Jocklandjohn
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Jocklandjohn
-
-
I've got a starter/auxiliary set up which works just fine, but for prolonged running of diesel heater, as well as other equipment in very inclement conditions, the 80AH has been struggling, so I'd like to add a second aux battery for the winter months. I can't fit a larger AH battery in the battery box because it will only accept an 85AH max sized one beside the starter. I have space in an external side locker so I can use that for a third battery when required.
Summer energy consumption is usually ok - the heater is rarely needed, and days (up here anyway) are very long so minimal lighting required, so its only the fridge thats being used (and the solar panel adds to the energy capacity too).
However in the winter it can be a struggle - running the diesel heater, lights etc is necessary often from 4pm and the warm van means the fridge needs to run more too. Some work trips need several days on-site in remote areas, and often without actually driving anywhere - I go in, park up and work out of it for several days, so the alternator is not doing anything unless I run the van. If the weather is bad and I get all my gear soaked the heater will be running overtime as well.
Anyway to the question - would this 'smart' Victron relay be suitable to add a third battery? I have an IBS battery monitor that manages the starter/auxiliary and their bumph shows a similar fancy relay that wil slot into the system and play nice with the others as a three battery setup. Only snag is it's over £200 which is a bit silly, whereas the Victron is about £35 which is more sensible.
It *looks* to me like it will do the job, but could a sensible adult perhaps cast an eye on it please?
This is the IBS relay which needs a mortgae (DBR - Dual Battery Relay). Which I would reaplce as wired with this below, the 120A version, Cyrix CT:
Which has this wiring diagram in its guide:
Am I missing anything here?
-
1 hour ago, western said:
I have the slicksh8ft on my R380 & it does reduce the gearlever movement provided the bias spring is correctly set up.
Cheers Ralph. Good to know there's a few folks on here using them.
-
19 hours ago, hurbie said:
i don't get it why people install funny stuf to a LT77 , it's never going to be as slick as a japanese gearbox , with all these "upgrade's " you only put more stress on the synchro part's (simply because your loosing the "feel" to what the box is doing ...}
but everyone needs to do what they like ...
🙂 - I needed to replace the turret as the slots were worn and the gearchange pretty sloppy, which wasn't being helped by the tired bias spring, both of which items have probably seen 200,000 miles of use. So I figured that whilst in there and taking it apart I'd see if the slickshift shaft really did make a major improvement to the whole shifting experience as some have claimed. I did read a couple of not-so glowing comments but thought I'd give it a go.
If I dont like it, it'll be in the For Sale section soon!
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, miketomcat said:
I have to admit I've always fitted the dampers the other way up. Now I question this. At least the other way up they wouldn't be able to see if they had boots. Mine are procomp and have gaters attached top and bottom.
Mike
I've always been curious about this. When fitting gas struts to my 110 roof I discussed their use with an engineer at the supplier and he said they always advised (in a vertical application) that they are fitted with the rod downwards and enclosed body uppermost because this allowed the seal to stay lubricated and not prematurely fail. Which seemed reasonable. And would presumably apply to shocks also?
-
36 minutes ago, Stellaghost said:
This is what can happen, changed the axle on a 110 last year, it did have the catch brackets, but surely JLR should still foot the bill for this ??
This was also on the left...
Regards Stephen
Yikes!
-
My concern (and I'd be questioning them about it) is their assertion that the brackets will "ensure the wheel hub assembly and suspension are restrained in the event of a failure". Personally I'd rather it didn't fail by being fit-for-purpose in the first instance.
What this *seems* to be from their wording is not a fix of the underlying issue, rather a way of minimising the consequences when/if it does fail.
So basically asking passengers in a leaking boat to wear two buoyancy aids instead of one, as an alternative to fixing the hole in the boat...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, hurbie said:
i don't get it why people install funny stuf to a LT77 , it's never going to be as slick as a japanese gearbox , with all these "upgrade's " you only put more stress on the synchro part's (simply because your loosing the "feel" to what the box is doing ...}
but everyone needs to do what they like ...
here is a video how to get the legs on :
Well thats a thing I wish I'd seen before I started buggering about! Thanks for the pointer to it - I wish they'd made that video easier to find.
I shall return to the fray tomorrow.....
-
I got a Slickshift for the LT77, and a new turret & spring. It arrived with the spring facing the rear of the van rather than the front. This means the spring has had to be forced (with signifcant effort, as it has to be made wider to get past the alloy turret casting) to face forwards. This is the same way as it is shown in Syncro/Slickshift's pictures online.
The spring CANNOT go forward as supplied ie 'over the top/clockwise' as this will result in no spring force being exerted downwards. It has to go 'under'/anti-clockwise in order to work.
What this *appears* to have done is made the spring 'wider' ie the two legs now dont point inwards and wont stay put on the turret/bias bolts, and ping off. The amount of effort required to get the springs anywhere near their seating location is mad, involving a wrecking bar and two screwdrivers, with force enough to dent the sides of the transmission tunnel.
Despite an hour of greasy wrestling (I'd put plenty of grease on it) I am no further forwards.
Or was I supposed to remove the spring and re-orientate to face forwards? (which seems odd to supply in wrong position).
Anyone shed any light on this?
(PS have just emailed syncro, the maker/vendor to ask their advice but no reply yet as it was 3pm or so and they might be busy, but the van is now dead and I need to get it rolling again!
-
54 minutes ago, fmmv said:
Well first thanks for letting us know, and well done for finally running it to ground. The joys of boost!
I had a similar thing once, I had a Alisport intercooler (300tdi) and it was connected to the inlet manifold by an alloy pipe, the joints were by very short straight silicon pieces. The problem I had was that the engine rocked forward on its mounts enough to push the intercooler forward as there was very little 'give' in the pipes; that in turn made a slit in the intercooler where the mounting boss had been welded on. The fix was weld, but I replaced one of the hoses with a 'hump' hose, which lets the engine move a little without pushing on the intercooler. These things are often very hard to spot.
Its quite astonishing that something so small (apparently) can have such a big effect. It was the last thing I'd have expected to be the cause!
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
UPDATE
Progress! After literally YEARS of chasing this issue of desperately poor running and replacing lift pumps, fuel lines, injector nozzles and more, I believe I have found the culprit.
I replaced the thin boost pipe from turbo to FIP and whilst at it decided to check over all the high pressure hoses in the turbo-to-intercooler-to-manifold line. All were intact, as they have been every other time I checked them. I put them all back on and added extra jubilee clamps on all the silicone/alloy joints and went for a run. It was performing worse than it had been before I touched it! Literally - so much worse it was hard to believe. I was getting high EGT's and lots of smoke, couldn't rev much over 2000 rpm and generally just rubbish.
Back to the piping - obviously something amiss there. All 'soft' pipes intact and properly connected. So...to the alloy pipes. One of them has a small angle in it created by a cut/weld to give a slight direction change - it was fitted decades ago when I had an Allard intercooler fitted to the 2.5TD. With a cursory glance it looked fine, but I could see a slight black discolouration on its back side where its normally hidden from view. It looked ok but I gave it a pull and the joint opened!
Now, because my 110 was originally a 2.5TD it has the air filter box vertical in the front engine bay passenger side with a support leg in the way of the lower intercooler inlet which means the piping has to be forced around various bends to get to the turbo outlet. What seems to be happening is that the alloy *looks* ok but when all the piping is shoved together its under a degree of tension and only needs the pressure build up when the turbo does its thing to allow the pressurised air to escape. Because I took it apart and reassembled with extra clamps I must have put more pressure on the alloy section causing the joint to be more open and performance to worsen after I fiddled with it.
I gave the joint a clean, splodged some weld on it and put it back together and went for a run.
Oh my! I now have very little smoke, it revs like a champion - I can now get over 2000rpm! The ooomph in every gear is astonishing and EGT's are so low I'm having trouble believing the gauge is accurate. Uphill running in 3rd is effortless and I can even accelerate! The smoothness of the engine is also noticeable and running temperature is much lower.
After SO long chasing an issue that was really getting me exasperated it turned out to be something simple, but 'hidden'.
-
5
-
My 110 was a 2.5TD and has the air filter housing in the front passenger wing, sitting vertically. Its a pain in the bum because now I have an intercooler fitted with the current 200tdi the lower intercooler pipe inlet points directly at the leg of the air filter can and requires a load of faffing to circumnavigate it, causing all manner of piping hassles. In addition on that side there's a washer bottle, intake hoses, a diesel heater & pipes and its a right old jumble.
So I got a Donaldson Wolf filter box which I aim to fit in the big empty space on the other side of the engine bay beside the coolant expansion tank and above the steering rack where it seems to fit nicely and I can put an air intake in that wing (driver side).
So my query is over the pipe size from Donaldson to turbo intake. Donaldson outlet is 76mm (3") and the turbo inlet is 60mm (2 3/8th"). So do I put a reducer at the filter end and run 60mm piping to turbo, or go 76mm piping and put a reducer at the turbo end?
Turbo is a VNT which does a lot of sucking across the rev range so my gut feeling is the more air the better, hence 76 mm? But I'm open to being corrected!
-
Although for 300Tdi you might find this video instructive (I did!) - there's a couple of parts to it:
-
1
-
-
Thanks a lot for doing these pictures Hurbie.
7 hours ago, hurbie said:maybee the cutout is there to allow brake fluid to exit the master cylinder , in case of a bad seal , and prevent it from entering the servo .
Thats my conclusion too. Its got to serve some purpose and being at the bottom makes sense for fluid exit.
Now - the excellent pictures I think *may* solve the problem. My master cylinder's end look like yours but both of your servos have a seal in them - most obvious in the second picture down. I have no seal in the new servo, but did have one in the old one I've removed.
My conclusion is that the new servo has not had one installed, or you're expected to supply your own, which seems rather daft as (it may be the case that) it wont work without it! I will report back tomorrow after getting the salvaged seal into the new servo and seeing if it helps....
-
I *may* have found the problem.
The new servo does not have a seal in it (and I assume it should have one). This seal is in the old servo I removed - however one is not present in the new servo, which strikes me as odd.
When the rain eases off later I'll try this in and see if it fits/helps.
-
I found another picture of the master cylinder I have - this is the thing - weird image but once you get your eye in to what it shows - its the mating face to the servo and its got a vertical groove down the side of the protruding section on its lower side and a fan-shaped cut out on the mating face. I assume thats there for a reason but if thats supposed to actually make an air-tight seal to the servo (?) it must have a really peculiar shaped gasket.
I was under the impression that the master cylinder to servo required an air-tight seal but that looks like some fluid/air pressure relief channel otherwise I cant see the point of having it.
-
19 minutes ago, hurbie said:
maybee it's in the rebuilt kit for the servo 18G8951L for the type 50 or AEU2741 fot the type 80
if i don't forget i can have a look this weekend , i have at least one bulkhead with the older mastercylinder , to see if it has some sort off seal in between.
Thanks Hurbie - that would be very helpful!
I managed to obtain a 40mm x 3mm O-ring and tried that but its still not giving me the full pedal resistance so I assume it needs the appropriate seal to go around the groove/cut-out. I dont have any leakages from the master cylinder so I;m hopeful its just the seal thats the problem.
-
Ok further info - discovered this image online - which appears to show that the cut-out is a factory thing thats on the early master cylinders. So now I need to see if there's a special gasket for that. Anyone know a part number - the parts manual (AFAIK) doesn't show one.
Its listed as: LAND ROVER SERIES 2 BRAKE MASTER CYLINDER ASSEMBLY LWB/110.PART- NRC8690G
-
Update: I think I need a grown-ups help!
Eased off the brake master cylinder very carefully and was able to slide off the servo, and replaced it with the new one. Also replaced the hose from the engine pump.
What I discovered has me puzzled. The underside of the master cylinder has a cut out - see the photo taken using a mirror - there's nothing on the old servo that will match this, its just got a round hole like the new one. The weird cut out goes down the side of the end of the master cylinder (where it goes into the servo) but is also continued into the mating face widening to a fan-shape. Once you orientate yourself in the mirror image its clear to see. The o ring/seal that was on there is in my hand with the depression clearly visible in it caused by the cut out.
Is this normal? It doesn't look it!
I put it back together as best I can and tried the pedal before starting the engine and it was very firm. I then started the engine and tried again and the pedal sunk a lot before I could feel resistence. I've run it for a few minutes and its still the same, needs more than half the pedal travel before I get any resistence although if I do a couple of pumps of the pedal one after the other it gets really strong resistence in the first 1/4 of the pedal movement as I'd expect from properly operating brakes.
Would I be correct to assume that the weird cut-out/shonky seal is the culprit and its lack of a proper seal with the servo is causing a loss of pressure?
-
22 hours ago, Northwards said:
I pulled my master cylinder off the servo recently and found the O ring between it and the servo was pretty flat and dry.
I got a new one, a bit of Vaseline, and I’d say something as simple as that has made a significant difference to my brakes.
By which I’m suggesting that if you’re planning to change the servo, it might be an idea to get a new O ring ordered up.
I have flexible hoses now, so easing the master cylinder off and away from the servo is dead easy, but before I had those I used to find that there would be just enough room with the solid pipes to lean the master away and remove(replace the servo.
Thanks Donald. Its not been touched for more than 20 years so not certain how easy it will come apart! I seem to recall reading somewhere about "maybe an O ring is supplied, maybe its not" but I have a box of assorted to draw from so hopefully if its needed I'll have one.
I've not forgotten I said I'll swing by on intake matters, have been full-on last few days with Clay Shooting at Moy with Croy Scouts (the Scouts do the traps and the Cubs do litter picking) so been out early to late (Moy was great success again, and Scouts/Cubs had a busy but enjoyable time, apart from the occasional midges horde!) but will ping you during week.
-
Thanks, you're a fount of knowledge!
-
1
-
-
Thanks Ralph, I take it the hose/valve can be either way (top left or bottom right depending on orientation?
-
I think my over-30 year old servo needs replacing. But trying to figure out what I've got is confusing me.
Parts manual says it should be a Type 50, 227mm diameter, non-return valve aperture bottom right of centre. (The other servo is Type 80 which is 276mm dia. with non-return valve at top left of centre).
Mine is certainly 227 and *looks* correct except for the non-return valve which is at top left of centre (as would be the case for a Type 80). See picture - is this because its been put on upside down? Will it fit upside down?
Also if I'm replacing it can I do so without having to re-bleed the brakes - will it slip out of the reservoir without leaking - assuming the reservoir seals are intact?
-
Before the recent turbo replacement I tried that at the suggestion of a local LR mechanic expert who did it as a favour for me (with a slip on K&N element clamped on the turbo housing) and it made no difference - he gave it a visual once-over and had a general poke at various bits and thought nothing seemed obviously wrong, and then took it for a hard run but agreed the performance under load was carp. Conclusion then was it's pointing to the FIP and/or timing issue (hence I've had my spare old pump overhauled last week, and a timing belt change to get done asap.)
He then let me drive his - exactly same - 110, 200Tdi, 1.2 gearing, deeper intercooler and modest tweak of pump, and his was massively different, pulling up hills easily, no smoke and with lots of low-end grunt. I've driven several other 110's in HT and CSW forms over the years for work, some heavily loaded and all pulled like a train and mine by comparison is utterly feeble on a slope.
When you say "too restrictive" do you mean that the filters/housing for the 19J engines were less 'airy' than the later 200/300Tdi ones? As in - fitting a larger filter housing/element would be an improvment?
-
Aye sure. Fairly straightforwards. Additional hose to the right of the air filter box beside the window washer bottle is a second air intake from the top side of the front wing which joins a Y just at the pipe with red tape on it coming from the Eberspacher (I fitted that to try to resolve the running issues by getting more air in - main air intake is a Safari snorkel).
Engine is a 200Tdi fitted in place of the original 2.5TD (19J). Been in there for over 20 years, oil and filter changes every 4K miles, fuel filters regularly, valves checked regularly, air filters replaced too.
Adding a second leisure battery/connection
in Defender Forum (1983 - 2016)
Posted
Yes that was the plan. The fridge is currently managed directly off the solar controller (it has a dedicated load circuit) so it can be solar/battery depending on whats available and has all the low-voltage cut off stuff to protect the battery. So yes I was intending to wire the heater off aux battery 2.