As I understand it Sodium Silicate on it's own (or Steel Seal for that matter) should not clog things up as it only hardens on contact with air.....
but that might have been the problem due to that extra air ingress in Nigel's car ??
Not sure just what else 'Steel Seal' uses in its formula (that makes it so much more expensive...) but it seems to be a thickener of some kind (?). On their website they are certainly very critical of Sodium-Silicate-only formulations !
**_ "Steel Seal is a unique mixture of chemical compounds that have been specially blended to react under sufficient heat and pressure to create a hardened seal in the damaged area of a head gasket or block.
However there are lots of products claiming the same thing.
While there are other products that claim to repair a blown head gasket in a similar way to Steel Seal and these products are predominately comprised of little more than Sodium Silicate and dye.
Unfortunately, while using Sodium Silicate will initially seem to fix the issue, Sodium Silicate is also commonly known as ‘Liquid Glass’ or ‘Water Glass’. The reason for this is that Sodium Silicate once heated and cooled down will harden to a glass like substance. This substance cannot possibly stand up to the heat and pressure within the engine and this ‘seal’ will eventually break and the problem of the blown head gasket will return. "_**
Sounds like whatever else is in it needs flushing out if/when it has "done it's job" ?....
This _partly _answers it but not entirely !
https://mrcheckout.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Steel-Seal-Info.pdf
(Great idea David)
Interesting/comprehensive write-up Richard; Three bottles of gloop was clearly/expectedly a mistake..
Of course "Steel Seel" have a 'money back guarantee' up to a 'maximum of three bottles' No mention of compensation for the almost inevitable gloop-blocked rad & heater matrix that might result from that though. An excellent example of the "Law Of Diminishing Returns" too.
Like your theory on air entering the system via the matrix leak too, very plausible as the system cools down
As you know Richard the main answer to your question "Why Not ?" is UK Legislation. Plus back 15+ years - when E85 was first mooted here - a quote from a Land Rover Service Bulletin stated "...there are no Land Rover vehicles capable of tuning as "flexible fuel" vehicles on E85 nor any fuel system components tailored to high ethanol concentration use."
Similarly I note that there are no LR E85-compatible cars listed .... at least not yet**, unless you want to buy a new one !?
Don't really want to spend ~£700 to have an additional/suitable E85 ECU fitted either.
As previously indicated (but it was 'removed') the whole Diesel/NOx fiasco was enough for me: E85 is cheaper at the moment.
As per the UK Govt. document above I might be interested if a list was provided that did not preclude its use on my (unmodified) vehicles: In the meantime the 600K vehicles incompatible with E10 are more than enough for me too !
Naturally I will be watching yours and Nigel's bio-experiments with some interest....
EDIT ('Translated')** (C/O Richard): "For land rovers, what does this change? Until now, only the Land Rover Freelander 1 V6 and 1.8i, marketed until 2006, could legally benefit from E85 cases. With these new rules, a whole range of used models with a petrol engine becomes eligible for Bioethanol. Thus the latest Range Rover P38A V8 (4.0 l and 4.6 l) marketed, as well as the Discovery Series II equipped with the same block, both considered Euro3 from 2002, become eligible for the approved E85 cases. It is also worth mentioning the Freelander 2 i6 (6 cylinders petrol of 3.2 l and 232 hp) and their 15 fiscal horses, marketed from 2007, which will also be able to drive for much cheaper as soon as homologated housings are available."
Not sure what "homologated housings" means there - but I will be watching all that with some interest too !
Ah... I see some 'editing' occurred ! Small point but again "officially" E10 is only 'compatible' for LR from '96 not '94
The whole E5/E10 debate has raged for several years now of course, this comprehensive Govt. 'impact assessment' covers most of it for those unfamiliar but interested:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870089/impact-assessment-measures-for-introduction-of-e10-fuel-stream.pdf
And/or similarly:
https://www.iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/ethanol/e10/e10_compatibility
(Not sure if the US 'initiative' was based mainly on surplus corn crops though !)
E85 generally remains an 'unknown' though, numerous papers around but generally inconclusive: Overall CO2 reductions are made (compared to petrol) of course but other emissions change too, eg. HCs are up slightly and other carcinogens etc are produced too. No doubt manufacturers know but are just not revealing their detailed findings (?). What is out there differs from manufacturer to manufacturer too. So still only recommended for FFVs (Fuel-Flexible Vehicles) presently ?
Welcome Nigel but E85 ? Eeeeek !
Seriously no doubt you know that the recent change in UK petrol from E5 to E10 has upset the Classic Car Community quite a bit, Ethanol is Hygroscopic and so - potentially - leads to water in the fuel pipes and thus corrosion, and it also attacks rubber pipes. (Some of this may just be over-reacting but at 85% these issues may actually be quite real). Not sure quite how it would affect Emissions either.... Keep us posted !
PS: Looks like you get 33% less 'bang for your buck too': https://www.dynojet.com/blog/e85-fuel-more-power-or-more-problems
PPS: And it gets worse..... https://fuelandfriction.com/weekend-warrior/e85-dont-do-it-unless-you-know/
Looks good but states 'engine damage' in the ad: Can anyone recall the details of that ?
Yes Richard, I am aware of the limitations at Halfords; Quite good for bikes/bits/e-scooters though (apparently) !
(I remember that CEO too: Much more interested in a fast-track career that anything even remotely technical.)
Lpgc/Brian: As stated/posted earlier:
Sloth wrote:
Natural selection is underrated.
Just so long as they don't take anyone else out with them, preferably.
Indeed, anyone else including me (and god knows they have tried a few times...)
Edit: Just as i sent that I received a "429 too many requests" message....
Maybe Halfords is trying to 'nobble' the site ?
Thankyou Sloth, seriously. You have certainly removed the ambivalence there.
Unfortunately Common Sense seems to have been rather eroded, mainly by the unregulated nature of SM,
I have lost count of the number of odd 'car' things I have encountered and/or been sent too...
Err No Sloth... in fact I know quite a lot about cars myself.... not just P38s and again I really don't owe anyone explanations about that either.
Lost count of the number of times I have had cars A/C charged though and they also performed a vacuum test too, is that better for you than the RAC link ? Beyond the criticisms it seem that a pressure test is advisable too..
I would also take issue about suggesting DIY dangerous stuff in the A/C: Whilst You/Richard are obviously technically very competant, indeed the majority of us on here are, but not everyone who reads this is of course
Incidentally my R134a comment was also partly for Lpgc's benefit too, no need for the hostility....
No Sloth you did not say anything about butane/propane being (un)safe - which is why I did ! The point is that R134a is the stuff legally sold at Halfords and will happily work without all the possible dangers of your mix of course.
Anyway relax, and no doubt Richard will also castigate me too in due course....
Yes, as in #12 Halfords sell R134a and no loopholes are involved.
R134a is chemically very similar to R134, the latter has a NBP of -19C (compared -26C for the 'a' version, thus making this more suitable for (lower pressure) car A/C purposes). The mixture you suggested Sloth could not be sold of course. it is not safe !!
Mind you when I was in Halfords buying a can of this I asked for a Torx T-25 for my P38 - but they refused to sell me one unless I showed them my C&G LR Skills Certificate first .... !!
Well then perhaps you should get straight onto Halfords' case too then Richard !
Thank you for your allegation that I may have committed an offence. You may be wrong too !
Surely their "should" implies choice there Richard, ie. not "mandatory", otherwise they would say "must" ? .....
or is Sloth demanding we must use our A/C all the year ?!
-Seriously I suspect you are just wearing your professional hat there, I have certainly re-gassed from a can,
without breaking any rules and/or having to eat any porridge...
Richard; Please advise the RAC - as i suspect you know more than they do (or the rules changed) !
"They should also perform a vacuum test to check for any cracks or leaks that could prevent your air-con working in the future."
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/car-maintenance/air-con-regassing/
Part of the problem is if you don't use the A/C the seals/o-rings can shrink of course (and just re-gassing may not fully resolve that issue). If you have not run the A/C for a while a vacuum test is advised before re-gassing too.
For those thinking the A/C is not needed in the winter running it now and again (eg. every week) can be important.
Yes, that may be a part of it Richard but the 315Mhz band is pretty crowded there with all their RKE devices etc too:
There has to be something else in the US Rcvr. design that either makes it more selective or the front end is less
easy to saturate (?). P38 problems existed way before the 433Mz weather-stations etc were ubiquitous here.....
(Yes, it's academic anyway and I am sure LR won't ever tell us.....!)
EDIT: (For those actually interested, eg. not for any Wifi-wafflers...); In the US the FCC-permitted power levels for RKE are some 5dB lower for 315Mhz than 433Mhz; Initially that seems to explain the difference in P38 Rcvr. interference problems - as compared to the UK.
However in general 315Mhz RKE manufacturers thus tend to raise their Rcvr. sensitivity by 2 or 3dB to 'compensate' for this ...
Maybe LR US didn't do that though ??
Richard, I was simply referring to CDMA as opposed to TDMA (but even the latter has 'dynamic' power levels); We can get into RF technologies/Cell size (and resultant power levels) but P38-vintage Cellular effects are/were different in the US of course (and that means different interference effects too, as per the OPs concerns....).
Such esoterics apart, my actual question/point above relates to why they did not seem to have the Rcvr. issue in the US. (?)
Morat; ?? Wifi/802.11etc did/does come in different (power) levels, which are Regulated anyway.
These discussions always make me wonder how the useless Rcvr. in our rigs did not attract a huge Class Action in the US.
Their Cell towers can pump out some serious Wattage so the problem should/must have been much worse there.....?