Yes Rob. if you clean out the holes like that it generally removes the through-plating in the hole too so you have to put wire links through too, and that involves scaping lacquer from both sides.
"Dyson motor where a V8 should be" !! reminded me of this:
https://retro-electric.uk/2020/06/30/jaguar-e-type-zero-first-deliveries-due-later-this-year/
Hmmm.... Not enough of the 'right 'noise and too much ££ for most.....
although perhaps if you put some (Dyson) brushes underneath too and clean the roads the (inevitable) VED is reduced..... ?
What amazed me was when the Vintage Voltage guys converted a Fiat 500 for 'just' (another) 20K.....
When you can get a Brand New (Factory/Warranted) Electric Fiat 500 for about the same price !
Decided to put one of these in my boot instead:
https://youtu.be/GSQALI9k1OQ
Only "about" 12KEuros !
I had already read this from them karlos: https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/tesla-powered-electric-land-rover-18245297
How Much ????????
Similarly on TV (2020): https://www.vintagevoltage.tv/
Prices for doing these 'classic EV conversions' are staggering: I recall their Defender cost about £100K !
Even this.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvyCetgy_os&ab_channel=TheLateBrakeShow
......and stating prices "from 50K excluding car" .... are certainly enough to put most people off !
Grizzly - did you read this too ?
http://cardiagnostics.be/-now/T4_bestanden/win_easunlock_suite.pdf
Troubleshooting P4 !
'Lack Of Sych' apparent there Grizzly: See 'The RSW Channel' on YT eg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A777JpNp004&ab_channel=RSWSolutions
PS: Yes you will need a ££ tester to re-set your '95 SRS problem
Yes, Lpgc that summarises it all quite well. Yes the ECU 'just' wants to know when the engine is at TDC and the gap in the teeth (the spike) tells it ..!
Any other spikes etc due to air gap issues faulty CKP etc confuse it considerably. GEMS and THOR are different in that the 'reluctance wheel'
has teeth on the former and pegs on the latter. (These pegs can get bent as was described). On nether system is an OBD code raised though...
Sorry Mace, anyone offered to lend you their Green Nanocom Lead yet ?
Then it is probably just as well that i did _not actually describe it _as "background noise" then Lpgc, you would have blown a gasket ?!
"Could it be" that you went off on an unhelpful (and irrelevant) Hall Effect tangent ? And if so that was not 'on topic' (either) !
Accordingly perhaps back on topic you could use your 'scope to provide mace with some voltage levels from your EAS instead ?
A-ha ! Then why didn't you just tell us all that much earlier mace ?! :-)
Don't know if any of 'local' members could lend you their green lead
(I'm "dawn sarth" !!)
Fair enough mace, we did ! Perhaps the CKPs in our heads are faulty ??
I suspect we went off on a tangent once you asked about monitoring the EAS handshaking with a 'scope...... which probably won't help (?) At risk of _another _tangent have you tried any other EAS diagnostics too (eg. RSW) ?. As you (may) know the EAS uses a dedicated pair of pins on the OBD connector and that may be the primary problem ??
mace; If you do get stuck let me know and I will 'scope my (working) CKP and post it up;
Incidentally what I also recall was that the (faulty) CKP signal was so erratic it was rather difficult to trigger the scope !
I see you are in one of your overly-pedantic moods (again) Lpgc !
"Ah, I see where you misunderstood: In this particular context of course the 'base noise' is (using your choice of voltage) the 4V signal and the Timing reference signal is the 6V spike (triggering a positive spike on the trailing edge before the gap and a negative on the leading edge of the next tooth in the PICO/Jag scope illustration I posted). "
Happier now Lpgc ? I also note I wrote 'ECM' instead of 'ETM'..... although at least I tried to stay on the Reluctance/P38 topic !!
Again the main point is a Basic Coil, as we use for CKP, is really not ideal
Incidentally within RF/AC descriptions where there is a constant background signal it is totally valid/conventional to describe this as "base noise" and any 'event' occurring during that is the signal (of interest). Pedants may not agree with this entirely of course....
Ah, I see where you misunderstood: In this particular context of course the 'base noise' is (using your choice of voltage) the 4V signal and the Timing reference signal is the 6V spike (triggering a positive on the leading edge and a negative on the trailing edge of the tooth in the PICO/Jag scope illustration I posted).
The main point again though is that we are just dealing with a few volts (AC) here between 'states' (ie. between tooth/no tooth/ or even double tooth..) and this can be very easily disrupted, particularly by the tooth-sensor 'air gap'; It makes more sense if/when you see a faulty P38 CKP signal in practice... I have (had ?) a photo of this -somewhere- posted up years ago on RRsnet, via a storage scope IIRC (along with the ECM illustration,) but I am not going to try to search for it on there thanks to their almost-useless 'search facility' !
If you do scope it mace take a photo ....
? Think you misunderstood: I assume you are referring there to the 'scope photo by Lpgc Mace ?
Again, for clarification therefore the P38 uses an analogue reluctance (AC) CKP sensor (and produces a signal just like the one in the link in #12)
The one Lpgc posted in #15 is (probably) a Hall Effect (DC) CKP sensor in another vehicle/make.
However, and for further clarification, obviously somewhere within the P38 ECU the CKP AC signal is converted to a DC/Square Wave signal....
and it might well look like the 'scope trace, albeit depending on the specific nature of the fault on the CKP !
Looks more like a (proper) Hall Effect sensor there Lpgc rather the P38 ('Reluctance') type ... but it still illustrates the problem very well, thanks !
Again if the problem on a P38 causes a 'missed pulse' or an 'extended/double pulse' it confuses the ECU no end of course; Bad design LR !!!
.
It depends Mace/Miah on what you mean by 'way higher' there - as the base noise on that diagram is about 10V and the CKP pulses (only) about 12V - plus this is an analogue (magnetic/AC) system of course. Thus any fault - eg, larger sensor/tooth gaps, bent teeth, cracks in flex plate, detritus etc affecting that magnetic field can easily result in false triggers - eg. the (expected regular) pulse missing (in particular) or causing (less frequently) multiple pulses, thus confusing the ECU/timing.
Hope that helps, if I can find any illustrations (or photos) of a faulty CKP I will post that up !
The Crank Sensor is just a basic coil, and there is precious little attempt to clean up the output, and as we know it can fail without producing a Fault Code so -IMHO- it is 'not exactly integrated into the Digital Electronics within the engine ECUs'. Again (with a pristine coil) the distance from the sensor to the teeth is probably the key factor. and similarly any detritus on the teeth will also affect the waveform produced, which (should) look like:
http://www.lanzo.se/auto/graphics/jag.gif (I would personally invest in a 'scope and/or borrow one before replacing the flex plate...)
EDIT: Had a quick (failed) look for the LR illustration for this signal for the GEMs, in the ETM IIRC (?), but the main point (as the the Jag/Pico diagram above illustrates) is that the peaks are not much higher that the base noise and so the possibility for false trggers is also high.......
Beowolf said: "On a related note why couldn’t someone clone the functionality of a nanocom, which itself is a clone of sorts of testbook, by watching the signaling on the wire between the nanocom and the various ECUs? I realize that being able to see the digital signal doesn’t mean you can know the data payload. Exploring this has been on my someday list for a long time."
Simple answer to that Beowulf is that the Proprietary Protocols (particularly the handshaking) used are very difficult to 'reverse engineer'; Just observing the pulses is not enough... The EAS is (was) the 'simplest' of them all to 'emulate' of course, and even that took much inspiration/perspiration...the Engine ECUs are another matter entirely.
OUCH !.... as you know it is a fiddly job replacing the screen, and in this weather it needs to be done inside (due to the bonding agent in particular)
Speaking of 'fiddly' I would personally use some super-glue in/on the crack and/or wait for warmer weather.....
eg. This kind: low-viscosity for 'wicking' (ie. capillary) purposes:
https://www.charnwood.net/products/product/ca-uk-ultra-thin-cyanoacrylate-superglue-50g-wicking-bond-ca028/category_pathway-279
It's been a while since I looked at CLV stuff but I would say that RAVE is wrong, although different defintions of CLV do exist.
However if you take the normal/coventional definition- " % of Max. torque at sea level etc" - then clearly 10% at 2500 RPM is far too low,
whereas 35-45% seems more likely ?
