Richard: In fact that has been the basis of my contention with the Local Authority for some time now, that there are NO emissions whilst parked up !
(Just for clarification -in case they are actually reading this- by 'NO' there I mean ZERO not Nitrous Oxide....)
Yes, it is more about money than any pollution, but Khan 'disputes' this (euphemism for just blatantly lies of course):
Seems the London Mayor has much difficulty in understanding Scientific Data: eg. A Report for TfL last May calculated that Expanding the ULEZ
to Outer London would only result in a minor (1.4%) drop in NO2 and negligible (0.1%) drop in PM2.5 (Particulate Matter)..........
Unfortunately (for him) that Report was published before he could censure/block it.
Indeed an independent scientific analysis showed that the previous Expansion (as far as the N/S circ.) had reduced NO2 there by just 3%:
Accordingly Khan produced a (paid for / non-independent) report that 'proved' it had fallen by 46% and so was 'transformational'... !
In a week where it was revealed our former Mayor/ Prime Minister gave up on his scientific education at 15 it all really makes me
wonder just how many of our 'leaders' are actually numerate enough to run a hot dog stand, let alone a country/city !? / 2nd Rant off
Richard: Unfortunately it seems the Local Authority system just can't handle anything prior to 2001. My suggestion was just to default to the highest band then and then re-calculate if/when a CO2 figure to their satisfaction can be established.... but that is just far too logical for them, apparently (?!)
(Just like the ULEZ IT foul-up all communication is by e-mail now ...but you can still pay fines by phone...)
By comparison those other countries' systems you have described above all seem quite logical and sensible of course:
Obviously it seems the UK Systems are still mainly based on highway robbery ( aka indirect taxation ) instead ?!
Richard: Exactly: TfL have their own compliance list that (often) does not tally with the DVLA data for such plates !
Latest scam of course are cloned plates, and it seems the TfL ULEZ Cameras are not checking these for 'anomalies'..
-such as the car 'being in two places at the same time'- and so these cloners are using plates from well out of London....
General Consensus is if Khan stays 'in power' then the ULEZ Emissions Standards could be altered (eg. to include CO2 ?)
and/or all diesels will be banned and/or Pay-Per-Mile is not very far off; (Probably inevitable as there as otherwise an expensive
network of cameras -plus 'mobile ULEZ vans' -not being used) Hmmmm... Yet many will vote for him as Mayor again next May
dave3d; That's crafty; Choose a Motorway or much slower A-Roads etc through towns ?: They will claim if is 'saving the planet' too...
Yes indeed Richard, but for some reason that ('other details') facility was not working - not for me anyway !
In the meantime my Local Authority seem 'uncomfortable' with accepting emissions figures from a 2001 for an earlier car of the exact same type !!
It is academic anyway as their 'highest band' is anything over 226g/CO2.....
'In other news' some neighbors of mine with cars with 'personalised' plates keep getting ULEZ fines although their cars are compliant:
One has 19 and the other has 16 (to date); The TfL IT System can't handle such plates; Rumour is their central processor is an abacus....
Thanks Richard, I will give that a go...
For any others on here with the same issue:
Start with/ Click on: https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/
'Find fuel consumption and emissions information on a new or used car
Search for car details including fuel consumption, CO2 and other emissions, by make and model'.
Click on > 'Find fuel consumption and emissions information on a new or used car'
Select "Used car" of course (and use their month/year 'Search Tool'): on:
Land Rovers are on Page 80-odd (Depending on just how you search).
eg.(2001) 4.0 is 385g/CO2 and 4.6 is 398g/CO2
Anyone know an official site that gives such detail ?
The Gov.uk site only deals with vehicles from 2001+
My local Authority (Council) are issuing Residents Parking Permits based on CO2 emissions (yes, that's right, whilst parking/stationary.....)
Apparently this is to 'discourage larger engines'. Of course, it doesn't - it just acts as (just another) kind of Charge/Stealth Tax...
This follows Khan's plans to 'save the planet' (by TfL raking in £5M/WEEK with ULEZ) /rant off.
Interesting detective work there Richard....!
Yes, EVs are not so popular .... once a large Li Ion battery goes into 'meltdown' there is not much that can stop it: Thus:
Not helpful either if there happens to be a tank of petrol/diesel nearby either.
Aragorn: 'Fobbed' off ? Yes, in fact my fob is off - as I just use a metal key now !
(Plus some of my own additional aftermarket security additions, obviously....)
It is only (more) relevant now as when folks ask me about LR I simply tell them about my own security woes from years ago... as clearly the more recent (Keyless) Land/Range Rovers are incredibly likely to be stolen, and they have consistently (again) done so very little to resolve that problem ... so I advise folks to buy another marque instead.... and that's how customer dis/service really works of course... !
PS: Thanks for reminding me a Landrover caused the Luton fire, another (safety) reason not to buy one !?
Richard: Well of course all my 'banging on' was simply because of LR's incredibly bad Rcvr. design that put folks' security and safety at risk, so 'excuse me' for that !
As you know there were certainly EMC (Directive) requirements beyond (just) Emissions prior to 2004, ie. Immunity/Susceptibility, and, as I have also already mentioned, Product Liability Directive/s too.... and again, if there was no actual 'fault' on their part then why exactly was LR's second-generation (and almost equally-dire) Rcvr. 'introduced' ? Importantly that was a clear admission of fault and had a Class Action been instigated back then on that basis then the result could have been quite different.
[As I am sure you also know you can not simply say/imply within said Directives that individual modules are not to 'blame' (eg. the Rcvr) as Liabilities are actually based on the system as a whole.. and that is how 'un/fit for purpose' is established]
When I was pursuing all this (10 years ago) I can assure you (again) that LR did all that they could to obfuscate the situation and try to avoid addressing their liabilities. At no point did they for instance just quote EMC regulations as being 'met' nor provide any EMC Certification to prove it either...but again that was primarily because they knew the (P38) Product Liability requirements would just time out... and it still remains outrageous that LR could do this - and charge us £300 for their design mistakes too !
-At one point back then however LR did request 'a list of affected VINs' and I added that request to the rrs.net but with minor response; My guess is LR wanted to know if there were enough disgruntled P38 owners to actually mount a Class Action...? In the event I was banned from rrs.net and rrs.pub did not exist back then either....
Again See: https://www.rangerovers.net/threads/the-updated-rf-receiver-ywy500170-to-solve-battery-drain.31919/page-3#nested_reply_top_post .
Note #59 and #60 in particular...
PS: Sorry but I really don't subscribe to your earlier BMW deliberations that they simply 'design things to a low price'. Where Public security and/or safety are concerned it is simply not acceptable to quote cost/price as the 'reason' for bad design/s.
The simple fact that the Rcvr. needed to be updated -twice- is evidence enough that it was not (EMC-wise) 'fit for purpose', LR used the word faulty, not me.
Frankly P38 owners had a strong case for punitive damages considering all the losses (replacement batteries for instance) but JLR simply blocked any attempts to resolve the problem until it was too late for us to pursue claims (due to Product Liability issues 'timing out'): Maybe if _this_site had existed earlier we could all have organised that 'Class Action' too ?! Ideally this would/could well have been replacement third-gen Rcvrs. based on our VINs ?
As stated earlier if you do NOT use the fob on earlier cars but only use the metal key then no messages come up, at least on my '95 only the two messages I provided above are displayed (- and then only if the fob is used..) Different/earlier BeCM than your '96 no doubt ?
Not surprised BMW said that Richard, JLR told me (2013) there was "no proof that the rcvr. was faulty" !!
See: https://www.rangerovers.net/threads/the-updated-rf-receiver-ywy500170-to-solve-battery-drain.31919/page-3#nested_reply_top_post .
Note #59 in particular...
My 'extra/contingency/parallel' switches idea (- as a 'failsafe' for 'iffy' micros in the lock mech. - but to be used to enter EKA codes if needed) is just to bridge across the appropriate connectors from the 'common' Pin 2/763 over to Pin 2 and also Pin 3 /762 (ie. an extra switch for both Key and C.D.L respectively) and to use those to simulate the 'usual' key turns in the lock ....
On the earlier cars the messages that actually come up are ENGINE DISABLED and KEY CODE LOCKOUT but those are however (for whatever reason) highly unlikely if you just use the metal key and avoid the fob...
Aragorn; Early cars (eg. '94s) don't have the passive immobilisation coils on the ign. switch so yes just using the metal key (that happens to be sticking out of a dumb/dead fob) will work like that.. !
Not sure what you meant by 'tapping a remote fob onto the drivers door'; Please elaborate; Again my plan is to add switches to the lock (inside the car) to emulate the usual (rotating-key-in-lock-left-and-right) EKA procedure in case it is needed... but again if you don't use a (working !) Fob it (EKA) does not seem to be (ever) needed...
.PS: Answering your question below, yes !
As you know Richard the Receiver issue relates to it not (or no longer..) meeting the requisite EMC susceptibility requirements; ( Years ago I asked some folks - in Ireland, as Huf directed ! - for a copy of their Certification on this but they just gave me the 'JLR runaround' - as I was seriously hoping they could be 'persuaded' to fix the problem, via a kind of 'Class Action' process, not just charge US £300 for THEIR bad design/s) Again they had 'redesigned' it but made a hash of that.. as/and (also seriously) I expect manufacturers to fix it not via aftermarket additions (as per the inspired Marty & Co unit).
I still don't know exactly why this Rcvr. foul-up was not such a problem in NA markets either....
and it's not just ta 315Mhz issue
LR's vison is definitely limited, aka 'planned obsolescence' of course' but then again I also believe that car manufacturers should be required to manufacture (and support) cars for 20 years (and I am still serious about that too). As you may know there are some (EU !) Plans afoot for that........ albeit a little late: I wonder how many P38s have been (prematurely) trashed for such 'electrical gremlins' as LR are no longer interested in supporting - just replacing ??
Back more on the main topic/s I searched in the archives and found:
Back then - 10 years ago - I was 'RRfanman' then but banned; We all know the rest...
Whilst my comments above may just be 'wishful thinking' Richard I have long thought it would be better to 'just' remove the P38 security altogether and install my own immobilisation systems; Just a few concealed switches would do that too, plus maybe a flashing LED/steering wheel boot ! That has to be better than the woes of random lockouts and the receiver nonsense etc many of us have endured over the years.... and as a result we have had to rely on Colin/Blackbox, Storey/EAS, Marty/Rcvr etc and your own expertise (and that of others) of course on here..... not to mention RAVE !
In the meantime....
My own Rcvr. 'workaround' years ago was to use a second fob with an 'RF Relay' to turn the Rcvr. power on/off to the R ! Lost count of the number of batteries that cost me.. Truly appalling design as we all know
The other weakness - EKA entry via the (maybe iffy) door lock microswitches - might be mitigated against by fitting some push buttons in parallel to those micros (but easily accessible inside the car), but I did not get around to that (even though I have a pre-V36 BeCM...). Not happy having to re-design the electronics because LR lacked 'vision' !
FWIW Immobilisers have been mandatory since Oct. 98, but really something of a joke now since Keyless Ignition as you say is so easy to defeat/bypass with a relatively-cheap box of tricks ? More 'stupidity' is involved if folks have their RR stolen and then they buy an equally insecure RR with the insurance pay-off... and use a steering lock..... a common issue round here !
Also FWIW I have been asked multiple times now 'what it is like to have a classic (!) RR' .... and my reply is "you need a bucket of suoer-glue, a degree in electronics and the patience of a saint" aka 'stupidity of design' I repeat !
Thanks Richard, much appreciated, and that's a comprehensive guide indeed !
Looks like the main problems may be encountered if you lock with the fob and unlock with the valet key (or vice versa) - which confuses the security system no end no doubt !
PS: Overall I am starting to think I will disable the im/mobiliser, and EKA, use valet-key only and fit my own anti-theft devices next too ! Funny really as all my neighbours with (newer) RRs are resorting to Steering Wheei Boots/Bars due to Relay Attacks.....
OKKKK, then it is dumber than I thought !
Presumably (rather than simulate it with a coil as you suggested) this is of course just what happens with a (working) fob and a (working) coil within the ign. switch ? ie. insert key -> fob led flashes (and fob transmits code as though the button was pressed).... but now I am not sure how a Valet key would work as long as it was turned within 30/60 seconds ?!
Thanks Richard, that makes more sense (having once seen an opened key briefly - and it did not look like there was any suitable RFID 'smarts' within but I did indeed see what looked like an SMD inductor !) Also means it is not exactly 'passive' either !! Presumably a code (via said inductor plus coil) is sent to the BECM & etc.
(Guessing there may well be a few folks reading/trying this 30/60 second time interval out for themselves too now !?)
For anyone trying to 'persuade Timson' they need to order the Silca HU109 blank which they (and others) have told me is on a '6-month' back order ! ( CRNW do have these thougn, as mentioned)
Another question for you Richard - about the passive im/mobilser coil issue; It was my understanding that in the fob there is a RFID device (which is 'energised' by said coil) to mobilise/start the engine: Above you indicate this is not necessary - as long as you put the key in the ignition and turn it quickly enough (after opening the door with it); If so, what is the time interval for this ?
You are being 'a bit pedantic' there Richard.... I was again simply stating there are limitations with a VALET key, hence my "necessarily !" And I know what you mean but LR call it an immobiliser coil of course !
Similarly, yes, as for the 'flip-key fob' I meant as per the original (Huf) arrangement not a rigid one obviously....
When I asked about this earlier(July) no-one actually suggested CRNW either !
Thanks for the additional data Richard, with my comment about the (passive) immobiliser coil I was just drawing attention (for those without a nano etc) that a basic VALET key (no fob etc) will not -necessarily !- on its own start our cars !
That said does anyone know of a supplier that can cut/copy the fob-type keys (and at a reasonable price) ?