Yes obviously the BT one would have limited range under the bonnet (so I did not bother and used the cigg. lighter outlet instead
with box on top of dash). Works up to 20 feet like that, depends on local RF noise of course. I use the 433Mhz unit with (old) receiver
turned off via RF relay, very handy indeed (at least for me). Pretty sure many on here still don't have a Gen3 Rcvr. or Marty's box either.
As stated it does not have to be on a P38; Was very handy over winter on other vehicles too, notably with intermittent faults etc
and/or or less-than-perfect batteries (and has saved a problem for me like that at least once and for neighbours twice - so far )....
REMOTE BATTERY MONITORS
For anyone unaware and who has the need for that particular faciility..... and not just for P38s:-
Two main types:
Bluetooth/ Phone app.
eg. https://www.amazon.co.uk/ARCELI-Bluetooth-Wireless-Diagnostic-Analyzer-Black/dp/B09YTWJ6BL
eg: https://www.quicklynks.com/pro_show.php?id=159
YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcNR2Gs6oQI
'Wireless'/ Standalone
(NOTE: 433mhz..!!... so might be tricky if it keeps waking up your BeCM...
particulary if you don't have a 3rd-generation Rcvr. or Marty's box...)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/ANCEL-Wireless-Frequency-Automotive-Charging/dp/B0BZCK7L1H
Typically draw a few mA
Amazon ads. above but multiple (much cheaper) variants on e-bay of course.....
Wish I had one of these years ago, it would have saved me about 25 times what these cost !?
Aragorn: Suffice it to say that I only provided part of the long (and frankly disrespectful) conversation I had with the broker's agent, and, as you asked.... I would have preferred not to have had to listen to her excuses but it seems they would not allow me to speak with their algorithm directly....!
'Thank you' for your other patronising remarks too ... eg. I was very shocked to hear that Insurance Cos. are 'not a Charity' - but thank you also for apparently being an apologist for their clear exploitation/s now....
Moving on... Note that I fully understand how Profits & Loss works in Business and also all about risk (relative or not) etc but the most important part of this is, for instance, that if LR now have a reputation for their 'keyless' cars being stolen that does not constitute a 'reason' to load up P38 Premiums disproportionally. Similarly I know just what models of cars are being stolen locally too, and they are not old P38s either, but now I am just repeating what I already explained above !
Yes, I know what NCD Protection is and how it works - I was simply stating that it only partly Protects it now, and was, as I said, 'for those unaware' !
Such Ts & Cs change ... and attention may not be drawn to this for us by the Insurance companies, hence my warning !
The 'excuses' provided by the Insurance industry for raising premiums so much remain disproportionate if not actually appalling
https://www.independent.co.uk/money/why-has-car-insurance-risen-so-much-b2391334.html
UPDATE: Although I (eventually) received an apology from Adrian Flux for their (unpleasant) 'Customer Service' agent
I found Footman James to be much more 'old school'- and cheaper too: They also have an interesting 'FLEX' product so
that you can add a Modern car to your Classic Car policy (if you are so inclined) !
Thanks for your input Richard: Everyone else on here must be happy with their new premiums ?!
Talked with Adrian Flux today (who now seem to have a Customer DIService department): Seems their Under-writer is now Aegas
who seem 'less sympathetic' towards Classic Cars than before - although this was (once) their core business; Their (rude) 'Agent' did
indeed state this was due to Range Rovers having a bad theft record now - and discussions about their newer (dire) keyless entry
and ignition systems were basically ignored by her: Next was the 'Post Code' discussion, and again via the local rozzers I know that it
is also the newer keyless Hyundai / Kia etc that mainly are being stolen.... not the few P38s; Surprise Surprise !
WE all know that if 'more seriously' damaged older cars are just written off of course as 'beyond economic repair'.....
Long and the short of it is there is just a basic list of excuses - presented as reasons - to further rip us off...and so not about 'relative risk' at all ?!
EDIT: The other thing of note -for those unaware- is that No Claims Discount protection no longer actually protects your No Claims Discount....
In that if you have an incident/accident even though it is no fault of yours you will still lose some of your No Claims Discount......
So perhaps 'protection' just means something else now in small-print 'insurance-world' ?
Just been informed my (less that 4k miles a year Classic Car) Premium with Adrian Flux will be up by 30% this year....!!
Any recommended suitable alternatives ??
Household Insurance policies increased similarly this last year of course, based on the 'increased price of re-building materials'
although that makes me wonder what the policy/claim ratio is...
So, is this just me or are there a whole new bunch of rip-offs / cons / excuses being used to baselessly exploit us all further now ?
What are the oddest excuses you have heard ?? (One broker I queried mentioned Brexit !!)
What ?? £172 ?? First thought was the decimal point is off a couple of notches.... Second thought was typical 'Main Stealers'.....
Whoa ! Impressive - half a million miles
That's equivalent to a trip the Moon and back of course.....
That's One Small Step for Man: One Giant Leap for a P38
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/
(Top Line)
'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:
https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx
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:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/norwegian-ferry-company-bans-electrified-vehicles-from-transport-on-its-ships-208942.html
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 !?
PPS: https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/owning/2023-10/vehicle-theft-on-the-rise-in-2023/
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 ....
See: https://www.rangerovers.net/attachments/actuator-circuit-jpg.12945/
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:
https://www.rangerovers.net/threads/my-theory-on-the-p38-remote-key-fob.61546/
Back then - 10 years ago - I was 'RRfanman' then but banned; We all know the rest...