Morat wrote:

See you on Friday, Simon! (I'll get that photo of the LPG injector plug when it stops pissing down)

Yeh see you Friday Miles.

Gilbertd wrote:

Surely the list of priorities should go:....

The list reminds me of one time many years ago I didn't come out of the garage for 3 complete days and nights except to use the toilet, no sleep or rest, soup brought in, working on a car the whole time. Dad was helping and was with me the whole time, all eyes on the ball the whole time with just a couple of conversations that went 'we should get some sleep', 'well you go and sleep then', 'no I'm not sleeping until you do' lol.. Not something I'd do again but the job was done on time when otherwise it wouldn't have been, then we drove the car the 200 miles according to plan and feeling surprisingly well rested after only 4 hours sleep before the drive. Both of us stubborn gits!

BrianH wrote:

Lpgc wrote:

There was a guy near me who used to have a snow plough attachment for the front of his series Landrover, dunno if it was home made from bits of old farm machinery. P38s are better in the snow than series Landrovers though?

You'd be warmer in a p38, The Series III my mate has takes forever to warm up, and even when it is warm the heater struggles.

Just a bit! My dad went through a Landrover fanatic phase in the early 80s and had a few LWB series, could see the road through the gap at the bottom of the doors and heater output was dire. Fuel economy from the 2.25 or 2.5 no better than a V8 either, just under-powered. Comfort not great with the thin square seat cushions to sit on and 3 ton rated leaf springs on the back. .

There was a guy near me who used to have a snow plough attachment for the front of his series Landrover, dunno if it was home made from bits of old farm machinery. P38s are better in the snow than series Landrovers though?

I'm having no fun working outside most of the time in the snow :-( When does spring start? Lol.

No probs, PM me your address and I'll send it to you... probably won't get around to it this week because I'm so busy converting 2 Nissan Elgrands.

I've effected fixes for Citreon petrol ECU's in the past. Seems a common fault where the petrol ECU fails to read the engine temp sensor reading correctly, the engine starts OK but the cold temp reading that the fault creates causes the engine to run too rich when the engine is warm. I noticed that by applying voltage from 1.5v cells to the temp signal wire I could still get the ECU to read whatever engine temp I wanted even with the internal ECU fault, the ECU fault wasn't the reference voltage it supplied but was something in the ECU pulling the voltage on the signal wire... made a simple circuit to apply it's own reference voltage to the temp sensor and feed a modified voltage to the ECU, this voltage coming from an op-amp output with only a low ohm resistor on it's output to the ECU so the internal ECU fault couldn't pull the voltage read.

Happy to send it to you Gordon, it's no use as it is lol. Charged Dave £200, that's £100 for the second hand Romano ECU, £20 for the new switch and £80 time/labour. I couldn't find the Tartarini ECU I tried on Blueplasticsoulman's car though hence why we fitted the Romano ECU (which meant the new switch).

I've got a little digital oscilloscope, testing the old ECU would probably be best done when it's fitted as part of a normal install on a car with the scope used on the injector outputs... If/when I ever get around to it! It's definitely broke though. I've got quite a few ECU's here, some in perfectly good working order, some broke, so if an ECU malfunctions I'm more likely just to replace the ECU and shelve the old one (with a big X on the back of it) or just bin it rather than try to repair it. Years ago when an ECU might have cost £500 I was more inclined to try to fix them (swapping components from other ECUs with a different problem) sometimes with success but not often lol!

There are various design boards, this will be an older board. I've had the back off most types, the older ones usually have a row of little semiconductor looking components... On such boards with this type of problem I've seen some of that row burned, a bit of research on the net led me to believe they're diodes that are part of the injector peak/hold circuit(s). On very early 4 cylinder boards if one of those components is burned you lose peak/hold on 2 injector outputs.

Cheers Dave, was nice to see you and have a chat too.

Just from what I saw when the Tartarini ECU was trying to autocal I strongly suspected the ECU was faulty so we changed the ECU at a very early stage. The existing ECU continually increased ginj during autocal until it was reading 60ms (lol).... 60ms would be so rich that the engine would have no chance of running if the injectors were actually pulsing for that long but the mixture didn't get richer regardless of how high ginj got, so although the ECU was trying to pulse injectors for a long duration they were still only pulsing for a very short duration, the mixture didn't change regardless of how long the ECU attempted to pulse injectors. Give that info, even without putting a scope on injector outputs it seemed and still seems pretty obvious that either the peak or hold part of gas injector signals was missing and most likely hold.

The Romano ECU fitted came from a Merc ML63AMG that never ran properly on gas... until the owner brought it to me from London last year. I told him I'd probably be able to sort it without changing many aspects of his install (keeping the same ECU etc) but he asked me to replace the full front end with whatever I advised. The ML runs well too now;-)

Dave made all the right moves previously, the reducer did need replacing (old one was pushing over 2 bar pressure and wouldn't allow pressure to be turned down), he would have got there on his own if his ECU hadn't also been broken.

I got banned from a Subaru forum after helping loads of people with advice, just on one occasion 'telling it how it is' about why some owners converted Subaru's didn't run properly with their BRC Sequent32 systems. Got banned from a Lexus forum for talking knowledgeably about LPG installs because a moderator got 'incentives from Profess Autogas who he reckons are the best installer bar none..when really that's me ;-) lol

As a kid I used to go out shooting regularly, usually in an area near local sewage works setting ponds where I'd see how far I could shoot bottles etc from (site was a dump many years ago so plenty bottles etc around). On one occasion some guys were there some distance away shooting shotguns, their Rangerover parked near them. They started shooting in my direction and laughing, likely thinking that would cause me to go away, I could hear the shot going all around me through bushes etc. So I went round the side and shot their Rangerover lights out lol.

Dhallworth txted me, he may be calling on Friday depending on whether I get this Yank pickup converted in time.

With 0.9 bar pressure I would expect even highest flowing Tartarini injectors to need to pulse for more than 3.4ms at idle, so something is amiss. Could be injector fault(s), or banks swapped (injector break plugs swapped, setting 2 banks in software would help to determine that), LPG ECU (not so much firmware but electrical aspects such as injector driving outputs) or pressure sensor problem... or could be that autocal cannot work properly because the engine is running open loop mode (perhaps due to previous attempts at autocal / running on LPG when mixture could have stayed lean/rich for too long / vehicle issue such as failed lambda probe) - autocal relies on the engine's closed loop fuelling system working properly and may continually lean or richen the LPG tuning if that is not the case. Also, the engine needing up to 6ms pinj at idle tells a story about the engine struggling to idle properly on gas (it implies higher manifold pressure necessary due to incorrect mixture on at least some cylinders).

Hope you didn't think I was being arsey or pedantic mate, just thought it better to mention to dhallworth in case it seemed he could just enter same numbers as on yours for instant fix.

Could be that his gas temp sensor hadn't had chance to warm up (either gas temp or picking up under-bonnet heat). At 78c most AEB ECUs (behind the scenes) add zero reducer temp compensation (or about -2% for 60c or +2% for 90c), at 28c most AEB systems behind the scenes will add -2% temp correction up to a max of about +8% at 80c gas and min of -8% for -20c gas). In theory LPG systems don't need any reducer temp compensation because it's only the temperature of the vapour that matters... Besides AEB based systems only a few systems have reducer temp compensation even available to setup as an option but on most AEB systems you can't turn off reducer temp compensation and can't make changes to reducer or gas temp correction (and if you could turn off reducer temp correction you'd probably need to modify gas temp compensation). To me it's always seemed AEB systems compensating for reducer temperature is in a way an acknowledgement that the gas temp sensors are almost as likely to pick up under bonnet heat as they are gas temperature.

He should have a separate reading for bank 1 and bank 2 like you've said. But I wouldn't expect it to make any difference to fuelling because behind the scenes the ECUs run as two banks anyway (all cylinders on a bank get the same fuelling as the front cylinder on that bank). Usually the only way setting one bank instead of 2 banks can mess things up is if the box 'anticipate the injection sequence' is also ticked. Still he should select 2 banks and then we can see if both banks read similar values.

Dhallworth phoned me today and said the pressure reading with the new reducer is 1.4 bar, which is a big improvement to the pressure reading with the old reducer! But he also said that during autocal gas injector pulse length goes down to 3.4ms and stays there... So I advised the 3.4ms will be the minimum pulse duration the firmware allows with injectors selected as Tartarini, so he should decrease physical pressure (if the reducer allows) and set working pressure in software to 1bar. If this doesn't work he should try selecting 'Matrix' injectors in software instead, because the Matrix setting at least won't impose a 3.4ms minimum pulse duration (although this would give mixed results with the Tartarini injectors which probably won't work very well below 3.4ms or even 4ms).. But now you've pointed out that he only has one bank selected and we can't see readings from the other bank, I wonder if he has crossed banks (injector break plugs crossed), which would mean one side of the engine got richer and richer while the other side got leaner and leaner (and could have led to the 3.4ms reading on the bank that was going leaner).

The numbers in the 'modify carb' screen are not the map, they are numbers that are added or subtracted (can enter negative numbers) to the real (underlying) map which we can't see in this version of software. The underlying map starts with a set of numbers (depending on type of injectors selected) all the numbers in the underlying map are changed by the same percentage by autocal... So numbers in the modify carb screen are likely to only be correct for the specific install for which they were entered, because autocal is unlikely to set the same numbers in the underlying map on any 2 installs (even on the same spec vehicle, even with the same spec LPG components fitted). because of variables such as petrol and LPG pressure, injector flow rates. temperatures at the time autocal was run, engine tune/wear etc. Now having said that, if we have 2 ECU's both with the same firmware, same basic settings entered in both ECU's (type of injectors and working pressure) and autocal wasn't run on either ECU then the ECUs would be interchangeable on a specific vehicle and provide exactly the same fuelling, but only because the other aspects (pressures, temps, engine itself) wouldn't change if we're talking about a specific vehicle (otherwise would expect calibration to be close but not spot on). I don't remember if autocal was run on Blueplasticsoulman's install.

Sorry to regress, I've just read the last page of this thread.

Been involved in ongoing discussions (er arguments) about EVs and LPG since before Xmas on PistonHeads. An overview of the way discussion has gone is: Someone started a thread 'EVs does everyone think they are amazing', to which I answered 'No ' and went on to discuss lack of range / long charge time / lack of chargers / cost of the vehicles / battery degradation / problems with electrical infrastructure if EV numbers increase dramatically / etc... which didn't go down very well on the pro EV thread. One poster then started an off-shoot voting thread 'Would you wait 45 minutes to fill up if you could fill up for free' but didn't mention the 45 minutes fillup would be necessary every time since this would be charging an EV. I told them I convert vehicles to LPG which prompted one guy to start the thread 'Five reasons you should never consider an LPG conversion', which kind of backfired on him when I mentioned that he had run LPG converted vehicles for 20 years, some people that I've helped on LPGforum and a guy who's Honda I recently converted joined the thread lol. There's also a '690 miles in an EV' thread, I stirred the wasps nest there by saying for any ice car there wouldn't have been a thread because any ice car could do 690 miles with none of the concerns of having to route around EV charging points etc.

It's mostly the same people over all the EV threads, and 'discussion' has been a bit silly, stale and boring for quite a while now (bit like the infamous LPGforum UKLPG thread) but I keep up with them, especially the 'Five reasons' thread.. I think that thread's proving to have more of a positive effect on how people consider LPG conversions than the negative effect that 'Tinrobot' intended. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=247&t=1708145&i=0

Pistonheads wouldn't allow me to use LPGC as screen-name so I'm SimonYorkshire on PH.

Edit, forgot to mention... One guy 'Maxtorque' reckons he's an engineer who was involved with the development of factory conversion LPG systems but has now seen the light and hypes EVs, predicts the imminent phasing out of ice engines, predicts easy upgrades to infrastructure would allow the population to switch to EVs. I'm fairly sure that about 10 years ago I fixed an LPG system for someone called Max who reckoned to be an engineer previously involved in development of factory LPG systems, I asked if that was him but he ignored my question.

blueplasticsoulman wrote:

Lpgc wrote:

may be an option in software to add some petrol to fuelling at high engine loads (and/or switch temporarily fully back to petrol when you put your foot down but resume running >on gas when you lift off the throttle a bit),

I think there is that option Simon. If you remember when we were setting mine up, we had a moment or two where that was happening until you tinkered with the software. I think it's under the "Erichments during acceleration" tab. Which makes sense.

I think you'll be right. Most Tartarini systems have the option but the ECU's change over the years and very early ones won't have the hardware ability to support petrol addition. Unavailable settings are supposedly (and usually) greyed out in versions of software that came out later than hardware but some combinations of software, hardware and firmware can leave unavailable settings looking available... would expect if this were the case then setting petrol addition would just provoke a full return to petrol (with return to gas when rpm falls).

Thanks Miles, I'll try to shift apps to an SD card if you reckon it's possible with the LG?

Off topic a bit, my inexpensive LG phone reports it's running out of storage space, emails no longer work on it. I haven't installed anything, I regularly download and and delete camera pictures etc from it but it came with lots of pre-installed apps that I don't use, many of which have automatically downloaded multiple updates. it's the app updates I believe have sapped storage space but it won't let me delete apps or revert to pre-update versions. A memory card wouldn't do any good as email and apps use internal storage space... Any ideas?

Does the lack of power seem just throttle related or more 50% throttle above a certain rpm? Does it seem to happen at the same time as pressure falls away?

Good luck with the heater matrix problem.

How much stick do you have to give it before it cuts back to petrol? How does it drive on LPG now?

If it drives OK on gas before it cuts back and you have to give it a lot of stick before it'll cut back, some people would be prepared to leave it like that as long as fuel trims / lambda readings are OK. There may be an option in software to add some petrol to fuelling at high engine loads (and/or switch temporarily fully back to petrol when you put your foot down but resume running on gas when you lift off the throttle a bit), where these options are available they can prevent cutting back to petrol because the reducer isn't worked as hard (or even worked at all) when you put your foot down. Not the best setup situation for an LPG system but can mean no further expense on parts and little change in running costs if you seldom boot it to the point the above options are active. You wouldn't want such options set to the point they are applied often or you'd end up saving less money by running on petrol too much.

Adding to Gilbert's point there is likely a liquid phase filter built into the solenoid in the gas feed near the reducer (it's unlikely an installer fitting Tartarini back in the day would be cowboy enough not to fit a reducer filter solenoid). I'd reckon a clogged filter unlikely to be causing the cutting back but it could, it's also possible this solenoid (or the one on the tank) isn't opening fully, though again unlikely.

Unusual to have a high pressure reading after a system has switched back to petrol due to low pressure and 3.2 bar is a very high pressure..Best case scenario - the reducer is set to 2.4 bar above manifold pressure, so when manifold pressure is at atmosphere (1 bar) when you're booting it absolute gas pressure rises to 1+2.4 bar = 3.4bar, since the engine is now switched to petrol and engine is idling manifold pressure is only 0.4 bar so diff pressure (gas pressure less manifold pressure) reads as 3 bar (3.4-0.4, not far from 3.2 bar you're seeing). Middle case - If the reducer gets too cold it can spit liquid gas into the vapour side which then evaporates in the vapour pipes and increases pressure sky high. Worst case - internal reducer fault. But it would seem your 3.4 bar reading is about right after a full throttle switch back to petrol, especially if your reducer solenoid isn't mounted directly on the reducer as the reducer will still be fed with liquid gas from the line between solenoid and reducer when the engine has switched back to petrol (so you get the 1+2.4-0.4 scenario).