WesBrooks
-
Posts
488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by WesBrooks
-
-
I think the logic behind warming the intake is about ensuring the fuel doesn't condense out of the fuel-air mix. For most power cold and dense is best, but guess that may lead to an increase in unburnt hydrocarbons in the exhaust as the condensed fuel doesn't burn as well or simply gets pumped out.
-
-
Yeah the EGR defeat and ECU reprogram would solve it but it would make the NO emissions worse still. The MOT guys are becoming more hot on that and I'm not willing to take that route. Having said that if you disable it with an ECU tune I would think it would be very difficult to spot. My understanding it the EGR is used to reduce NO emissions but this is a trade off and it makes particulate emissions worse.
-
That's specifically for the particulate filter. The problem with the EGR is the gases don't get hot enought to ever do much cleaning. As far as I'm aware the EGR gas is sent through the intercooler. This has the added side effect that if your EGR is clogged enough to be a problem you intercooler is also generally clogged! EGR may be cleanable by the determined DIYer, bu I think intercooler is another mater! EGR and intercooler replace is around the £800 mark. Not the most expensive service I've done recently but not cheap!
-
From internet searches I've found so far responses generally say avoid cheap fuel and driving style advise varies from 'you can't do anything about it, it's just a time/miles issue' to keeping the revs up.
Not found anything that really shows a detailed study.
It's a result of trying to get the emissions within limit (along with their cheat ECUs ;-) ) but 25,000 miles per annum (thankfully less than it used to be) in a petrol isn't too appealing. Like for like swap with the now 1.4 petrols with cylinder deactivation would be about the same on fuel but the 1.6 TDI eco models of the same age would still have the fuel costs of the 1.4 petrol beaten.
-
Is that brim to brim more economic or dash display. The latter is inaccurate in my car. Maybe consistent with itself and indicates whether one day is more economic than the last but normally over 10% inaccurate!
Mine is at 228k. It has been very good money wise, but as you'd expect had much done. Turbo actuator, full clutch kit, gearbox casing & selector, lower control arms (bushes failed), cruise control stalk, shockers/springs/bushings, and all the usual consumables. Coming up for it's second cambelt/water pump service.
-
1
-
-
General topic for how to keep diesels running well. My daily isn't Land Rover, but I guess many of these topics are transferable to vehicles with EGR and DPF.
I've a 2 litre 2009 170bhp Skoda Superb that I use for commuting and get do high mileages compared to Joe Blogs. I've always recorded brim to brim mileage and fill levels just to keep an eye on costs and have an extra advanced warning of anything heading towards the tits-up side of the spectrum!
In the past I've been able to get high mpg figures (55 on the tank average, and one 700 mile tank full with a 55l fill) between the quoted urban and extra urban when on motorway traffic that was limited to 50 by average cameras. I guess a lot of this was slip streaming. After a couple of months of driving like this the car became unhappy and often stalled and refused to start until temperatures dropped below 65C and the everything was as if nothing had happened. Nothing showed up on the computer and DPF issues would have shown up as there are plenty of sensors on that. The general consensus is probably EGR getting a little gunged up, but it is an pain of a job to get to, so not really worth attempting until confirmed. I swapped my commute to a longer faster route and the car seems to have cleared itself. MPG average for tank full is now more like 45-48 brim to brim. Reduction in MPG mainly down to a 5mph increase in target cruise from a GPS validated 65 to 70.
While modern diesels seem to be able to be driven comparatively economically for a given maximum power of the engine, it appears as if even with motorway miles unless there are a little higher up their % loading the EGR system and inlets tend to gunge up.
So. Main question is when plodding along in slow, but flowing traffic at say 50mph which gear would be best for reducing the rate at which everything blocks up? My guess has been to drop to a lower gear which would keep the revs and airflow up, but the ECU would probably reduce the weight of fuel per shot as it doesn't need the same amount of energy from each combustion event. Higher gearing would slow the engine and airflow down keeping the hot stuff in the cylinder longer, but in turn any requirement to speed up would require much more torque due to the lower engine speed and therefore would likely run toward the rich end of the spectrum without getting much acceleration.
Thoughts? I'm tending towards keeping the revs around 2000 when holding a speed for a long period of time but would be really interested to see if anyone knows of some driving style advice that is a little more in depth than the standard generic advice for economic driving!
-
Nice job on the Fused Filament Fabrication machine! I'd bought and built a Ormerod 2 at work to prove a few points and spark up a bit of interest. As you've addressed with your machine I've been concerned about the rigidity of the machine, and had thought may times about upgrading. Thinking about it sparking up interest in improving the machine could be a way of keeping myself sane at work! Working with others is all well and good but when you don't have your own little project to work and be able to clearly identify your work it can get mighty dull!
Is there any need for level compensation on the plasma cutting or is the process not as sensitive for tool height? Done a little welding, but not touched a plasma cutter yet!
-
I started to think about the reprap extrusion deposition Additive Manufacturing machine when I saw this thread. There are a few on their forums who are looking at it and sharing the build files.
http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?131,204981
I'd be interested in this as the more recent repraps use stand alone electronics based on Arduino boards and there's been a lot of effort getting things like bed level correction, and stepper control sorted. All that said the standard printers don't have much that could create significantly more electrical noise that the steppers, so their standard shielding would probably need work.
-
Neat idea, possibly good for stop start!
Does remind me about the in line accumulators you can fit to the oil system that charge when the engine is at pressure, store when ignition is cut and release when you start the engine to help the bearing life a little.
-
Hmm...
- Welder should be bought a week tomorrow so I plan to get that up and running.
- Build engine test stand from drawings purchased last year.
- Aquire a donor (hopefully just about running) 4.6 and service as needed.
- Wrap up associated electric zf box for an after on the road project!
- Pick and purchase lighting so that wiring loom plans can be finalised.
- Plan and start to build bulkhead and floor to suit under seat tanks.
That's plenty, especially as there's a new member of the household due in April which is bound to through all of my plans back! If things go spectacularly well this year then getting the megasquirt off the drawing board and firing up the engine on the test stand would be huge bonus for the year. Jan 2018 will hopefully be chassis purchase, but I need to be 100% sure of what I want first! Moving engine back a bit and chopping off a bit of the chassis at the back have both raised their heads as options in the last half of 2017!
-
Found this:
https://www.hella.com/hella.../673_Legal_Requirements_Brochure_HELLA_EN.pdfSummary from this is no height limit and there is a requirement that the maximum illumination does not exceed 430,000cd or the sum of the reference numbers on the E marking doesn't exceed 100.
My interpretation of this would be that high and low spots would be legal on the road if there was a switch to select which you were using along with the main beam lights. Therefore your total illumination could exceed the 100 reference number because they all won't come on at once.
As I'm not planning to do anything mega quick like comp safari I think that's fine!
Edit: Another useful link: http://www.danielsternlighting.com/tech/lights/codes/codes.html
-
1
-
-
Yes the HID stuff is a nightmare. I'd only consider them for spots or floods making sure they didn't come one when you just flashed your lights.
Thanks for your help anyway.
-
16 minutes ago, honitonhobbit said:
Mind you I'd warn you that the lighting regs are not an easy read
Your not wrong there, but still can't see the 1200mm regulation. That is however directly referred to in the IVA test guide for the max height of the dipped beam headlights. It lists no limitation for the max height of main beam headlamps.
-
Is this the most up to date version of C&U?
Here below is the gotcha for using lights not E or BS marked. Where you have an E/BS marked lamp running LED lights as standard figment then you are fine. If you use LED bulbs inside holders for filament lights then this will also get you. I've seen nothing that prevents the additional lights being mounted at roof level pointing forward. From what I've read so far the low lights are better for rain/snow and the high get rid of some of the long shadow issues that can hide nasty holes etc. High ones can get hit by branches, low ones can get covered by muck, low ones (particually fogs) can get clipped on steep approaches (or hit by lower branches ;-) ).
Using lights in a way that will dazzle other road users is always forbidden.
Filament lamps
14.—(1) Where a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st April 1986 or any trailer manufactured on or after 1st October 1985 is equipped with any lamp of a type that is required by any Schedule to these Regulations to be marked with an approval mark, no filament lamp other than a filament lamp referred to in the Designation of Approval Marks Regulations in–
(a)regulation 4 and Schedule 2, items 2 or 2A, 8, 20, 37 or 37A; or
(b)regulation 5 and Schedule 4, item 18,
shall be fitted to any such lamp.
(2) Where any pedal cycle manufactured on or after 1st October 1990 is equipped with any lamp that is required by any Schedule to these Regulations to be marked with a British Standard mark, no filament lamp other than a filament lamp marked with the marking indicated in the British Standard specification for Filament Lamps for Cycles published by the British Standards Institution under the reference 6873: 1988 namely “B.S. 6873” shall be fitted to any such lamp.
-
Ok, found this for C&U for lighting. I think this may be out of date and I still cant find any mention of the 55W limit which I've heard of...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/5/made
In summary:
Part 2 of Schedule 5: "Requirements relating to optional main-beam headlamps: Any number may be fitted and the only requirements prescribed by these Regulations in respect of any which are fitted are those specified in paragraphs 7, 10 and 12(a) of Part I and, in the case of a motor vehicle first used on or after 1st April 1991, paragraph 5 of Part I. "
...and the associated extras:
5. Markings–
(a) Any vehicle not covered by sub-paragaph (b), (c) or (d):
An approval mark or a British Standard mark(b) A motor vehicle first used before 1st April 1986:
No requirement12. Other requirements–
(a) Every main-beam headlamp shall be so constructed that the direction of the beam of light emitted therefrom can be adjusted whilst the vehicle is stationary.
7. Colour:
White or yellow10. Electrical connections–
(a) Every main-beam headlamp shall be so constructed that the light emitted therefrom–
(i)can be deflected at the will of the driver to become a dipped beam, or
(ii)can be extinguished by the operation of a device which at the same time either–
(A)causes the lamp to emit a dipped beam, or
(B)causes another lamp to emit a dipped beam.
(b) Where a matched pair of main-beam headlamps is fitted they shall be capable of being switched on and off simultaneously and not otherwise.
(c) A three-wheeled motor vehicle, not being a motor bicycle combination, first used on or after 1st April 1986 and having a maximum speed not exceeding 50 mph:
No requirement(d) A solo motor bicycle and a motor bicycle combination:
No requirement -
On reflection the M1 IVA test guide isn't sufficient enough a document to refer to in this case. It doesn't list many of the restrictions such as the 55W bulb limit. I'm going to have to read up on the lighting section of the C&U guide for my build!
-
1
-
-
Yeah, fully disabled for off road use should be fine. In which case if you are caught using them on the road then you would have issues.
However for on road going from the M1 IVA guide (which I appreciate is an interpretation of C&U) it looks like the stumbling issue would be it being one unit, rather than a matched pair. Spot lamps and driving lights are classed as main beams, and including your standard head light main beams you can't have more than 4. If you had two, that operated with the full beam and could also be disabled I've not seen how that can be problematic.
Interestingly there is a section that talks about pairs of lights whose illuminated area is greater than 60% of the total rectangular area that contains the pair of lights are classed as one unit. In this case, at least in the eyes of the IVA tester a pair of 6" spots on the bumper mounted with 1" between them would fall fowl of that, become one unit and therefore no longer be a matched pair. On the flip side though you could use this to your advantage and combine a flood with a spot on each side of the car and so long as these are close enough, and operated on the same controls then you would be fine with 6 individual 'main beam' lights.
Edit: Two people replied while I was writing that! I'm not responding directly to either of the previous two posts!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, honitonhobbit said:
Just don't use it on the queens highway
Does this still apply if it's wired to come on with main beams?
-
1 hour ago, landroversforever said:
The more negative the offset, the further out the wheel will sit. ET-32 means the mounting face is 32mm closer to the centre of the car than the centreline of the wheel.
Bugger, double corrected myself then should have left it as it was. I think standard is ET32 rather than -32 then. I'll get my coat and leave this thread alone. Causing more hassle than help! :-D
-
Thanks Bowie. I appreciate the potential risks. My comment; 'Not suggesting...' was just trying to make sure no one misinterpreted my post as trying to kick of a carp storm. I thought there was an issue with the poking out, but wasn't 100% sure on when it would be picked up.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:
MOT doesn't check for tyre protrusion!
Every day is a school day! So is this one of the Construction and Use things that will only really clobber you if you get pulled for a road side check or investigated after an accident?
Not suggesting that the wheel protrusion is, or is not likely to be a contributing factor in an accident, merely trying to clarify when it is likely to cause the vehicle driver an issue.
-
Didn't realise 8J was ever a standard fitment on Defenders, at least on standard specs rather than specials.
Be careful with the offsets. I'd eyed up ET0 for the equivalent of 33" tyres. I think ET-32 is standard. Modulars come in a huge range. I think more posative (often referred to as deep dish) gives a wider track/vehicle.
For the MOT you need to ensure you can't see any of the tread from directly above.
I'll check my notes later.
-
Dual purpose vehicle route can't be applied here due to the weight.
To heavy unless it can loose weigh and replate. I'm not sure if you can do that without an IVA. If you know of other legislation on this please share as it could have a bearing on what I'm doing.
Massive 109 six cylinder brakes on my 88
in Modified Vehicle Builds & Special Projects
Posted · Edited by WesBrooks
My experience of drums all around is a while back now on a '74 VW1303. When cold they tended to snatch and after lost their bite quite quickly when running around 60mph country lanes.
Despite working in engineering I never really appreciate things like why people want discs over drums or bigger discs until I get a bit of hands on myself. For me the this has come in two chunks.
Firstly going back from hydraulic discs on my mountain bike (set up as a commuter at the time) to rim brakes on a push bike really made me appreciate the confidence discs gave in being able to measure in braking gave which allowed me to make better use of my back brake and hold the front at as close to perfect braking as I could muster. This ultimately shortened my braking distances because as the error is (ie with drums you had less of an idea how much braking you were going to get with a certain squeeze) less you are more likely to squeeze the brakes harder from the instant you perceive a need to loose momentum. While ultimate braking is dictated by the tyre grip if you can get to that ultimate quicker the drum system will never be able to out brake the discs in order to catch up for the little 'lets see how it feels' initial press. Yes the road bike didn't have drum brakes, but the issues were similar to what people have already said regarding consistency.
The second awakening came when I followed a brake in procedure for my wife's Toyota Yaris. A small car and equipped with discs up front and drums to the rear. The break in procedure had a number of breaks from 45 right down to about 10 and the difference between the amount you had to press the pedal down and how quickly the car stopped on a given foot pressure was quite scary on repeat runs. I really had to brace myself between the seat and peddle to get close to the ABS judder on repeat runs. After a bit of a short drive they had recovered most of the initial bite and where back to normal. So in a race, fast twisty road, or heavily loaded I could really appreciate why people wanted better breaks, to reduce peak temperatures (same energy being dissipated through a larger volume) be able to shed heat faster and in some cases pad choice to be able to tolerate the higher temps better.
From a mechanical standpoint I just prefer the pad force being applied to the disc from either side. The pads can't move far as they are directly compressing a lump of steel applying compressive forces to the material. With a drum you are creating a hoop stress in the drum and expanding the material. Doesn't seem too greater thing to do to a cast item. This is a similar logic to favouring braided hoses in the brake lines to reduce pedal travel and working being done on expanding things rather than braking.
All that said though if you keep on top of your maintenance and have good quality shocks, tyres, and the brake system is in good fettle then your in a better place than many of the heaps of tat you see on the road that only get tweaked each year as required to achieve an MOT. The usual advice on driving technique, leaving gaps and not dabbing the brakes all the time will probably be far more effective in improving the chances of you avoiding a nasty than the people who are forever dabbing brakes or trying to rub up against the bumper in front.
Edit: I owned the 1303 around 2000, not the original owner! The break in for the Yaris was after changing front discs an pads.