pat_pending

Posted as I was replying. If the EGR has been deleted there's no need to bypass the cooler, if the AA guy felt "gas" at the pipe stub it's probably still working but without the benefit of the cooler. As I said, it was probably leaking coolant, a Google confirms this isn't uncommon on this engine.

I'd say that if I'm right about the hose, then it's not the cause of your problem, I take it the AA/you have checked the coolant level? I think you're going to have to wait until it's back at the dealer on Monday, as without seeing the vehicle or knowing the fault code it's not really possible to diagnose via the internet! Is it still in limp mode? Some fault codes can crop up out of nowhere then disappear or be very intermittent.

If they did, they ain't now! I'm not sure this is your problem. It does look like it's the EGR cooler that's been bypassed, but you wouldn't need to do that if the EGR had been blanked or deleted from the ECU, it's just a coolant jacket. Ah, if its blowing out gas/air I'd suspect the EGR cooler has been leaking between it's coolant jacket and the internal exhaust passage, someone has just bypassed the coolant jacket to get round it, leaving exhaust gas to leak to atmosphere via the open coolant pipes. This was probably done some time ago so is unlikely to be the cause of your problem if it's only gone into limp straight after the service. That said, a leak in the EGR gas passage could throw a MAF fault but why it's not caused a problem prior to the service I couldn't say. How long have you had the vehicle?

I have a 200tdi auto 110, as others have said, the auto transforms the vehicle. You won't regret going auto. However, with the push towards hybrid and full electric vehicles I can see existing stuff slowly priced off the roads by tax and fuel price increases, starting with diesel. With that in mind I'd question how much money I'd invest in a diesel engine vehicle right now. 3.9 V8 and auto from a Disco'/RRC would be way simpler and cheaper long term IMO. Also with the V8 you still have the options of going up both in engine power/size and gearbox control if you feel you need it.

Not so, if there's no pressure in the right hand line, the primary piston will simply contact the rear of the secondary piston and push it forward. That's the whole point of dual circuit brakes, if there is a pressure loss on one circuit the other will still work. I'd guess the secondary piston is stuck forwards, try blowing back up the front outlet to free it, or just pop it apart.

It's pointless debating what happened based on a newspaper reporters possibly incorrect interpretation of what was said in court. Until anyone sees the vehicle examiners report it's just speculation. I'd also add, police "expert" examiners are not always as expert as you'd think. Wasn't that other fatality involving a poorly maintained Land Rover in Lincs? There were some defects reported in that one that didn't make sense as I recall.

Yes, it would appear to be a dual purpose vehicle and class4 "if" it was under 2040kg unladen and you could prove it. This quote from the inspection manual may help... although when they say 4x4 do they mean all wheel drive, because nobody thought about six wheelers, or only 4x4? I'm not sure, I might ping them an email tomorrow. The unladen weight of a dual-purpose vehicle must not exceed 2,040kg. However, 4 × 4 pickup vehicles with a DGW over 3,000kg up to and including 3,500kg are considered dual purpose vehicles for test purposes if information about the unladen weight is not available. What has it been tested as previously? TBH there's little difference between class 4 and class 7 tests. Class 4 has the advantage of more stations, but class 7 will be better equipped to deal with Land Rover size vehicles and less likely to be intimidated by them.

Correct, I had it in my head there was a weight issue, checked today and there isn't. It would still need to meet the definition of a camper van, as laid out in the testing manual though. Exactly, the test class is in the system already. On the old system it asked you to enter the test class and you could change it, from say 7 to 4 if you thought the vehicle fitted the criteria. I had a look today and I couldn't see a way of changing it, I think it would need to be done by DVSA if you thought the vehicle was in the wrong class. A class 4 test station cannot test a vehicle logged as a class 7. If the vehicle in the OP has previously been tested as a class 4 then there shouldn't be a problem, providing the test station can cope with weight/size. All the definitions, including dual purpose vehicles and camper vans are in the "MOT testing guide for test stations" here if the link works.

If it has an un laden weight of 2040kg or less it will be a dual purpose vehicle and is tested as a class 4 even though it's gross weight is over 3000kg. However, part of the criteria for being a dual purpose vehicle is that it must be "constructed or adapted for the carriage of both passengers and goods". The conversion to campervan may well have pushed it outside that definition and into a class 7 test.

Interesting, I've not seen LEDs like that before. What was the cost?

I'd certainly say genuine HID/LED units give a very good throw of light with a sharp, almost too sharp cut off. However I can't remember seeing a converted headlamp that didn't have a "torch" beam. Not saying they don't exist, and I've seen more HID conversions than LED, just that's my experience. It's not the main part of my job, but I still do about 70 MOTs a month so I do see a lot of headlights! HID conversions were very popular a few years ago and they always failed the beam pattern test, quite a few had no main beam either as the single filament HID replaced the twin dip/main halogen bulb. I'm not convinced current aftermarket LEDs are any better, considering the cost, than a good halogen. I've got Ring ultima bulbs in both the Freelander and the 110, the 110 also has Wipac crystals and uprated/relayed wiring, I've never found the headlamps inadequate in either vehicle. Auxiliary lamps are a different matter.

There are revisions to the testers manual, the addition of LED bulbs used in halogen headlamps, in addition to the original HID reference is just one. I think they just left LED out of the original text in error, in practice nothing has really changed. As I said earlier, most (all probably) Halogen headlamps converted to use HIDs or LEDs give an incorrect beam pattern, this alone is enough to fail "Beam image obviously incorrect" without the "Light source and lamp not compatible" failure. This does not affect headlamps originally designed to take HIDs or LEDs providing they show a correct beam pattern. LED bulbs in any other light units are not covered as they are not checked for beam pattern like headlamps are.

You bought from AliExpress, they'll be made of top grade Chineseium.

Flat beams are acceptable for the MOT. The headlamp needs to have a clear beam pattern with cut off, contained within the upper/lower, left/right limits. All the kick up does is illuminate the nearside kerb, obviously useful but not an MOT requirement. I've seen plenty of LED and HID conversions and some aftermarket LED headlamps that give a "torch" beam. This is clearly going to dazzle oncoming drivers and why a cut off is needed.

Merry Xmas everyone.

Who's checking? MOT isn't concerned with e marking. "Light source and lamp not compatible" really only come into play when a converted headlamps beam pattern is wrong (as they often are on led and HID converted headlamps) and on most headlamps we only check dip beam for pattern anyway.

I never leave the UK so I hadn't realised things were that different! I guess we're lucky here, motor factors are plentiful, I can get most parts delivered within the hour, occasionally later the same day or the following one.

Is Europe really such a barren wasteland that you can't easily get hold of a fairly common transmission oil that's not exclusive to Land Rover? Genuine question as I've never had a problem getting fluids for anything here in the UK.

Makes me feel all nostalgic. It dates from the time I was an apprentice in the late 70s. There were a number of them hung round the showroom to indicate the different marques we offered as a British Leyland dealer. I remember them going in the skip when the name was changed to Austin Rover, early 80s.. It's a bit of history that should be saved, it's only worth what someone will pay though, my limit would be about £50 if I saw it at Sodbury. Unless the OP is set on turning a profit, the motor museum at Gaydon is the place for it.

235/70/16 will be an inch taller than the standard 235/65/16. I doubt it it will make much difference.

Thanks Vac lines good, actuator working, turbo vnt arm moves freely and when vac's applied will change the engine note as the arm moves,, so unlike yours, it's all moving inside as well. I do this stuff for a living! Trouble is when it's your own car and it really is very intermittent, there's not much incentive to spend the day driving about with it plugged into the code reader.

Hi Interesting. I see the fault code started as P1270 and ended up as P1470. Typo or two faults? Currently chasing a very intermittent P1470.

Most modern vehicles now come without a spare or tool kit, both of which are normally (expensive) optional extras. Generally when people change cars (newer similar model) they'll remove the the spare if they've bought one, and put back the original foam insert that fits in place of the spare, like the OP's vehicle. We often find nothing in the boot of trade in's as the owners have kept the spare and not replaced the insert, adding to the cost of a used car prep'.

Surely from a practical point, you'd want them switched separately? In fog/snow you want the fronts on for forward visibility and the rears off to avoid dazzling following vehicles.

I'm surprised these manifolds haven't appeared on here before, they've been around a few years. I had a short conversation with the bloke that sells/makes them once, and he was talking utter garbage regarding how they worked. They are going to do nothing for performance. However, it's interesting regarding the "feeling smoother" part, as altering the shape of the manifold will have an effect on felt/heard intake resonance. That can certainly determine how an engine feels.