WesBrooks
-
Posts
488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by WesBrooks
-
-
Found it! From the M1 IVA test manual.
"At the request of the applicant a vehicle with at least 4 seats and a load area not exceeding 40% of the length of the vehicle and a weight limit of 6500kg max mass may be classed as an M1 vehicle for the purpose of this manual" -
I'm not sure where I got the 4 seat thing from, can't find it at the moment so can't confirm it's accuracy as an N1 vehicle can have up to 6 people and weigh up to 3500kg.
-
Technicality but I believe the Land Rover is only M1 when it is below 2040kg if it only has two seats. 4 seats and no problem. When below 2040kg (guess the funny number is a way of saying weight rounds to 2000kg to two significant digits) it is classed as a dual purpose vehicle. If you were above that weight then I think you'd have to look very closely at ratios relating to the load area. Think it was either load bed to wheelbase or total vehicle length. If your load bed exceeded that ratio, and you were above 2040kg you may well struggle to get it through as an M1.
Another point to consider is the description on the log book. If road side check people saw camper on their system and it appears like a flat bed commercial it could be very tricky.
-
As far as I can see, not much.
If you modify your car and don't change axles, steering, engine or engine capacity, axles, gearbox, or substantially change the apperance - such as station wagon to crew cab then there appears to be no need to tell them.
If you start modifying the components which they list as major components then you should look over in detail the requirements.
If you loose enough points to require a new number plate then the IVA will be required, but you get an age related plate.
If you have fewer still points then still IVA, but you'll most likely be on a Q plate.
The 10 year reg might be for registering things like ex mod or forien imports that are mass produced factory spec cars that would not otherwise pass an IVA dues to external projections or such.
-
Looks like the injector timing resolution for the MS3 is 1 microsecond which equates to about 0.03 of a degree at 5000rpm.
I'm not building my truck for fast road, I'd go locost or buggy if I wanted good road manners. It's got and auto, and if I remember rightly 70mph will be about 3000-3500rpm. I'm not sure what the shift points are on the ZF box when you kick down, but will look into it. I expect I'll be cruising around 65.
I'm not so interested in top end performance because this needs head work and increasing the red line to fully realise, which would add £500-1000 per bank onto the engine build cost. I'm reading through guides like Des Hammil's to see what I can cost effectively do.
I'm hoping to get a few years service out of the 4.6. If I get a lust for more power rather than say improving the trucks off road capabilities with lockers etc then I'll seriously look at an LS3 lump and take the MS3 over to the LS3. If however the 4.6 proves reliable and in good fettle then I'm fully expecting the stock 220bhp to be plenty (the MS may free a few extra ponies!), and the tuning will focus on low end torque and economy (or more to the point efficiency).
-
I wecome the discussion.
Regards lightning it causes an over voltage situation on mosfet gates. This along with ringing needs to be controlled if you've got any homebrew electronics in there.
Thermostat advise is from Des Hammill's how to power tune rover V8s. It relates to dropping the thermostats back to the level used in the 3.5 before control was potentially sacrificing longevity in favour of emissions. Every bit hotter the engine gets increases the problems relating to differential expansion of the Alloy block and steel main caps. This doesn't help the main fretting, something my 3.9 suffered from.
The rover V8 has a carp BHP return compared to the amount of fuel it consumes. I believe this is mostly down to the head design, which indicates air flow issues. This will get worse the faster you run the engine. Therefore I am tuning for torque and economy from idle which should give me a good benefit when greenlaning or generally playing off road.
If I see a substatial benefit from sequential injection low down and start to head towards batch firing due to flow limits on the injectors then I can change for higher pressures (thor) or search for higher through put injectors.
I realise my choices are comprimises, but so are most projects in some way.
-
If I wire it from the start as batch fired then in order to migrate to sequential I would need to start again with the loom. If I want to batch fire with sequential wiring then I'm guessing it is very simple. If there were no benefit I'm guessing the ECUs for the GEMs and Thor systems would have been cheaper to wire as batch fired? What benefit did they see and the non direct injection systems between then and now? From an electrical point of view staggering the injection events could smooth the current loading on the electrical system and reduce noise. Noise being quite a serious concern for other bits of my project - but having said that making sure the electrical system doesn't fall over due to a lighting strike within a mile is probably a tougher requirement to achieve.
The CAM sensor allows me to use sequential ignition and when combined with the VAG coil packs allow me features like rev limiting and drops the number of igntion events per cycle which can't be a bad thing for spark plug reliability and electrical noise. While time consuming I'd rather wire the injectors in and allow the freedom to try additional features later.
Main aims for the MS are:
- Comfortably achieve emissions for MOT and maybe IVA.
- Tuned for 80C Coolant temp.
- Optimum balance between fuel economy at cruise and keeping from going too lean.
- Attempting to knock sense with stock sensors to allow safer ignition tuning.
-
Here's a RV8 running full sequential from ExtraEFI:
I've been discussing this with Nige (be it with a few months between emails due to me!) and am currently trying to detail out my plans so that I know what bits I'm buying from who.
From what I can see it doesn't look like it will be too challenging running using the standard flywheel and crank sensor. I'll be using VAG logic level input coil packs as I've heard horror stories about the cost of the Gems coil packs! Are these logic level too?
I'm planning to run this up on an engine test stand before getting it in the car so should have great access to swap sensors about and make it nice and easy to do quick checks like spinning it over to check sensors and timing. This is also a measure of keeping the engine out so I don't have to move it again later!
-
That's great to hear. Would you mind updating the thread (or point me to a build log/thread) if you uncover any tricks to get it playing well? ...or all going well just to say it is plug and play!
-
I've the luxury of this project not needing to be on the road any time soon and I'm aware that overall my enjoyment of the project will be just as much in the tinkering as the driving. With that if it takes a little longer, but eases work for others later who are less inclined to tinker then great. If it is likely to be a hell of a fight to use the stock sensors then I'll move on! I'm not shy of coding either so may be able to help in that respect.
I'd be interested to know if people have done it. I've seen the details for the sensors and yes, they are typical from the electronics side of things. What isn't clear from my scan through (granted not a detailed read!) the MS manuals is whether or not the feedback pattern from the cam sensor is a standard pre programmed pattern or whether I would have to code a new encoder pattern. The gems cam angle sensor appears to work off the varying widths of the 'spokes' on the cam pulley.
Fitting the interim cover feels like a little bit of a bodge and adds more mechanical parts. This does however appear a standard MS way of detecting cam angle. It allows you to modify a distributor with a hall effect sensor so that MS can detect crank angle and the engines position it the full cycle.
-
Morning.
May have my hands on a Gems 4.6 in the next few months. I'd like to include cam and crank position sensing even if I do use wasted spark & batch firing initially.
I'll be using MS3x.
There appears to be three options for me:
1) Fit trigger wheel to front pulley and use interim timing cover from old 3.9 using adapted dizzy for cam angle sensing.
2) Consider using exising encoder wheels on flywheel and cam and at best stock sensors.
3) Mix of above.
I prefer the idea of 2, but as there is no chance of me running this engine on the original GEMs ECU I guess there is little point pitching this battle if there is no point. Only bad thing that I can see for 1 is that there is play in the gears that may introduce a timing error where as the cam wheel encoder is rigidly linked to the cam. Probably not enough to cause a noticable issue?
Any one used the stock GEMs encoders?
-
Nice catch in getting that data before it disappeared. One day the site was open, then when I looked back a few months later to review some stuff it links through to a domain name hosting page.
So it appears you can add additional brackets, and remove those that are unneeded. This would seem to suggest that while an engine change would need to be registered with them it would not necessarily force an IVA potentially even if it did require new brackets. I'm tempted to get further clarification on that and get them to confirm they are still happy with that transcript as we currently don't have any access to the original communication to rely on if it did get questioned.
-
I'm assuming:
"According to ( http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/40difference.htm ) the dish on the 4.0 and 4.6 pistons are 13.23cc and 22.29cc."
...includes the dish, and the bit around the edge of the pistons to the top of the rings.
Looking at the picture of the bore it looks like the wear patch is only a few mm. Once any carbon deposits are removed I'd expect this to be the bit of the bores the rings don't sweep, and so slightly larger than piston top to deck at TDC.
-
## 4.0 ##
Swept volume of 3.9 or 4.0 cylinder = (0.0944/2) * (0.0944/2) * 3.14 * 0.071 * 1000 = 0.497 litres
Unswept volume if 9.35:1 = 0.497 * (1/9.35) = 0.0531 litres
Unswept Volume (without piston to deck volume) (4.0) = (0.0132 + 0.0012 + 0.026) = 0.0404 s litres
Piston to deck volume (4.0) = 0.0531-0.0404 = 0.0127 litres
Piston to deck height (4.0) = (0.0127 / 1000) / ( (0.0944/2) * (0.0944/2) * 3.14) = 0.00182m or 1.82mm
## 4.6 ##
Swept volume of 4.6 cylinder = (0.0944/2) * (0.0944/2) * 3.14 * 0.082 * 1000 = 0.574 litres
Unswept volume if 9.35:1 = 0.574 * (1/9.35) = 0.0614 litres
Unswept Volume (without piston to deck volume) (4.6) = (0.0223 + 0.0012 + 0.026) = 0.0495 litres
Piston to deck volume (4.6) = 0.0614-0.0495 = 0.0119 litres
Piston to deck height (4.6) = (0.0119 / 1000) / ( (0.0944/2) * (0.0944/2) * 3.14) = 0.00170m or 1.70mm
#####
So pretty much stroke to check for capacity and if piston to deck is around 1.7-1.8mm then it's a 9:35:1.
8.13:1 compression ratio gives 2.95mm for the 4.0 and about 3.01mm for the 4.6.
All that said if they were doing things like putting a v belt pulley on a serpentine cover then who knows what else they've done!
-
Hang on a minute, spotted an error!
-
According to ( http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/40difference.htm ) the dish on the 4.0 and 4.6 pistons are 13.23cc and 22.29cc.
According to ( https://classicroverforum.net/index.php?threads/what-are-these-composite-gaskets.24816/ ) the combustion chamber cc of the head is 26cc
According to ( http://www.v8tuner.co.uk/category.php?id=21 ) the depth caused by the composite gasket is about 1.2cc per cylinder.
[Edit: dodgy maths deleted!]
###
After all that the last figure looks a little tight. 0.020" in old money between the top of the piston and the deck! 1.2cc for the gasket per cylinder only allows an extra 0.17mm which takes it to 0.68mm or 0.023". Looks like you may need some accurate figures unless someone can verify that the 4.6 pistons are mighty close to the deck.
-
As you've said the block has the correct code for the 4.6 and it has cross bolts the to run a 3.9 crank they would have some how had to add material to the block to run a 3.9 crank. The 4.0 and 4.6 has larger journals than the 3.9.
Stroke will be easy to differentiate:
3.9/4.0 = 71mm stroke
4.6 = 82mm stroke
The pistons will confirm the compresion ratio. Have a look for the capacity of the head online. Estimate the volume of the dish on the piston and then you can get an idea on what the deck height should be once you've compensated for the gasket being composite or original.
-
If you measure the stroke you could distinguish between a 3.9/4.0 or 4.6 crank.
Only external difference between 3.9 and 4.0 is the latter has cross bolted mains.
-
That pulley isn't from a serpentine engine. Serpentine belts are wide with ridges.
-
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-registration/overview
This indicates that a major changes vehicles should be registered. If you can't show you've used an unmodified or new replacement chassis and 2 other major parts then there is a significant chance you would need type approval test which is the IVA.
-
That's my current understanding too. Additions to the chassis is a grey area as there was something on the now defunct ACE site that indicate that you could add to the chassis, but not remove. I had heard of a modifications older than clause, but it wasn't relevant to me so didn't read into it further.
-
Is this vehicles that were modified over 10 years ago won't need IVA, or vehicles older than 10 years old won't need an IVA if modified? Guess there must be some limits such as the points system? i.e. if you loose to many points to retain the old registration you need IVA?
-
Yup. That'll teach me for posting early in the morning. Got it arse about tit! Yes readings going up indicate ring or bore issues.
-
Compression testing was frustrating for me! The tester didn't want to fit in the hole well and did all the tests before remembering test should be done wide open throttle!
Running the tests again with all plugs out once as before with the engine warm and a second time with a teaspoon of oil in the bores should help identify rings or valve/gasket issues. If the readings go up with the oil you may be able to get away with a new gasket or reseating the valves. If you lift the head if those two bores are much cleaner than the others that is supposed to be a sign of water issues.
Modular vehicles
in Modified Vehicle Builds & Special Projects
Posted
The speed limit thing only applies for motor homes below 3050kg. Vehicle classification looks like it would be a N2 as it will fall between 3.5 and 12 tonnes. Can't offer any more on description then Fridge other than making it obvious that the caravan bit is a secured load, in essence it is then no different to a flat bed with a caravan on it, just bolted down mighty well.
As your vehicle is likely to be goods vehicle over 3.5 tonnes laden weight you may need to fit a speed limiter.
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits