monkie

Yes, and previously backed off the off boost smoke adjustment. The spring seemed different to me too on the boost pin. Do you think I should attempt to screw the star wheel out too? EDIT: by different, I mean the spring on the performance boost pin compared to the standard pin from my spare pump (you can see the blue spring on the performance pin).

Got it sorted. My spare pump had a standard pin with no massive groove. I fitted it, left the boost alone and didn't adjust the star wheel as it didn't seem to want to move so I didn't force it. The performance seems more than acceptable and the smoke is much reduced. Again I own massive thanks to the expertise on this forum. @reb78 I now see exactly what you mean about the performance boost pin in terms of tuning it would do nothing.

Thanks chaps. Luckily I have a spare 200Tdi pump. I shall take a peep at that one.

I saw this on a YouTube video. So I see witness marks, but I also see what looks like a chanel machined into it. What's going on?

Ahhh, that's the bit I didn't understand... Very good question indeed. In the light of this revelation I shall be putting the old pin back in!!!

Thank you Richard. Okay, so I will for now leave the boost alone. Probably achieve nothing by adjusting the off boost smoke setting. I will turn the star wheel out by 1 turn and see what that does and then turn the pin by 90 degrees. By the looks of things I don't think the power adjustment screw had been touched, I don't want to muck about with that if it is at factory settings. @reb78is this adjustment you mean...? The slotted screw at the back of the pump next to the fuel return pipe that is locked in place by a locking nut with a tamper proof seal?

I'll have a go tomorrow and see what happens

The MOT is booked for my 110 with my rebuilt 200Tdi. On a few test runs I have done it is extremely smokey and I don't mean excess oil from the rebuild but black smoke as soon as I touch the accelerator pedal (but boy does it have a kick to it ). I know the boost pressure has been adjusted as I'm registering 1 bar on my gauge and I know the pump has a boost pin fitted as I was given the original pin in a box with the engine when I got it. It feels like good fun, but for now and for the MOT I want to get it back to as near factory settings as I can for a 200Tdi. I can always play with it later on once I have my MOT in hand and I have got a few hundred miles on the rebuilt engine to bed it in. Maybe I'll get a new bigger intercooler one day... I've looked at the How To Increase The Performance Of Your 200/300tdi thread on the technical archive so I can work backwards - have I understood it correctly with the following to undo any tuning and reduce smoke? Decrease boost pressure by increasing the length of the actuator arm on the turbo (aiming for 0.7-0.8 bar). Decreasing boost means I now need to reduce fuel output from the injection pump. Reduce off boost smoke adjustment screw by removing the pressed cap ontop of the boost diaphragm housing and turning the torx screw anticlockwise up to 2 turns (my understanding is this is adjusting the resting position of the diaphragm to control off boost smoke). Reduce boost smoke remove the 4 screws and take off the diaphragm cap, note the position of the diaphragm and turn it upto 120 degrees anticlockwise (maybe just 90 degrees first and see how it is). What about reinstalling the original boost pin? Increase pressure on the diaphragm spring by turning the star wheel anti-clockwise half a turn. (the tamper proof seal is still fitted to the power ajustment screw so I will leave it alone and I don't think it has been adjusted off factory settings)

When you try to start it, what precisely happens? Does the engine turn but not fire, do you get a clicking sound but it won't turn over or does absolutely nothing happen?

If I remember correctly the gauge is supplied with 12v, the striped wire then leaves the gauge to the corresponding sender and is earthed via the sender to the engine block. Worth getting a new sender of the corect type for your gauge fitted.

Yes it has been a roller coaster of a journey that went from exciting to frustrating, aggravating, rewarding. Thank you for all the support and help from all those who commented and made suggestions and came up with ideas. I have noticed that it is quieter taking up drive. My old LT77 was starting to get noisey and clunk.

Well, it's all sorted so I took it on a test drive today. Wow, it's a massive difference, quite amazing. I am leaving clouds of black smoke so I do want to back off the smoke adjustment. But other than booking it in for an Mot, I'm finally back on the road with a 200tdi and stumpy gear box.

Not quite, it's shifting rapidly as many scientists come to terms with the scale of the issue and "sustainable" energy just is not practicle. Not true for reasons stated above. Governments on the whole don't love it, they are scared of it because of negative views by the electorate. That's why overall nuclear plants are being closed around the world. We are getting locked into burning gas for reasons stated - we need to stop burning stuff. We can't stop burning stuff whilst we confuse the grid with unpredictable supplies of "sustainable" low density energy that often arrives irrespective of demand on the grid.

That isn't true. Have a read of that article I posted a link to. Most climate scientists who were once opposed to nuclear as an energy source citing those reasons and others as to why nuclear is a bad idea have since looked at the numbers and the scale of global energy demand and come to the conclusion nuclear is the only realistic way forward. When you say nuclear isnt sustainable and is far too expensive - that is only considering one nuclear technology which has a poor burn rate of the pelletised fuel and requires massive concrete structures. As Snagger says, SMRs will address some of these points, molten salt reactors can address the other remaining points. Using other sources of renewables as a back to other renewables simply would not work and would tie us in to burning gas for longer.

Absolutely, but I view Hinkley C as a missed opportunity. It is a solid state reactor built on a conventional design so has all the limitations associated with it. However - it does make us less dependant on natural gas. Renewables like wind and solar are great for helping us move away from coal quickly which is the most carbon intensive form of generating power. To be fair, renewables have helped us decarbonise a good way. The problem is however that we will/have hit a limit with them in terms of getting away from burning stuff. Because they are not energy dense, tend to generate power when and where it isn't needed, you must have back ups in the grid. For us in the UK that is often gas, so in a way wind and solar make us even more reliant on burning fossile fuels and we will never get away from this as long as we keep putting up wind and solar farms rather than start building a lot of nuclear plants - fast. Nuclear breaks this reliance on fossil fuels. If we move to newer nuclear technologies we can overcome the problems you describe with conventional nuclear plants. Most of the concrete used in a nuclear plant of conventional design is actually not a biological shield as many believe, but a pressure containment device beacuse solid state reactors run at low temperature (comparitively)/high pressure. Liquid state reactors run at high temperature/low pressure. Also if you can attain a much better burn up of the fuel as liquid state reactors can, then you need less reprocessing of the fuel and better decomissioning at the end of the reactor's life. So, why don't we use this technology? Part of the answer is because you need a whole new design of plant and part of the answer is because you dont have to reprocess fuel. Reprocessing fuel is big business for opperators of nuclear plants.

You raise some interesting questions there. I follow a climate scientist who is based in Scandinavia (Sunniva Rose). She has co-written a really good article which raises and answers some great questions. It is quite long, but for anyone interested, it is a good read and contains some interesting numbers and comparisons. https://energy.glex.no/feature-stories/net-zero-emissions-require-fact-based-actions-not-wishful-thinking

Yes fusion is an exciting prospect but it isn't the only nuclear technology that is promising. There are liquid fuel reactors that work using fuel in the liquid phase (a molten salt), there are also technologies that use different fuel cycles so don't have use Uranium or Plutonium. An idea I really like the sound of is a combination of the 2, LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors). There are some technical challenges such as reactors that can handle hot molten flouirde salts, but the potential benefits are massive for passively safe power that utilises much more of the fuel that current solid state reactors.

That is an issue that has been massively exaggerated by anti nuclear campaigners in the past. Its an ideal form of waste because it is contained and not released into the atmosphere unlike when we burn stuff.

Exactly, that's why I'm willing to pay more for something that is clean, reliable but most of all energy dense and can totally replace burning natural gas rather than supliment it. Also exportable technology to countries like India where they need lots of energy dense power supply for the manufacturing we depend upon. There are many different nuclear technologies out there. I hope we start to put more money that way rather than on solar, wind, wave, tide, hydro...

I wouldn't mind much paying more for electricity (I think in a wealthy nation it is the decent thing to do) provided that the cost is going towards funding a much better infrastructure and a long term provision for generating most of our power from nuclear including newer nuclear technologies rather becoming reliant on gas, wind and solar.

I hope I'm wrong but I can't see it coming down again by any significant amount. Its an easy way for them to rake in a lot of money and they have got to start finding funds for the financial costs of the measures that are/have been put in place for Covid and the B word for us in the UK.

Thanks Ralph. I did check the release bearing against my old one... As you say the one for the stumpy was shorter than the one from my LT77. I will double check the adjustment tomorrow in the light.

I've fitted an R380 stumpy to a defender 200tdi engine in my 110. I used the slave cylinder pushrod that came with the stumpy box (it was shorter than the pushrod from my LT77. All works fine except it feels like the biting point is not right. I have to push the pedal almost all the way down to get the clutch to disengage, the biting point seems very low to me. I'm wondering if the pushrod might be too short?

Having thought a lot about it and spoken to people, I don't think it was over doing the lube, nor do I think it was dirt or anything behind the shell. I think it was most likely misalignment of the cap somehow or as you say the shell moved or did something as I inserted the piston in the bore, I guess I'll never know. On the second time round I did rotate the crank by hand after each big end cap was installed to double check. Im still frustrated that although I've narrowed it down to that big end on number 2, I can't be certain exactly what caused it. But I'm now very confident that I have a good engine. I'd say the lesson here is to double check everything on a rebuild.

Been alittle while since an update. I caught a rotten cold that plauged me for a while and stopped me progressing with this project - luckily negative for dreaded Covid19, probably just man flu. Anyway, the engine is in, all connected up, I turned it over a number of times without power to the stop solenoid on the injection pump to circulate the oil.Once the wire was put on, It fired up straightaway and registered healthy oil pressure on my gauge. Just need to put the front grill on and the inside back together then get it booked in for an MOT. As for the cause of the issue; I think @Bowie69was right, there was something not right about that bigend on #2, the engineering shop confirmed that it was out of round. I consider myself to be lucky that I spotted the low oil pressure and switched off the engine to investigate before damage started to spread as a result. The oil pressure gauge has certainly paid for itself.