Thread: Meet my 90, and share the adventure.

I wired up the temperature meter and got to work. Readings were made with a dual channel digital thermometer, running the K-type thermocouples.


I wired the thermocouples up like so- quick and dirty. The aim was to measure ambient air temps using a 'high' and 'low' point- the low sensor was close to the heat shield. Results were interesting.



Test 1- 'normal' highway driving
This test was conducted over approx 25km, on flat roads on the outskirts of town. Average speed was approx 80km/h. Ambient temp was about 24C.
Temps remained stable at approx 54C. There was no significant difference between high and low readings - Max observed deltaT on this test was 2c
During the test, I touched one of the probes to the heat shield- Max observed temp was 101C

The kicker for engine bay temps was the heat soak which was evident after the engine was shut down. At this time, with no airflow from the engine fan, or air being sucked thru from under the car, temps slowly increased to max reading of 65 @ both sensors (this temp was reached approx 10min after shut down).
Temps returned to normal operating temperature after 1hr (51c).
The temps dropped further- to 46C- when the vehicle was given a short drive (<2km @ 60kmh) due to the cool air reducing under-bonnet temps. This is interesting, as it shows that the engine bay has good enough airflow to evacuate heat itself.

Test 2- Giving it the beans up a big hill
This afternoon, I took a spin up the new england highway to Moonbi, where there is a long, steep hill, maybe 6km long. This is a 100km/h zone, and usually in the mule, I chug up it at 90-95 in 5th gear, and shift to 4th for the last little windy bit at the top, which is an 80km/h zone.
Test was conducted at 36C ambient outside temp.

After 18km at 100km/h in 6th gear, on flat ground, the same temp probe locations as test 1, showed an under-bonnet temp of 62C - 8 degrees hotter than the flat ground test (Outside temps were 12 degrees hotter at this time though).
Climbing the hill saw a max temp of 62.1C on the top probe, and 75C on the bottom proble (closer to the heat shield).
Coasting down the hill, with good airflow and minimal engine load, under-bonnet temps remained stable at 42C.


Conclusion
Based on observations of ambient temp, a provent installed in that location will not exceed its designed operating temperature, even in times of heat soak. Your milage may vary if you tow large caravans, heavy trailers etc

Originally Posted by Tombie

So with the power of science and research....

You discovered that everyone fitting such device to a TDCi is discovering that the factory fitted Oil separator that runs the entire length of the rocker cover does such a great job that those who have fitted a Provent are detecting zero oil in the drain pipe!

This leads to a hypothesis that the factory unit is sufficient for effective vapour control and that the Funds originally allocated to the Provent can be reallocated to the Booze fund instead

It woule be interesting to see the design of the factory unit. A removable element in a provent could be argued that it's more efficient than a baffle system that is more likely than not installed in the factory unit. Another 'hidden' benefit of the consumable filters is the ability to check what is being collected by the filter, and monitor and improvements, or declines, in the CCV system performance.

I'm torn:
The realist inside me constantly reminds me that a team of 100 engineers- highly educated blokes who are leaders in their field- worked on the PCV/CCV system of this engine, and were employed by one of the largest engine manufacturers in the world. They know what they are doing.

The consumer whore in me says "nah maaate! chuck another one on, what's the worst that can happen! 2 is better than 1, right?!"

As for the booze fund... I've got an ever increasing balance in my naked wine fund. It's about time I get another carton or two. You got any corkers from them recently Tombie?

Disaster Strikes!
Well, sorta.
Not really.
Actually it was a minor inconvenience...

Today marks the first significant failure of the mule. But like any good mule, el Burro soldiered on and got the job done.

The last few times I've driven it, I've noticed a bit more induction noise. I was unsure whether it was normal mechanical things 'bedding in' as it approaches 42,000km old, or that hektic VL turbo dose noise I've always wanted.

Last drive (monday 30.01.2017), I'd noticed significantly more spooling noise as I drove past cars or other things which reflect engine noise back my way. Being a defender driver, I naturally ALWAYS have the windows down and the arm slung out the window in the beareded gangsta pose. This makes identifying new noises a breeze.

Yesterday, while driving to our monthly aulro / local landy driver pub afternoon (first Thursday of the month at the Oasis Hotel Tamworth- 1730hrs /shamelessplug), I'd noticed that the mystery noise had got worse. It was no longer a spooling noise, but a steady hiss, similar to a leaking hose on an air compressor.
I pretty much narrowed it down the the LHS of the vehicle. A noise which was independent of speed, turning or braking, and was dependent on boost.
So I whipped out the nanocom and scanned some codes. Nothing except the usual weird ones which are historic logged items, so I whacked the nanocom on the dash, and had a gander over the instrument pack to see what's up. This is when I worked out that I have NFI what the readings of the nanocom are. I was looking for boost pressure, and I was looking at this:





Rant: This device (as good as it is), is plagued by abbreviations and readings which makes no sense to me, mechanically. I might be showing my inner rev-head, but give me a boost gauge in PSI any day. 6.5x10^-5 Bar is not a very good measurement, in anyone's book.

As an aside... for some reason the oil temp has always shown a negative value (since about 25,000km). Any idea why?


After some ginning about with the nanocom, I had got myself to the pub. Cue drinkin' and tall stories, and comiserations on people's choice of vehicle. Many a laugh was had.

After a few beers it was time to hit the dusty road. I commandeered numpty to be throttle-jockey-for-hire so I could keep an ear out for the hissing noise I had heard. After a liberal few applications of the loud pedal in neutral, I identified the source of the problem. A split aftercooler hose.
Item 3 in the pic below:


Tech-heads might call this the "Duct- charge air cooler to electronic throttle body". I call it "Bastard hose with a split in it".


You can see the split just to the left of the hose clamp- the little dark smear in the depths of the 'bay


The vehicle was still idling fine, and there were no faults on the nanocom, no check engine light. I was ready to truck home... until the vehicle had other ideas.
About 3km into the journey, my old mate the check engine light illuminated. Limp mode, engage!
Limp mode was not as bad as I thought. Yes, it slows the car right down, but knowing that it is throttling the engine to previent any further damage, I was fine with. Drive to the conditions etc. I managed 60-70km in 4th gear, although a hill required 1st gear where I got down to about 15km/h in a suburban side street. I was 2km from home.

Once home and parked up, all was good, kicked the nanocom back into action and had a look-see over the codes again.
CEL had triggered P0101= Mass or volume air flow circuit range/performance. AKA boost leak!


The P0101 code is for the MAF- Mass airflow sensor. Google it- it can be caused by a boost leak which I've identified. The ponies escaped from the engine.
I also have some historic faults which are:
P0191 Fuel rail pressure sensore range/performance
P0645 Air conditioning clutch relay control circuit
P0693 Fan 2 control circuit - low
I think I'll clear these and see if anything pops back up. IIRC the fuel rail pressure would be from the fuel filter replacement.


So after the trials and tribulations, I spent the rest of the evening sitting at home sippin' a Tokay and penning this monologue.

Booze revooz:
Stanton and killeen rutherglen tokay. 12y.o.


Got this for my 21st in '06. Cracked it last week to celebrate the engagement of my mate who gave it to me. We are both port drinkers so don't mind cracking open the good stuff for a worthwhile occasion.

There were a few more drinks that night as I went online shopping for a replacement hose kit. Ended up going with a BAS intercooler hose kit. I tried to stretch the slush fund for a 170AB tune and intercooler... but that might have to wait for a a few months yet... I'm led to believe that the intercooler hose kit will work with the upgraded intercooler if required down the track.

So yes... watch this space.

Yep it will work with the tune and intercooler. And it will be one of the best mods you do to your 90 for on road driving. Can't say how happy I am with the tune

Originally Posted by Toxic_Avenger

I wired up the temperature meter and got to work... blah blah blah... etc

Interesting stuff Mitch. If you feel like doing more testing, it would be interesting to see what sort of readings you would get after about an hour running at 100km/h plus speeds on a hot day. It would be even more interesting to measure the temps in the transmission tunnel over this time. That's when I'm finding heat soak becomes an issue for cabin temperatures rather than engine temperatures.

Cheers,
Jon

What's with the oil temp on the Nanocom. Mine does the same.

Originally Posted by jon3950

Interesting stuff Mitch. If you feel like doing more testing, it would be interesting to see what sort of readings you would get after about an hour running at 100km/h plus speeds on a hot day. It would be even more interesting to measure the temps in the transmission tunnel over this time. That's when I'm finding heat soak becomes an issue for cabin temperatures rather than engine temperatures.

Cheers,
Jon

Always up for a bit of R&D.
When I get this split hose situation sorted, I'll jerry-rig something up.
I've got some 3m long K-type thermocouples coming from china so will have more flexibility for future testing.

Originally Posted by Marty90

What's with the oil temp on the Nanocom. Mine does the same.

I did some research on the oil temp issue last night.

Oil temp/?level? sensor location- Item 3 below:

On this engine, the FSM mentions that oil temp input only, is used by the ECM from this sensor.

Clever little bastard

For people playing along at home, a quick google and a few ebay part numbers later seems to point to the Ford p/n 1477409 for the oil temperature sensor (AKA Ford Oil Level Sensor, 2.2tdci). I don't think LR would have changed this component as part of 'landRover-ising' the tdci, but might be worth exploring one day if anyone is torn between an expensive LR part or a cheaper ford part.


...But to the contrary, appears the ECU has an input from all 3 pins of this sensor according to the wiring diagram (it must just ignore this input at the ECU level.)


How cool would it be to hack this input for a low oil level sensor? Even just an idiot light would be good. Can never have too many blinken-lightzen on a vehicle amiright?! Dipsticks are sooooo 1990's

Parts microcat of this component (item 14):

LR part number LR005905.
Appears to be compatible across all VINs for the 2.2.

Funnily enough, even though the nanocom shows -40C oil temp, the vehicle is not throwing the respective P0196-P0199 DTC code range for the engine oil temperatuire sensor range/performance. Indicating that the wiring and hardware is OK.
Could the nanocom be lacking for this sensor output?!

When I do my oil change, I'll spray the crap out of the sensor harness connector with come contact cleaner, and see if it resolves this anomaly. Failing that I can backprobe/ test continuity of the harness between temp sesnor and the ECM, but I don't think this is where the problem lies.
I did have a past issue with an oil leak from the cam cover, but the primary leak was seen on the LHS of the vehicle- complete opposite side of the engine.

In short, oil temp output on nanocom does not seem to be a pressing problem, but might be nice to resolve (assuming that it's not just a limitation of the nanocom).

Do you know anyone with a Gap iiD tool and a Defender? Could then see if they get a valid reading for oil temp.

Something I've noticed with the D4 is that some sensors moved from one ECU to another in 2013 but the old values were still available in the system albeit with invalid readings. This is unlikely in your case because it would be very unlikely to change from the engine ECU I guess.

Cheers,
Scott