Julian

Specialist vehicles like ambulances, search and rescue vehicles and cherry pickers etc are exempt from the proposed legislation. You can guarantee there will be a clause on the V5 that the vehicle must be crushed when the 'authority' no longer wishes to use! Julian.

This is the crux of the matter in my opinion, as I previously mentioned. It reminds me of the time, many decades ago, when I worked as a licensed airframe/engine engineer in GA. (general aviation) One chap had purchased a business jet in the USA on the American register and brought it back to the UK. Attempts to transfer it onto the UK register had basically stalled because of a change to the mounting hardware for pilot harnesses due to a galley fitment. Months and months passed with the aircraft grounded as attempts to get the modification approved by the CAA failed and litigation ensued that cost many thousands. This is what we're in for, an endless bureaucratic nightmare with no guarantee of a favourable result. You can expect endless insurmountable hurdles from anyone on the gubbinsment payroll (civil servants), all seeking to avoid litigation or harming their gold plated pensions, with the net result being DIY modifications not being a practical reality even though theoretically possible for the common man. Julian.

The Commission proposes to introduce a definition for a roadworthiness test that components of the vehicle must comply with characteristics at the time of first registration. This may prevent most modifications to vehicles without further approval of the vehicle. (this will apply to many components and to all types of vehicle) This I suspect is the dangerous proposal. How will we get 'further approval' for (say) fitting a powerful tuned V8 to an old Series vehicle? How will we prove it's safe? There's no way that an MOT tester or SVA (VOSA) chap could make an informed decision and you can guarantee that in the case of an MOT testing station the garage's insurance will forbid such practise with liability laws being as they are. Furthermore, manufacturers certainly won't be interested. I suspect that modifications of significance will require stress analysis, failure analysis, destructive testing, risk assessment, non destructive testing etc etc. I don't believe that such a process would be within the financial means of the 'common man' in the UK, and I don't believe that the commission would allow for such modifications to be 'rubber stamped.' Maybe we need to look at the situation in other EU countries were activities like simple engine swaps or seat changes are already prevented? I'm sorry but your views on the matter have not calmed my nerves, in my job I always plan for the worst and anything better is a bonus! Julian.

That 'in-tube' devise is to be found on just about any Leyland car from Moggy-Minor onwards, actually just about any 'A' or 'B' series engine. It's always mounted vertically and is (as I understand it) to stop the possibility of any raw fuel from the inlet getting onto the rubber diaphragm on the carb and bsolloxing it. Julian.

I wonder if this is it: http://www.brit-car.co.uk/product.php?xProd=140398 There's a few different part numbers so I'd give then a call, or better, use the on-line text chat tomorrow. Julian.

+1 Julian

Yes, the examples I gave were just by way of examples, ie gubbinsments departments that have to 'self-fund' and not get cash from central gubbinsment coffers. Talking CAA turning a blind eye, you are right, they certainly can adopt a blind eye, but I remember once watching their surveyors at work at about 2 in the morning looking over the fleet of Emerald Airways freighters at Liverpool. 'Bladdy-Hell, I thought, civil servants working at this hour, there's trouble here! (as indeed there was) Julian.

Please ignore, any mods to delete?

It's not a stupid question, one of my old teachers used to say that the only stupid question was the one not asked! I have a Diesel series 3. On mine when you rotate clockwise against the spring you energise the glow plugs, when you turn it even further against the spring you energise the starter. See if yours does this, you'll need to experiment with your AVO. The turn to the left is not a feature on my (standard) switch, but if it's like most other cars I've seen with this facility then it's normally for accessories. (radio/fag lighter etc) So you should find a connection made by turning to the left, this connection should also be made by turning the switch to 'on.' (you can just forget about it I should think) This is all a bit of guesswork, I could well not be entirely correct! Julian.

Please do, I'm curious to find out if I was on the right track here. Either way it'll be a good thing to get sorted as you don't want to compromise performance or economy by having to run the ignition more retarded to stop pinking if a better set-up is available and more suited. Julian.

If it's like the series box you'll find a weep hole towards the underside rear of the spigot that the release bearing slides on - that will help you see if the seal's leaking If you take that bit off you'd be crackers to not change the seal anyway. I just did this on my series - I used a double lip seal as an improved component, if it's the same as the series then this is the item i think: http://simplybearings.co.uk/shop/p26769/35x50x10mm+Nitrile+Rubber+Rotary+Shaft+Oil+Seal+with+Garter+Spring+R23+/+TC/product_info.html Julian.

That's the 'official' reason. However, like all government bodies there's a good deal of disingenuous spin, their main task is to issue as many fines as they can as they have to entirely 'self-fund' and provide their own revenue. (like British Waterways or the CAA) Julian. Julian.

My memory is very sketchy here as I was never really a Rover V8 man but in the installation with two pipes (to either side of the dizzy vacuum capsule) you have are vacuum advance and a vacuum retard - depending on the source of vacuum. (manifold or adjacent to carb butterfly) There's maybe going to be a different set up on the dizzy as they differed internally depending on the carbs used. This question needs addressing properly as there's a chance that the dizzy will need to be modified to suit the new plumbing arrangement that you will be forced to use c/o the carb swap. I'd ask on a rover V8 forum if nobody here has the definitive exact answer. Julian.

My Vauxhall Astra Diesel does this too. (sometimes) As it's a modern fly-by-wire throttle jobbie I'm thinking it has a similar componet that's failing.... Sorry for the off-topic but it's maybe very helpful for me. Julian.

Good reading? bloomin heck, I wonder what bad reading looks like? Well, in a previous post I've already (falsely) been accused of 'throwing in the towel.' I think UKIP makes our plight abundantly clear. Heads need to be pulled free of the sand ASAP.... QED alfaman! What did Camaron say a few years ago? 'No more war of the motorist' ' for every new law we will repeal two old ones' Bla bla bla, lying toads, the lot of them. Julian.