Dave W

Following a bit of a break from the project which culminated in the app getting so out of date that Apple removed it from the app store, I'm in the process of resurrecting the MobiSquirt App once more. For those that haven't come across it or used it before, it's an app that runs on your iPhone/iPad, connects wirelessly to your MS ECU and allows you to view live data and create log files. It's always been a free app, no adverts or anything, and will remain so. Screenshots from the older version of the app: The app was using (and still can) a WiFi connection but Microchip bought out the supplier of the (relatively) cheap development board that many people were using to connect the app to their MS ECU. They then withdrew the units from sale making the app less accessible. Some experiments were done using Arduino iOT boards such as the NodeMCU and there were some promising results but enthusiasm was waining somewhat as it seems the whole of the MegaSquirt "DIY EFi" was moving to a more commercial footing with a number of companies commercialising the hardware and B&G responding by adjusting the licenses for both hardware and software, moving away from the open source hardware idyll. As things have progressed though and with the app now forced to support iOS 8 as it's minimum version, Bluetooth (via BLE) connectivity has become cheaper and easier to implement without the outlay of going through Apple's MFI program. A typical Bluetooth interface now comes in at less than £15 (Amazon) or £8 (AliExpress) whereas the WiFi adapters we were using, which were always hard to get hold of ran to around £75. So, I've decided it's time I revisited and resurrected the project and to get the app back on the App Store. I was working on some major changes towards the end of the last iteration that changed the underlying architecture of the app. These changes also meant that on an MS1/Extra (9600 baud) the app can record up to 16 records per second, the previous app managed around 10. It also means that data can be graphed from a session or a log in a future iteration. The downside is that all the previous testing on MS1, MS!/Extra, MS2, MS2/Extra, MegaJolt etc... need revisiting and I only currently have access to MS1 and MS1/Extra ECUs to test against. Whilst MS2 and later SHOULD work, I have no way of testing this myself at the moment. Right now I'm looking for anyone interested in testing the app and getting developer release versions to test before the app is released to the App Store again. I'm using TestFlight, Apple's own test environment, which means that all I need is an email address and Apple will send you an invitation to join the TestFlight group. Once you've accepted you'll be notified whenever a new version is shipped and be able to load it on any device associated with your AppleId. Versions of the app can be installed I know there is a relatively large population of MS1/Extra users on here and, for them, the app should work "out of the box" but any feedback is always welcome. MS2/Extra users will be in the twilight zone for a short time but any feedback on what does and doesn't work would be appreciated as it will help me target any issues. MS2/Extra might work OK anyway... I'm just not confident as I sold my last MS2 ECU a while ago and don't want to upgrade one of the others at the moment. To be added to the TestFlight group, pm me here or contact me via the app web site or facebook page with your email address and (optional) your MS firmware version... https://mobisquirt.org/ https://www.facebook.com/MobiSquirt-1751680194880870/ I'm working on a manual page covering which Bluetooth module and RS232 adapter you will need and how to connect them together, it's not difficult and can even be done without soldering (4 wires between two modules). Once that's complete I'll let people know and the first test release will be made available on TestFlight that will work with the Bluetooth interface as well as the old WiFi interface.

No... http://www.vhra.co.uk/VHRA/News/Entries/2018/5/3_IVA_Legislation_Proposal_from_the_DfT_-_Conclusion.html

I suspect that cars will become less something you own and more something you hire/lease. If you start thinking about cars just as a means of transport and then pay a monthly fee for the use of one it becomes a bit like many other "consumer" items these days. Pay a fixed monthly fee, use it while it does the job then get rid at the end of the contract period. It's happening or happened already in so many areas of our lives, TV/media, communications, housing, computer software and so on. It won't be an issue for those that choose to live in large urban areas where they'll be able to use other forms of transport or have temporary use of one of a pool of cars they pay a monthly fee to access. Those of us that live in relatively low population areas with no other transport options will just have to suck it up. At some point someone will come up with a DIY electric conversion but it will always come back to the same issue - storing and transporting energy. Traditional fuels offer a really efficient way to transport and store energy. Electricity, by comparison, is difficult and wasteful to store and wasteful to transport. Current batteries are sub optimal and a compromise, weighing a huge amount, wasteful of resources and quick to degrade in capacity. I'd love to try and build an electric Defender with a motor at each wheel, braking systems similar to F1 cars that use the motors to brake and store the power harvested, swap out the engine and transmission for batteries etc... Every time I look at it though I just get the feeling we're not there quite yet and we may never get there, certainly not at an affordable level. Our "environmental lobby" have, as ever screwed the whole thing up by not looking at the bigger picture. First they campaign against nuclear power, then coal so we end up with gas as our primary source of electricity. We end up importing much of that gas from Europe, in turn supplied by Russia and Norway and are constantly held to ransom over it's supply. We also import nuclear generated electricity from France because we don't have the infrastructure in the UK to generate our own without exceeding CO2 targets. They campaigned against leaded petrol and ignored the increased risks to the environment of unleaded (including increased CO2 output). Then they campaign for diesel instead of petrol, based solely on CO2 output, despite many people pointing out the issues with hydrocarbons and particulates but they ignore that and press on regardless. Now we're changing direction once more with a lobby against diesels and pro electric but our electric generation is high carbon because we didn't invest in nuclear. The batteries that we use and dispose of to power this new generation of cars are causing an environmental disaster that, in around 20 years, will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst our unwashed, flax wearing "experts". We'll start to fix that by having "lithium offset" where big companies will fill a big hole in the ground with compressed carbon to offset their lithium use so they can tell everyone how "green" they are and how low their "Lithium footprint" is.

I'd avoid Skye unless you like lots of people and especially places like the fairy pools where, by about 8am, the small car park is full and then the verges and passing places (single track road) are then filled with cars for roughly 1/4 of a mile each way. That's pretty much the case with all the "tourist attractions" on Skye, loads of people, loads of cars, nowhere to park up. Mull is a much nicer island these days and far less people on it because traffic on/off is controlled by the ferries, unlike Skye where there is no limit to the number of cars and coaches on the island at any given time. We went off season, went to Mull first and loved the peace and tranquility as well as the views (when the mist finally lifted !) and there is a first rate camp site there where you can camp next to the sea and the beach. Even Tobermory was relatively quiet and easy to park up for free. After a few days on Mull we went to Skye... and wished we'd stayed on Mull. People and cars everywhere, camp site heaving and barely any room, single track roads blocked by people abandoning cars. I hate to think what it gets like during peak season !

You could try it, just check through all the settings afterwards and make sure they look right, ideally you want to upload the new settings with the ECU not connected to the engine but if you're running EDIS it should be low risk... most issues come from running ignition coil drivers and flashing an incorrect setting into it that can over drive the coil. A safer way, though more time consuming is to manually copy the settings, open the tune in a copy of your favourite tuning software, open your existing tune in another copy of the app and fill in the values from one to the other where they are different. This also allows you to review each setting. If you're really brave you can open the existing msq and new msq in a text editor and merge the two... probably not the best option though !

Had a similar issue on mine and I managed to make up a spreader plate, welded the nuts onto it and then managed to feed it up between the tank and the crossmember. It took a bit of doing and some keyhole surgery but it was easier than taking the tank out ! You have to loosen the bolts that hold the front of the guard to the cross member but don't have to actually remove the guard. Just the two M16 nuts mounted on a 5mm plate at the correct spacing, I wouldn't even consider trying it with the 4 M12 bolts/nuts ! The TD5 has captive nuts, as above, mine was a Richard's Chassis 300TDi with TD5 tank mounting brackets added. Bearing in mind I did mine about 6 years ago now, I vaguely remember using an assortment of screwdrivers, spanners and bits of welding rod to manoeuvre the plate into position until I could get a bolt into it.

Next time ? Do yourself and any future owner a massive favour and fit an inspection panel above the pump assembly, that way the chances are you'll never have to remove the tank again. I removed the tank on ours once... after spending several hours persuading it to go back in again, the next time I wanted access to the pump I cut an inspection plate in the floor instead ! You can make a large enough cutout, without cutting any reinforcing ribs, to have easy access to the pump, it's pipes and electrical connector, as well as being able to remove and refit it. Faced with the job again I would never try and remove a 90 tank unless the tank itself was damaged in some way. Anyway, if you've not got it refitted yet, ISTR that using a second jack to lift the body up can help clear the axle but the tank is pretty much compressed against the underneath of the tub reinforcing bars to get the carrier/guard into position. As a result you kind of need 3 pairs of hands and a couple of trolley jacks. You may find that releasing the rear of the tub (the bolts across the rear cross member) will allow you to lift the blackbody a few mm, which is all it normally takes.

Bosch 044 is perfect although the Sytec equivalent is quieter, depends where you mount it and how noisy you like it ! I have an 044 behind the bulkhead, behind the seats, on my competition motor and you can certainly tell when it's running ! On our overland vehicle I tried the 044 but then swapped it for the Sytec as the 044 was just too noisy mounted on top of the chassis underneath the seat box.

Seems a bit of an odd conclusion to come to that using a very expensive and relatively unreliable pump designed to fit a plastic tank and cobbling it onto an aluminium tank is somehow the 'easy and reliable" way to go. The factory TD5 fuelling system is massively over complicated for what it does and by trying to shoehorn the factory overcomplicated design into another solution you're just going to give yourself an unnecessary headache, especially for a competition vehicle. With the exception of needing a fuel cooler, a TD5 needs nothing more complex than a petrol EFi. A pickup at the tank, a pre-filter, a pump, a primary filter and a return from the regulator via a cooler. Just like an EFi, you can also add a swirl pot although I've never found it necessary myself providing the fuel tank is baffled and has a built in swirl pot/sump design that the return pipe extends into. It runs at 60-70 Psi on the pressure side so nothing more than an EFi petrol system. It needs a cooler in the return because, unlike an EFi, the fuel being returned has spent a bit of time inside the cylinder head so can be quite hot.

When I had Dan Bars fitted I snapped a TRE, the TRE threaded part snapped immediately at the end of the Dan Bar. I put that down to the Dan bar design focussing the force and stress at that point. It could have been a bad TRE I suppose but there was no sign of any obvious manufacturing problems in the break, no air bubbles or signs of a stress fracture, just a clean break. It happened when I landed the bar on a tree stump. With the HD bars I've not had that issue although I've bent a few of them and a f***wit "marshal" on a challenge event managed to bend the tracking arm through an almost perfect S bend without damaging either the TRE or anything other than the bar. It was the first and last challenge event I'd done with that particular outfit. One thing with the HD bars, carry a spare if you can because IF you do manage to bend one you will NOT be able to bend them back without specialist hydraulic equipment ! The standard ones can normally be bent back using the weight of the vehicle but the HD ones... not a chance. The HD bars aren't unbendable and don't seem to be any stronger than the TREs but you won't bend them just by using the steering, unlike the OEM ones.

Britpart HD steering arms are excellent, you just need to replace the TREs at some point. Sumo are good too but more expensive than Britpart and no better. Dan Bars are/were the devil's spawn, they do the job BUT if you bend one even slightly then the two bars are permanently locked together. The only benefit they gave was that, at the time the ARC didn't allow aftermarket (Sumo) bars so Dan Bars were a way of getting around the regulations.

The only issue I had with fitting a P38 sender into a 90 tank (Gems V8 rather than Thor) was that the fuel level sender seemed to be a different resistance range to the 90 gauge which mean that the fuel level gauge was all over the place. It's a while ago now but I vaguely recollect having to put a variable resistor in line with it to get it to read somewhere near. I had to modify the P38 unit to shorten it slightly but I think the Disco II is already short enough, the Disco I sender I have now needed no modification at all to fit the 90 Defender tank although, again, I'm not sure about the Disco fuel level sender - I built my own controller that monitors and displays the levels in both tanks simultaneously and drives the dash fuel gauge according to whichever tank is being used. The controller is calibrated in 5 litre sets for tank so I don't think I ever tried it direct to the gauge.

Yes, as far as I know all the Thor pump/sender units have the regulators built in. Fitting an aftermarket regulator isn't an issue though and you can also hook the regulator up to the inlet so it can boost the fuel pressure at high engine loads. The Disco II unit will fit, you might want to make an access panel though so you don't have to drop the fuel tank to get to it if it fails.

No need to use an in tank pump or a lift pump, just use an external EFi pump, they'll lift the short distance needed for the task without any problem (unless you're thinking of fitting the pump in the roof !) I use the same pump for my LS1 and my TD5 (well, the same part number anyway) without any issues, both external, both mounted above the chassis and both with pre and post filters. After market pumps will normal state the lift capability and as long as you stay within that you'll be fine. An external pump is easier to maintain and having a pre filter pretty much means it should last forever. I tend to use Sytec pumps, the Bosch 044 is the business but VERY noisy while the Sytec equivalent is cheaper and quieter. fuelpumpsonline are a good source of info and do some really nice inline canister filters... https://www.fuelpumpsonline.co.uk Once you've decided on a pump model number just check the price elsewhere, sometimes they are competitive on price, sometimes not so much !

I'll probably concentrate on the "normal" nozzles and design around those but give some extra space just in case. As we're almost exclusively in the UK/Europe at the moment it's less of an issue anyway. It was more an issue when we were in Australia as they often have "truck" style pumps on the forecourt and many times it was really handy to be able to use them for the rear tank. Sadly it's unlikely we'll get back to Australia with the 90 so it's more of a "would be nice to have" than a requirement.

L322s have dropped in price a lot over the last couple of years, you get a lot of vehicle for that money ! The only downside to them really, even when compared to the P38, is that they are horrendously complex - brilliant when they work but an absolute PITA and spendy when something goes wrong. They do go well though and are a world apart from previous Range Rovers, I thought my P38 was a nice car until I got an L322 and realised what I'd been missing. Go for it !

Good find ! That will probably be enough as I think the only difference between them is the diameter of the nozzle which I already have as 23.8mm for normal forecourt diesel and 28mm for commercial diesel. I'll compare that to the model I downloaded and see if they match...

I have tried something similar but it didn't work out too well last time, hence the issues with filling as a result ! According to my paper model the nozzle should be able to fully locate into the neck... but it doesn't. If I'm going to go for a redesign I'd rather get it right and, preferably, suitable for all nozzles. The ISO standard should lay out the exact parameters used which the nozzle manufacturers stick to. If the dimensions of the CAD model I've printed out doesn't match the nozzles at the petrol station then that would suggest either the model was incorrect (always possible) or there is some wiggle room in the standard. In which case I might well take some graph paper with me as plan C !

This is plan B, although I'd still love to get hold of the official specs ! I printed this based on a CAD model, the model looks to be based on one of the large diesel nozzles (high speed truck filler) as it's a bigger diameter than the usual none commercial diesel filler on the forecourt. Given that we regularly filled up the rear tank from truck pumps in the past I figure it'd be worth trying to get it to fit the auxiliary filler too. If it looks right against a pump tomorrow I'll print out a normal diesel version (23.8 mm) too.

Already been down that route, hence my frustration that the standard spec for something used throughout the world is held to ransom by a single body. Not even the Chinese and Russian sites seem to have a free copy and they're not usually averse to a bit of copyright infingement ! Mind, the time I've spent searching the internet I could have just paid for the spec and earnt more ! It's the principle though I think I may have a solution though... I found a few free to download CAD models, am printing one out now and will take it to the petrol station tomorrow to see if it matches.

It's not ventilation that's causing it in this case, it's the way the nozzle presents into the filler neck. The filler neck is either too short or at the wrong angle which means that the fuel is splashing back from the wall of the filler tube into the sensor pipe. As well as causing the pump to cut out it also means fuel spills out of the filler. If I can get the angle and curve of the neck right then the nozzle, when fully home, will be pointing directly down to the tank so should fill cleanly... in theory !

Might seem a bit "off the wall" but I don't suppose anyone has access to the standards document for filler nozzles (ISO 1959:1988) ? I'm trying to improve the filler for my auxiliary tank as it's currently a bit temperamental due to the angles of the filler neck tube and it seems that the dimensions and angle of a standard filler nozzle on the forecourt is a state secret that can only be unlocked by spending upwards of £40 and even then may not contain the info I need ! At this rate I can see me taking some foam or similar down to the local petrol station and trying to take an imprint that I can measure but it seems ridiculous that this information is copyright and you have to pay to see it.

I think this is a classic case of giving the DVLA too much information and paying the ultimate price for that mistake. The DVLA don't know one end of a car from another so tell them you "converted" something and you're heading for a paperwork nightmare. It's not like there is any reason to tell them what kind of top you have fitted. I once had that discussion with an insurance broker when they told me they don't insure pickups. He completely failed to comprehend what I meant when I said it was only a pickup this week, next week it'll be a soft top if the weather's good and I might put the hard top back on in the autumn. For a "normal" car owner the idea that you can just unbolt one body and bolt on a different one in a couple of hours simply doesn't compute. On the original subject, changing the engine capacity and serial number, even the fuel type has never caused me any issues. One engine I had used a replacement block from Land Rover that had never been stamped with a number. I made up my own number and stamped it into the block in the usual place and gave the DVLA the made up number which was accepted without any issue. I suspect that, had I included a full explanation of how that number had come about they'd have gone into full blown paperwork mode ! On the donor vehicle (that had had the replacement block fitted before I bought it) the engine serial number on the V5 was actually the LR order number on the invoice for the block ! I did send a receipt for the engine in with the TD5 conversion I did but no idea if it was needed or not.

Gearbox/transfer box mounts are in the same position, just use the mounts from the Disco. I've done what you're suggesting a few times now when changing from one engine mount to another - put the gearbox and engine in as one unit, bolt the gearbox/transfer box mounts up and tack the engine mounts onto the chassis where it sits before lifting the engine up and welding the mounts.

Yes, the servo fitted to the TD5 Defender is compatible with the V8 one.