove it yourself. 20 Years later they moved to a bigger site, renamed the firm Motorhog.co.uk and advertised heavily on TV and radio. Now if you want a part and you phone them you speak to a girl who knows nothing about cars, tell her what part you want and wait 4 hours for them to txt you to say 'Sorry no parts' even though you know full well they have the part in stock. But years ago having been made redundant I applied for a job there and was offered it but turned it down to do something that paid a bit better.. The manager still seems to know my face today, not sure if that's because of how often I visited in the past or because he once interviewed me for a job, but if I visit he'll usually let me sit alongside one of his workers in a golf cart to go on the hunt for cars/parts in their large concrete storage yard where cars are kept on racking instead of stacked on top of each other on a mud base. Wish it were still like the old days though, and I think they could make far more money if they had better staff who didn't tell customers they had no parts when they do. Just like the Ebay sellers, they always seem to have a que of irate customers bringing parts back that were incorrectly supplied.
Thanks for answering my questions Gilbert, sorry if I took things a bit off topic.
I'm still thinking about the cutoff date, pretty sure there's been a lot of talk on Subaru and other forums about otherwise identical vehicles, same engine and state of tune, paying different road tax if before or after 2006. Is there just the one cutoff date or could another cutoff date have effected road tax on those vehicles?
Thanks for answering my questions Gilbert, sorry if I took things a bit off topic.
I'm still thinking about the cutoff date, pretty sure there's been a lot of talk on Subaru and other forums about otherwise identical vehicles, same engine and state of tune, paying different road tax if before or after 2006. Is there just the one cutoff date or could another cutoff date have effected road tax on those vehicles?
Gilbertd wrote:
It's 2001 as the cut off. Anything first registered before 1 March 2001 is on the flat rate system, that is £170 a year if under 1549cc or £280 if over. After that it is the sliding scale depending on CO emissions so you'd need something with less than 150g/km for it to be cheaper than a smaller engined car on the flat rate.
Has that changed from 2006 or did I just get the cutoff year wrong?
Imports (at least from outside of the EU) are also on the over/under 1549cc scale even if newer than the cutoff? Not only that but some imports newer than 2006 are on a lower rate of Ulez charging than they would/should be if they were EU cars? People are buying 2007 Nissan Elgrand 3.5 V6's to have an old-ish relatively cheap people carrier with a big engine that they don't have to pay as much in Ulez charges for as for a similar age / engine size / emissions none-import.
I forget how the road tax system works.. Is it pre 2006 it's based on engine size and post 2006 based on CO2 emissions?
If that's true, one interpretation of the intention of the petition is lower road tax for small engine'd old cars to bring it closer to the cost of taxing a modern small engine'd car (currently cheaper to tax a 2016 1.2L car that is taxed according to it's low CO2 emissions than to tax a 1990 1.2L car)?
But if it involves not having to put vehicles through an MOT the wording envisages a legal loophole where anyone could buy a 1990 Ford Fiesta / Cavalier / etc, drive it daily and only ever spend on maintenance when it refused to move or the wheels fell off...
I could agree with the road tax argument and it could also make sense in terms of CO2 emissions (an old car on the road might mean a new car doesn't have to be made) but I wouldn't want a lot of people driving early 90's cars without taking them for MOT.
There are a lot of 1990's cars on last legs now, in poor condition and almost ready for the scrappers. A change to rules today would still be in force in a few years and could see a lot of those cars that would be scrapped instead valued more than a 27 year old car but only because they don't have to be MOTd... no chance of a mechanic telling the owner it needs £300 spending on it or it can't be used on the road, the 'no nasty surprise bills' car.
How long has it been that a classic car is one over 40 years old? If it was as far back as 1985 a classic in '85 would have been produced before 1945... hell of a difference between a 45 and 85 car and few 45 cars were on the road in 85. Not nearly as much difference between a 1990 car and a 2020 car, arguably it is surprising 'classic' age hasn't been increased rather than decreased in terms of MOT but that could be a different argument to road tax.
Not sure what just happened but I had a duplicate post, so deleted the first post, now both posts have been deleted. The post #'s were 4 and 5.
Gilbert's 'that would make sense if he didn't have a diesel' was in reply to the post I accidentally deleted, in which I said I've seen a P38 where someone has cut the LPG interface plug off to wire-in a 9 pin plug instead which could be used with a WTV LPG interface cable.
This post crossed with Gilbert's post above... Hehe Gilbert that was confusing but thanks for trying to help.
I've often wondered about the conflict of interests between what 's good for running-in most of the engine versus what's good for running-in the cam.
David Vizard used to recommend using an oil stone to remove the sharp edges from piston rings, reckoned this allowed running in the bottom end at a bit higher rpm which helped with running in some of the high lift cams he fitted.. but I suppose that won't help the engine bearings. Maybe ideally a new bottom end should be fitted with old cam and heads until the bottom end is run in, then the engine pulled and new cam and heads with new valve gear fitted lol.
Sorry to read about your accident Gilbert.
I'm probably wrong but I thought I remembered you once saying you'd love an L322?
The 5.4 RV8 is claimed to produce 'around 400bhp' but I'd have my doubts it makes as much power as the LS motor, a tuned Ford 5.0 or the supercharged Jag V8... Or would be as long lived as any of them? Easier to fit in a P38 because it would just drop in without any wiring or mechanical mods.
I can understand people preferring an older model car to a newer model and wanting better than newer model performance in the old one, said before I'd like an olde Granada mk2 and would like to drop a V8 in it and I'd prefer that over a mk3 old Granada with 2.9 Cosworth engine... But if someone likes both models and the newer model can be had complete / on the road with the high performance engine at cheaper cost than modifying an old one they could think might as well just buy the new one? Or buy the new one as an engine (and maybe gearbox etc) donor car for the old one could make sense if other high performance engines alone (just an engine not a complete running car with high performance engine) would cost similar or more. There's probably more 4.2SC's in the UK than 5.0 Windsors or 5.4 stroker RV8s.
For £5k could buy an L322 4.2 supercharged...
I'd have to wonder if the mate might have caused the problem tyre and glass that's been there 20 years to break...
dhallworth wrote:
Interesting post on the Supercharged, Simon. I had my Supercharged smoke tested recently due to a very small lumpiness at idle when cold. There was nothing found on it. The JLR specialist who smoke tested it said that vacuum leaks on the 4.2 SC engine are very rare.
David.
The Jag/Ford engines have fussy management systems that will usually pick up on even a minor vac leak, they can even tell if the evap purge flows the correct amount of air.
Still have the L322 from the other day here, I haven't found any vacuum leaks. Have tried pull up resistors from both 5v and 12v to the signal wire, the best compromise I can achieve using resistors is quite negative trims at warm idle no load jumping straight to positive trims at idle in D. First I tried the pull up from 5V and got the results just mentioned, then I thought a pull up from 12v would make for more trim consistency between idle no load and idle under load but it doesn't improve consistency much. I've removed the Maf and tried to clean it but still lean mixture highly positive trims, I've ordered a new Bosch Maf from Euro car parts. £161+Vat. I did find that with the Maf signal (g/s reading) corrected at idle the idle rpm speed corrected itself.. seems to be an aspect of the ECU to open the throttle a bit regardless of correct idle rpm speed if the Maf reading is too low.
I've had 2 conversions cancelled this week, one by a guy who I've since read in my notes has cancelled on 2 previous occasions, one by a guy who bought an imported car 2 months ago and was told by DVSA it'd take 6 weeks for him to have his V5... He was booked in for today, told me his docs still hadn't arrived so he'd have to cancel on Friday evening - could have told me your docs hadn't arrived a but sooner mate! But I've pulled another conversion forward and now have a customer coming from Scotland tomorrow, LPG conversion and towbar to fit.
Yeh, got to doubt the humidity claims... Engines kick out some (though less than burning H) water vapour anyway. Would expect the weather to have a vastly greater effect on humidity than steam from exhausts.
Stop people brewing tea and coffee if they want to drive, all that steam from kettles lol. Would suit me but I don't like tea or coffee ;-)
Difficult to win... 'We just made a viable car, it's only emissions are water'. 'The water emissions cause climate change'.
I agree.
If we don't burn fossil fuels the planet's water content stays constant or increases if we burn fossil fuels.
But to clarify the point orhers are making they're saying atmospheric water is a greenhouse gas whilst land water and oceans don't have a greenhouse effect... Even if we burn hydrogen made from water we increase greenhouse effect by increasing air humidity. Burning HC produces less humidity than burning H. Edit - When we burn HCs we make less H2O than burning H but make CO2.
Maybe if the humidity effect is true we could simply fit a condenser to the exhauat of a H engine..
Hehe just playing devil's advocate though ;-) Thing about steam is it will condense and become just water.
Burning any HC fuel, the H in the HC becomes H2O, steam, anyway. And that is additional water, not water that was turned into H + O and back into water as with hydrogen fuel.
Gilbertd wrote:
Lpgc wrote:
Anyone have a BMW engine'd L322 to compare readings?
No but I've got RAVE that covers it:
Thanks Gilbert, that does imply it's just an analogue output as would normally expect. I'm sure I've got notes somewhere on normal Maf g/s readings at idle on this model but can't find them... With a vac or evap purge leak not all intake air would be coming through the Maf, which could explain low Maf readings and high fuel trims. Or if the Maf were dodgy would also explain low Maf readings.
I know there are a lot of dodgy aftermarket Mafs around for BMW engines in general, and on the BMW's a Maf that looks identical can be a different spec... So if I find the problem is the Maf do I advise buying a replacement from a dealer (Landrover / BMW) or a much cheaper one from Ebay etc, or fit signal voltage pullup resistors...
Fixed a few LPG installs on various vehicles today, most of the owners have been badgering me to bring their vehicles in for about a month but I've had loads of conversions on.
One of them was an L322 with complaints of it making a whining noise during driving, when the driver puts foot down the MIL light flashes and the engine shudders/vibrates. The owner didn't know what system was fitted, had the system converted by an installer in the NorthWest 4 years ago and it had always had problems running properly on gas but lately they had got worse.
I expected an easy fix, whining probably the reducer resonating, MIL flashing and engine vibration obviously a misfire, probably both related and the reducer kicking out incorrect pressure.
When it came in the install looked like it the installer had started out with good intentions... neatly wrapped wires over the engine and injectors on an OK bracket even though their choice of injectors meant the engine cover couldn't be refitted (and a bad choice of injectors anyway being Barracuda) then got pushed for time and decided to bodge other parts of the install... dodgy looking wiring near the +ve jump start pole that prevented anyone removing the heater air filter bulkhead panel for access to the rear end of the engine.
Although I'd seen the same type of changeover switch many times in the past I didn't remember the make of ECU/system that used that switch so had to open the engine bay electronics box to see the ECU, turned out it was a 'Blue ECU', seldom seen in the UK though I had worked on systems based on that ECU in the past and already had the software for it, one of the better hardly known ECU's. The Barracuda's look the part, they're all shiny and bigger than BRC or Keihin, they can be high flow, but they're slow in response and very over-rated.
Connected a generic scan tool, Ltft's at around +10% but stuck there due to OBD error codes being present despite Stft's being maxed out and the engine struggling to run gasping for breath with high manifold pressure due to lean mixture on both petrol and LPG, but worse on LPG.
Found out the installer or some other LPG fitter had wired injectors for cylinders on bank 2 (cyls 5678) in the order 8765, so during changeover and in certain other conditions there was hesitation and misfires due to the ECU channel routing problem, this bit an easy fix.
Did a bit of basic recalibration in the yard just occasionally using a bit of engine load wasted by heating up the torque convertor (holding on the brakes). The installer had calibrated using the wrong process, had dialled in all mapping corrections in RPM correction instead of using the map and had used too many offsets in the initial settings (such as 1ms added ginj for undefined 'idle' conditions). I reset all the anti-intuitive rpm corrections they'd dialled in and started my multiplier map calibration without the unspecified offsets deleted. I wanted to increase Ltfts's in the hope it would run better on petrol at low loads and then I could match gas trims to petrol trims.... and for the most part managed to do that, though I still expect it either has an inlet manifold vacuum leak or a dodgy MAF. I haven't smoke tested it yet but the owner's OK for me to have the car a bit longer now and I've had a cancellation for Monday so I might smoke test it then, though I do expect a dodgy MAF. Special tool needed to remove the MAF, like a Torx bit but with only 4 sides like a posidrive/Philips screwdriver, but with a centre pole so the tool needs a hole in the end of it's centre.
Managed to steer Ltfs up to the max at around 20% at light loads getting lower at high loads, Mil light would always be on with such fuel Ltft's but at least it might run OK(ish) with correct mixture, so took it out for a drive... Oh dear, the gearbox refused to upshift for TPS or vacuum and would only upshift for rpm. And the noise the owner talked about that I expected to be reducer resonance turned out to be not from the reducer but from the gearbox...
Back to base, connected up wider ranging OBD gear, the gearbox ECU had a stored code for lack of canbus coms. Cleared the error code, back on the road again.... this time it went up through the gears a lot more like it should and the noise had gone and the OBD code from the gearbox ECU didn't re-occur.
Felt a bit warm and the climate control was set at 22C so I turned it down (a test I would have run anyway...), found that running on gas without the cabin being heated the reducer temp started dropping sharply. Back at base I found the original installer had plumbed the reducer incorrectly, without under-bonnet heater water flow solenoids being open the reducer would see only a small amount of hot water but one of the heater matrix's would see a small supply of hot water even when it shouldn't. Removed the middle bulkhead / air filter panel to see piping at the rear of the engine. The pipe I needed to T to had degraded and swollen... should I try to plumb to it or not? I did, then soon regretted it, the heater coolant pipe had become very thin and swollen, try to plumb a T into it and any clip on the pipe just tore through the pipe. Took me ages to replace most of the length of that pipe (including all of the area that had swollen / thin-walled).
At least now it drives well with maxed out positive low load Ltft's, LPG wiring routing and mapping sorted, and will run OK on LPG without the heater blowing hot air. Just need to look into possible vacuum leak or MAF problem, could even be due in part to evap purge because it's got a dodgy petrol filler cap fitted that stinks of petrol. Also need to look into the fast idle (1000rpm) with correct mixture, these should do around 630rpm idle and it does with lean mixture so maybe the IAV has incorrectly learned with incorrect mixture (which I can sort).
If the worst came to worst... couldn't find a vac or evap leak and a replacement Maf didn't correct it, I am confident I could approach from the opposite direction and adjust the Maf signal voltage using a pull up resistor connected to a voltage divider circuit to tailer the low load Maf reading to something that will give good results... Just need to remember whether the Bosch MAF on L322 BMW's has PWM or voltage output...or does anyone reading know? At 1000rpm fast idle with fully warm engine with no load the MAF reading in live data is around 5g/s, I reckon it should be around 6g/s... Anyone have a BMW engine'd L322 to compare readings?
Only just seen your last post Miles. It'll flash lights on the LPG switch when it's switched back to petrol because it's worked out gas injectors would need to pulse for longer than the available window between 4 stroke cycles for calculated pulse length... Usually due to dodgy calibration, too small nozzles, too unlinear injectors or too low pressure. In your case, since I fitted it and injectors will be linear enough, nozzle size will be correct and calibration will be correct it will be due to too low pressure... so the ECU is compensating for low pressure by increasing gas injector pulse duration. so calculated pulse length has become longer than window.
Let me know when you're ready and we'll sort something out if you like? Got loads on lately but we'll come up with something.
Been fixing an L322 today, expected an easy fix but it's been a pita lol. I'll post about the L322 on a more relevant thread. Edit.... Hang on, this is the more relevant thread, I'll post below lol.
I'm not against nuclear power stations but it would only take one big accident to make slowly rising sea levels and bit different weather seem the lesser evil to locals of the nuke plant, especially in a small country like the UK. But to be absolutely safe we could always pay the Chinese to build more of them for us lol.
Gilbertd iIrc you recently mentioned nuclear fusion has now been invented... Or were you joking?
Ok Miles, let me know when you're ready and we'll sort something out :-)
Disco thing meaning it will run on LPG but the level sensor lights are flashing?