I didn't know there was a difference between normal diesel and red diesel besides obviously dye being in red. Seen loads of engines run on red and not noticed more smoke compared to normal diesel.

At one time if you got done for using red diesel you got a fine and the vehicle confiscated. So if you ran an old low value diesel car and could prove you hadn't done much mileage, or if you changed old cars regularly (so could say you hadn't owned it long enough to have used much fuel), you could be better off running on red even if you had to pay a fine and got a car confiscated every few years.

23 Years ago I bought a cheap none-turbo diesel Astra from a mate for my commute as a 'put me on', my mate reckoned it would easily do 60mpg. Then he said you might as well take my spare fuel for it and put 3 x 20 litre cooking oil vats filled with some sort of fuel in the boot. I ended up doing a 1000 mile round trip in that car, took the 3 tubs with me, didn't have to buy any fuel during the entire trip. He paid 16p a litre for that stuff - which did seem to look a bit red lol. Arrived home with quarter of a tank of fuel left in the car and nearly a full tub in the boot. 1000 Miles for less than £15. I then bought a much larger diesel car.

BrianH wrote:

It was raised as a query for the CAZ checker - which currently covers Bath and Birmingham, I believe Bristol and Leeds will be added as their schemes get to the point where the required standards are clear. As far as I knew, Leeds wasn't yet active? (your closer to the place than me, so maybe you know better on this point?) Bristol still seems to be deciding which scheme they are going to use.

Good point on range about removing the petrol tank, but it still leaves you stuck if you turn up at a filling station with little left in the tank and find its out of order. Round here the closest station to me doesn't have another one working within 15 miles. And its not like you could turn up with a jerry can if its on gas only!

Cheers 😁

Since we're on an electric vehicle related thread - Probably still a better situation than running out of electric charge with an EV, could use a Calor bottle as a Jerry can (would help to put plumbing in place as a pre-emptive measure to be ready for this situation). With an extra tank of gas range is likely to be far better than an EV, when you do find gas can refill/recharge quicker. The 'extra tank' won't weigh a ton or cost £50k to buy and fit.

The other day when I was converting the Volvo the tank I ordered for it hadn't arrived by the time I'd completed the engine conversion, so I just put this on-site refillable forklift tank in the boot and connected it up to the gas feed running to the engine bay so I could calibrate the system before the tank I'd ordered arrived. Easy enough to pick this full tank up and put it in the boot on my own and the tank holds about 60 litres of gas. Proper refillable 4 hole job with built in 80% fill limiter etc, with the acme to bayonet adapter directly attached it fills quite a bit quicker than filling a petrol tank. I could easily add facility to (say) my own car to be able to just put this tank in the boot whenever I want for the extra capacity and range.

Great work and looking down the Youtube comments someone else did the same engine swap earlier.

Couldn't help noticing the wire touching the exhaust at 3:28 though lol.

It's probably the first time I've heard of the Toyota problem so I don't know the conditions Toyota owners have had ruined engines under, I don't have enough info to draw comparisons etc.

Can say that with the Elgrands all owners seem to only use the recommended fully synthetic oil, Nissan did a 'fuelling' recall on them during which they checked condition of catalytic convertors (Nissan are aware cats fail and when cats fail it can bugger the engine but they blamed it on over-fuelling), it doesn't seem to make a difference if the engine was a clean runner right up to the point of failing or burned a bit of oil for years before failing.

I can see what differences the fuelling recall made to fuelling when I'm calibrating LPG systems (can compare pinj between those that have had the recall done and those that haven't), they did lean off the top end a bit and prevent a very lean mixture still being injected on over-run in the recall but the recall seems to have done nothing to prevent failures. For running on LPG it doesn't really matter if the recall has been done or not, mixture on LPG can be the same, just a matter of setting multiplier at the high load end correctly and filtering short pulses on over-run.

I'm not saying oil starvation hasn't wrecked a few engines but nobody has yet suffered the same type of engine failure when cats have been removed.

Bri, just to clarify, which city(s) reckon they will or may allow monofuel LPG vehicles to avoid emissions zone charges?

On range, there are not a lot of vehicles on which removal of the petrol tank would make space for much extra LPG capacity but there are some..

Morat wrote:

I'm suddenly motivated to get the Austin 7 on an exhaust tester before puttering round London :)

Hehe I'd have a Mk1 Granada or maybe an early Rover SDI.

Wonder if some of these £90k restored Classics will be bought by people who don't want an electric or small vehicle but want to avoid ULEZ charges...

Gilbertd wrote:

Not sure what car it is that Simon is talking about but I suspect Japanese and someone has come up with the same implausible theory that affects early versions of the Toyota 1ZZ-FE engine fitted in the MR2 Roadster. The theory is that the cat innards start to break up and somehow make their way back into the engine so wear the bores.

Talking about the Elgrands.

I didn't think it very plausible myself at first either but now I know for fact that it does happen and have suffered it myself.

I reckon the way dust from blocked exhaust makes it's way back into the engine (where it acts as a grinding paste) is due to the excess backpressure and the exhaust valve remaining open past TDC on the exhaust stroke into the beginning of the intake stroke, at which point the inlet valve will have already opened a bit dumping some of the cylinder pressure* into the intake plenum... Now there's a situation where the exhaust is under far more pressure than the cylinder and the exhaust valve is open.

*At this point in the cycle the cylinder would usually be at low pressure, the exhaust valve has been open during the entire upstroke of the piston, pressure should be low enough for intake charge to start flowing in through the intake valve as soon as it opens. Except now because of the blockage the exhaust itself is still under pressure, the cylinder cannot be below exhaust pressure so cylinder pressure is at high exhaust pressure, so when the inlet valve does open cylinder pressure flows the wrong way into the intake... which lowers the cylinder pressure, which (since both valves are open) allows exhaust to flow at least into the cylinder and some will even flow into the intake plenum.

Like Bri says, the above effect will be worse on a 2 cylinder bank engine than on a 1 cylinder bank engine... the 1 bank engine might not run with a really severe exhaust blockage but the 2 bank will because one bank's exhaust isn't blocked. And some of that exhaust that's being dumped back into the plenum will be a high dose of EGR for the other cylinder bank on a 2 bank engine but not a high enough dose to vastly limit that bank's power. Or put another way - on a single cylinder bank engine it isn't only the exhaust restriction that lowers power output but also any backpressure can see the intake getting a lot of EGR further reducing it's power, but on a 2 bank engine the EGR couldn't lessen the amount of fresh air getting to the bank without the exhaust restriction by much more than maybe 50%.

I would be interested to learn about any cities that will allow privately owned LPG monofuel vehicles to be exempt from emissions zone charges...
But does 'meet the minimum emission standards' (and Bri's next line quote 'Euro status') mean only certain vehicles could take advantage?

I do know that some cities (e.g. Leeds) allow LPG converted taxis to pay only the same as EV's to work in the emissions zone. It would be great if they extended this to private vehicles.

Around 18 months ago I was asked to tender to convert a fleet of 30 taxi's for use in Leeds, I quoted a lowish price per vehicle of just under £1k. The contract went to a firm in the NorthWest who charge £650 per taxi. Recently a delivery driver realised I converted vehicles to LPG, told me his mate 'is in charge of taxis' and asked if he could pass my contact details on to his mate.. Of course I said yes.. the 'in charge of taxis' bloke phoned me, he too would only pay up to around £700 to convert a taxi. At that kind of rate to convert a taxi other firms are welcome to the contracts, I'll continue converting other vehicles and will get some work in repairs when these taxis go wrong.

I can see why people would save money fitting a stainless system over a more expensive OEM exhaust, in this case they're saving money.

Remember Janspeed from my boy racer days, didn't know they were still going!

Obviously if you're paying for OEM cats it'll be expensive.

Is there no in-between - A mild steel system that lasts nearly as long as OEM but cheaper than stainless? The last exhaust I bought was for a Grand Voyager, cost me £90. Went for that instead of a stainless system that would have cost many times more.

It occurred to me to bring this subject up here because I'm on another forum where the subject vehicle has a problem with failing front cats (they have 4 cats in total) causing blockages that then see cat material enter the engine wrecking it. Someone bought an expensive stainless system complete with aftermarket front cats but the engine has recently started using loads of oil and the most likely reason for that is failed front cats (which in this case would be the expensive aftermarket stainless cats). My advice would have been keep the original exhaust but decore the front cats.... It would be ironic if the owner spent over the odds for aftermarket front cats and full stainless system to prevent problems if the expensive mods caused the same problems as the original exhaust system can cause while if they'd simply kept the existing exhaust but had cats cut out they wouldn't have had any problems.

Seen on a few forums people seem to prize stainless exhausts, but why?
Back in the 70's a mild steel exhaust might only have lasted a few years so a stainless system though more expensive could work out cheaper than changing a mild steel system a few times during the life of the vehicle. These days exhausts last a lot longer but people seem willing to fit a stainless system even on an old car, the exhaust will then outlive the car but a mild steel system fitted on an old car might also outlive the car and even if the mild steel system needed replacing once again it still might work out cheaper than the stainless system. Stainless systems look nice and shiny but you can't see the system when it's under the car and you don't worry about the look of other bits you can't see under the car...

davew wrote:

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the (currently) £12.50/day 24/7 ULEZ Charge is being extended in October too of course:
https://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/simple-map-of-ulez-expansion-area.pdf

That's an increase to about 10 times the area...

I wonder if some of the cleaner busses have had LPG / CNG supplementation fitted, could help clean up emissions further even on the newer diesels.

£150k for a restored 1976 Classic on the same link... I wonder how much it cost to buy the car unrestored and restore it, how much time the restoration took, if there are plenty buyers for that kind of thing?

It would be a bit big brother-ish to flatly ban advertising of the most polluting cars, it isn't as though the average 16 year old will think a new SUV would make them look cool, rush out and buy one. I might understand forcing manufacturers to list emissions data on ads but don't they do that already?

hugh wrote:

A similar thing happened to me last week, poor tickover and a struggling throttle response and variations between normal and abysmal
Tested the battery voltage with the engine running - oh oh this doesn't look good.
Gave the alternator a whack with my trusty hammer -and she's been OK ever since.
As a precaution I've ordered up a spare alternator from a good P38 breaker on eBay and will get new brushes + voltage regulator (if available) to overhaul the existing

I've told the story about when I had to drive back to Yorkshire from mid Scotland using a generator to power vehicle electrics due to a failed alternator on a bank hol weekend a few years ago (different model vehicle but same problem) lol.. At first that alternator started working again if given a whack but the period of working between whacks became shorter and shorter until it wouldn't work even straight after a whack. When home I fixed the alternator myself the next day for pennies, just fitted new brushes but not available in Scotland on a bank hol weekend.

Gilbertd wrote:

Simon, if you look at his sig, it's a '99 fitted with a Prins system. Hence my mention of the emulator unit.

Sorry, yes I missed that.

Agreed the Prins injector emulator unit is likely causing the running on petrol problem.

Also the Prins system won't be wired to the OBD port.

Is the OBD port problem due to lack of power at the OBD port or lack of coms? Same question put another way - Is there power to the OBD port? Does it's power pin use the same fuse as something else e.g. cig lighter socket?

Another thing that can prevent coms on the OBD port is if the LPG system is connected to OBD. This wouldn't be the case with a pre 2000 year Landrover vehicle but the LPG system may be connected to OBD on a post 2000 year Landrover. One way to test for this if just to disconnect the LPG fuse, see if the OBD port starts working again.

Good calls by Gllbert and Symes. Some systems do have separate injector driver units that can fail... Would add I have seen plenty LPG ECU's fail in a way in which they don't connect petrol injectors on a cylinder (or several) when they're supposed to (they're supposed to when the engine is running on petrol). On some (older) LPG ECU's such as older AEB2568 / Stag based systems this can be due to a bad internal relay, I have an old AEB2568 here at the moment that has failed in this way... some day I'll get around to changing that relay so I'll have an extra spare AEB2568 ECU.

Pierre3 wrote:

If I am correct you can only use vehicles with a manual gearbox. When I looked at the EV Conversions [or whatever they are called] they only use manuals. I seem to remember emailing them, for the crack, and they said that they couldn't do an auto P38.

I think that the reason is that the gearbox, in a manual, is locked into gear, maybe 3rd and the huge torque of the motor just drives the vehicle forward.

I don't know much about these conversions, but there are a lot of ev conversions in the States, as you can buy all the parts of the shelf over there.

Pierre3.

That'll be if they connect the motor to the input shaft of the gearbox though. A few months ago I watched a TV programme (something like Vintage Voltage) where they converted a Landrover to EV using Tesla bits, they didn't use the original gearbox, instead fitted the Tesla drivetrain rotated 90 degrees under the middle of the LR so the output that would usually drive the LHR wheel turned the front diff and output that would usually drive the RHR wheel drove the rear diff. Then they realised this arrangement meant front wheels would go backwards while rear wheels went forwards so they had to have a special diff (or might have been output from the Tesla gear) built that turned the rear wheels in the opposite direction to normal for direction of the prop shaft. The diff / gear alone cost something like £5 to have made up. I might have tried mounting the diff upside down first lol (mind you the LR will have had a live axle so probably not possible).

I suppose if we're talking £245k cars it wouldn't be a big deal to remove a slush box to fit a manual box as part of the conversion process.

The engineering firm that made the diff (or adapted the Tesla drive) designed, built and delivered the parts very quickly, got to wonder how long the process would have taken if they didn't know it was going to be featured on TV.

I reckon there can be a difference between what's more comfortable on a short drive and what's more comfortable on a long drive. What's more comfortable for the driver and what's more comfortable for the front passenger. A good part of driver comfort isn't just the seat but is also the driving position and how the car performs/handles?

I've never owned a P38 or L322 but on many occasion have jumped straight out of one into the other. I've always found getting into a P38 more of a sense of occasion than getting into an L322 and the seats at first more comfortable in a P38 but on a longer run I've thought L322's the more comfortable despite harder seats.

At one time manufacturers could focus almost entirely on comfort (and practicality of getting in and out of seats), later they started considering aspects such as anti-submarine for seats. I've had a few different year examples of old vehicles where the older version before antisubmarine seats seemed more comfortable even on a long drive than the slightly later model with antisubmarine seats.

Any issues prompting you to measure petrol pressure Morat?