2003 1.8 D Connect won't start?

[T i m]

Hi all,

Just had a call from the daughter saying she went to move her T220 van
(1.8 and whatever the older spec engine was) after driving a few miles
and leaving it parked for a while and it wouldn't start. It spins over
ok, oil and water ok, no immobiliser (I don't think it turns over if
immobilised), plenty of diesel ... ;-(

I asked her to see if she could see the camshaft though the oil filler
hole (thinking cam belt / chain) but she doesn't seem able to so the
AA are on their way.

If they can't fix it, don't know what it is and relay it here ... are
there any 'typical' compatible failure modes for that engine / vehicle
and 150K+ miles please?

Up to this point it's been super reliable and runs well considering
it's age / miles etc.

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

Diesels (spit) - work of Satan.

Son had a similar engine in a different van. It failed to start on his
drive. It cranked at normal speed. There were no warnings of any kind.

I spent a couple of hours trying what little I could, then we called the AA.

The patrol was an experienced older man. He suggested it wanted bleeding
although my Son told him he hadn't run it even vaguely low on fuel. He bled
it; it started straight away.

'They all do that' was his only explanation.

Son ran the van for another couple of years and it never happened again.

Perhaps your Daughter might get lucky?

Chris

--
Remove prejudice to reply.

[MrCheerful]

crank sensor ?

[Graham J]

Chris Whelan wrote:
[snip]

>
> The patrol was an experienced older man. He suggested it wanted bleeding
> although my Son told him he hadn't run it even vaguely low on fuel. He bled
> it; it started straight away.
>
> 'They all do that' was his only explanation.
>

I had a diesel Vectra. It would never start on a Monday morning if
parked all weekend nose up on the driveway. OK if nose down, OK if used
on Saturday.

It would start if cranked continuously for many minutes.

I fitted transparent hose between fuel filter and injector pump, and
checked it every few hours from Saturday morning onwards. Normally it
would be full of fuel, with perhaps a tiny air bubble. But sometime on
Sunday afternoon the fuel would disappear and the whole pipe presumably
back to the tank would fill with air.

I replaced the spill pipes. Local independent garage investigated but
could never get to the bottom of it. So I simply remembered to start it
every day.

I then sold it - last time I saw it, it was being used by a local taxi
company, so they will never have seen the problem ...

--
Graham J

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:33:44 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just had a call from the daughter saying she went to move her T220 van
>> (1.8 and whatever the older spec engine was) after driving a few miles
>> and leaving it parked for a while and it wouldn't start. It spins over
>> ok, oil and water ok, no immobiliser (I don't think it turns over if
>> immobilised), plenty of diesel ... ;-(
>>
>> I asked her to see if she could see the camshaft though the oil filler
>> hole (thinking cam belt / chain) but she doesn't seem able to so the
>> AA are on their way.
>>
>> If they can't fix it, don't know what it is and relay it here ... are
>> there any 'typical' compatible failure modes for that engine / vehicle
>> and 150K+ miles please?
>>
>> Up to this point it's been super reliable and runs well considering
>> it's age / miles etc.
>
>Diesels (spit) - work of Satan.

So they seem to be more and more (do they do an older / affordable LWB
high top petrol connect that is good)?

>
>Son had a similar engine in a different van. It failed to start on his
>drive. It cranked at normal speed. There were no warnings of any kind.

Ok.

>
>I spent a couple of hours trying what little I could, then we called the AA.

Ours was a 'very nice man' (and isn't that dolly a clever bit of
kit!).

>
>The patrol was an experienced older man. He suggested it wanted bleeding
>although my Son told him he hadn't run it even vaguely low on fuel. He bled
>it; it started straight away.

Cool.

>
>'They all do that' was his only explanation.

This is the sort of thing I was asking / hoping for Chris.

>
>Son ran the van for another couple of years and it never happened again.

Result. ;-)

>
>Perhaps your Daughter might get lucky?

Well, it's certainly worth a try eh (little to lose etc). Can you
remember how / where it was bled (before I get the HBOL out). ;-)

Oh,daughter watched him remove one of the air input hoses and spray in
some stuff like EasyStart (I'm not sure you should use actual Easy
Start on these engines?) and she said it sounded like it was trying to
splutter into life? That would suggest to me the cam was working and
the fuel supply wasn't?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. And this may impact on our hopes above ... On the top of the
Engine it says 'Endura DI' and on a sicker 'V227 75PS TCI'

The AA found the following codes:

System : Engine control 2 - 000 / EEC5 Zetec-E

P0404
P1664
P1564
P1608

[T i m]

I guess it could be if 1) They are known to be a common failure point
and 2) that it tries to fire when stuff is sprayed into the input
hose (therefore feeding the engine with fuel)?

I'm sorting out my netbook with Forscan / OBD dongle and will see if I
can see anything working (sensors etc) or not?

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

lots of possibles, but this sounds good:
"Cause/Symptom – P1564 fuel injection pump reduced fuel mode request and
P1664 fuel injection pump malfunction fault codes in the ECU memory.
Both codes pointing to wiring, injection pump or engine ECU.

Rectification Route – In this instance the fault was located to the in
tank fuel pump not running continually. The earth feed to terminal
number 6 on the fuel pump control module was found to have a bad
connection causing an intermittent open circuit, the earth point is
located behind the o/s kick panel behind the facia, the earth point was
removed and cleaned to ensure the connection was good. The codes were
removed from the system and a road test confirmed the fault was cleared."

[MrCheerful]

On 19/06/2017 18:35, T i m wrote:

the last one is the frightening one : ecm malfunction

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[..]

P0404 - EGR
P1664 - This Relates to Injection Pump Control Module Malfunction
P1564 - This Relates to Fuel injection pump - reduced fuel mode request
P1608 - This Relates to Signal monitoring malfunction

Fuel pressure would be first thing to test I would suggest.

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:43:12 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Thanks for this MrC ...

>> P0404
>> P1664
>> P1564
>> P1608
>>
>>
>
>lots of possibles, but this sounds good:

Let's hope ...

>"Cause/Symptom – P1564 fuel injection pump reduced fuel mode request and
>P1664 fuel injection pump malfunction fault codes in the ECU memory.
>Both codes pointing to wiring, injection pump or engine ECU.
>
>Rectification Route – In this instance the fault was located to the in
>tank fuel pump not running continually. The earth feed to terminal
>number 6 on the fuel pump control module

Is this the same as the EDC?

Would / should you be able to hear / feel the tank running if you were
under there with the ignition on?

>was found to have a bad
>connection causing an intermittent open circuit, the earth point is
>located behind the o/s kick panel behind the facia,

So is that the kick panel on the right of the drivers footwell?

>the earth point was
>removed and cleaned to ensure the connection was good. The codes were
>removed from the system and a road test confirmed the fault was cleared."

Worth a look eh. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:02:14 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>[..]
>
> P0404 - EGR
> P1664 - This Relates to Injection Pump Control Module Malfunction
> P1564 - This Relates to Fuel injection pump - reduced fuel mode request
> P1608 - This Relates to Signal monitoring malfunction
>
>Fuel pressure would be first thing to test I would suggest.
>

Thanks for those Chris. So (not really knowing how all these different
systems work), the fuel pump in the tank delivers fuel to the pump
(low pressure) all the time (the ignition is on) and if / once it has
sensed that the injector pump kicks in (high pressure). Insufficient
pressure (rather than flow) from the tank and we could get the
symptoms and codes we are seeing?


Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

you should be able to hear the pump run immediately after ign on, for a
few seconds at least. Work out which are the power and earth leads that
go to it, and power it up to double check.

You could also pull off the pipes at the fuel filter, turn the ign on
and fuel should flow out, that would be the fastest way to check for the
in-tank pump running.

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:22:54 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>you should be able to hear the pump run immediately after ign on, for a
>few seconds at least.

Ok. And that's in the big plastic box slung under the middle of the
van (just to be sure)? ;-)

>Work out which are the power and earth leads that
>go to it, and power it up to double check.

Check, maybe I'll get the big trolley jack and axle stands out and get
under it tomorrow first thing. We couldn't hear anything firing up
tonight.

>
>You could also pull off the pipes at the fuel filter, turn the ign on
>and fuel should flow out, that would be the fastest way to check for the
>in-tank pump running.

Check. Are they some sort of quick connect coupling, a banjo or summat
else (eg, what tools might I need please)?

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

most ford use a quick connect that needs squeezing on both sides at the
same time, this allows the pipe to be removed over the ridge on the
fixed pipe. you could probably alter an old pair of pliers or grips to
do the job, not very much force is needed.

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 21:13:40 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>>> You could also pull off the pipes at the fuel filter, turn the ign on
>>> and fuel should flow out, that would be the fastest way to check for the
>>> in-tank pump running.
>>
>> Check. Are they some sort of quick connect coupling, a banjo or summat
>> else (eg, what tools might I need please)?
>>
>

>most ford use a quick connect that needs squeezing on both sides at the
>same time, this allows the pipe to be removed over the ridge on the
>fixed pipe. you could probably alter an old pair of pliers or grips to
>do the job, not very much force is needed.

Understood and thanks again.

Just OOI, while we were out there earlier I ran Forscan and it came up
with these:


===IC DTC None===
Successful DTC reading, no error codes found

Module: Instrument Cluster

===END IC DTC None===

===PCM DTC P1342===
Code: P1342 - Accelerator pedal position sensor A circuit

Module: Powertrain Control Module

Diagnostic Trouble Code details

Accelerator pedal position sensor A circuit

Open Circuit

This DTC may be caused by :

Accelerator Pedal Position Sensor

Sensor Previously disconnected.

Signal shorted to ground or signal return.

===END PCM DTC P1342===

===PCM DTC P0409===
Code: P0409 - EGR valve position sensor

Module: Powertrain Control Module

Diagnostic Trouble Code details

EGR valve position sensor

Open Circuit

Short circuit to ground or battery

Damaged or worn vacuum hose

EGR valve assembly

This DTC may be caused by :

===END PCM DTC P0409===

===PCM DTC P0404===
Code: P0404 - EGR valve position control performance or range fault

Module: Powertrain Control Module

Diagnostic Trouble Code details

EGR valve position control performance or range fault

This DTC may be caused by :

Open Circuit

Short circuit to ground or battery

Damaged or worn vacuum hose

EGR valve assembly

Blocked hoses / filter / valves

Faulty or damaged PCM.

===END PCM DTC P0404===

===PCM DTC P1664===
Code: P1664 - FIP malfunction

Module: Powertrain Control Module

Diagnostic Trouble Code details

FIP malfunction

FIP timing chain tension

PCM

This DTC may be caused by :

PCM

FIP

===END PCM DTC P1664===

===PCM DTC P1564===
Code: P1564 - FIP requesting reduced fuelling mode

Module: Powertrain Control Module

Diagnostic Trouble Code details

FIP requesting reduced fuelling mode

The FIP has identified a fault that may cause damage to the engine

If any other DTCs are present address these first.

===END PCM DTC P1564===

===CSM DTC None===
Successful DTC reading, no error codes found

Module: Security module

===END CSM DTC None===

===ECS DTC None===
Successful DTC reading, no error codes found

Module: Electronic Crash Sensor

===END ECS DTC None===

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

I believe there is a known fault on these involving part of the wiring
loom chafing, that might well throw up loads of codes.

I understand it should still idle even without an accelerator position
signal.

P1664 is fuel injection pump malfunction

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:34:43 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>>

>> ===PCM DTC P1664===
>> Code: P1664 - FIP malfunction
>>
>> Module: Powertrain Control Module
>>
>> Diagnostic Trouble Code details
>>
>> FIP malfunction
>>
>> FIP timing chain tension
>>
>> PCM
>>
>> This DTC may be caused by :
>>
>> PCM
>>
>> FIP
>>
>> ===END PCM DTC P1664===

<snip>

>>
>
>I believe there is a known fault on these involving part of the wiring
>loom chafing,

I read that somewhere.

> that might well throw up loads of codes.
>
>I understand it should still idle even without an accelerator position
>signal.

Understood. That error has been fairly persistent but doesn't put up
any lights or effect how it runs.

>
>P1664 is fuel injection pump malfunction

So are we still going to check the earth / fuel pump from what you
mentioned previously MrC (and is the earth mentioned behind the lower
panel of the o/s of the drivers footwell)?

Would a malfunctioning injector pump stop the fuel pump running (some
ECU, EDC logic / interconnect)?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. Assuming it's a Bosch VP44, VP37 or VP30 Diesel Pump ...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gmdr5oqp6a5um58/2017-06-19%2017.50.36.jpg?dl=0

... EDC fault, how would I be able to check / test if the fault could
be fixed by these steps would you know please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXHxXUdB3U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUq-d_HbGu0

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:42:49 +0100, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:40:48 +0100, MrCheerful
><g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>>crank sensor ?

>
>I'm sorting out my netbook with Forscan / OBD dongle and will see if I
>can see anything working (sensors etc) or not?
>

I couldn't see a gauge that measures the output of the crank position
sensor but the RPM was around 225 when cranking it over?

This doesn't show that but just some sensors I thought might show
something happening. ;-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l1f21uv2q90wn7z/Scope%201.jpg?dl=0

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

No idea about that screenshot.

I would start with the simplest thing: the fuel supply delivery.

If it looks like being a Royal Pain to sort, I would usually transfer it
to my local diesel specialist. Did that last week with a late VW diesel
that lost a cylinder, likely fault was a dodgy injector, but even
getting an injector out needs a special extractor, so I left it to them
to sort, a week later it has still not come back, so I am glad I did not
get deeply involved.

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 23:53:50 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> This doesn't show that but just some sensors I thought might show
>> something happening. ;-)
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/l1f21uv2q90wn7z/Scope%201.jpg?dl=0
>>

>

>No idea about that screenshot.

Nor me, just I thought the concept was cool and it might just be a
matter of finding the right things to monitor (if such was available
etc).

>
>I would start with the simplest thing: the fuel supply delivery.

Check. We have already added another 25L of diesel, just in case the
fuel gauge was lying to us. We could also replace the fuel filter
(because) and can check the pump at the same time.

>
>If it looks like being a Royal Pain to sort, I would usually transfer it
>to my local diesel specialist.

Apparently our has at lest 1 weeks lead time and they aren't known to
be cheap (and this is a 14 year old van etc).

>Did that last week with a late VW diesel
>that lost a cylinder, likely fault was a dodgy injector, but even
>getting an injector out needs a special extractor, so I left it to them
>to sort, a week later it has still not come back, so I am glad I did not
>get deeply involved.

Quite, but I'm keen to at least be able to tick off some of the basic
things before she has to be without the van for a week+ and it costs
her unnecessarily (if I (we <g>) can sort it etc).

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

Absolutely, so make sure fuel is being pumped to the front, then make
sure it is being squirted in. If it is, then it gets expensive.

[T i m]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:32:51 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>>

>> Quite, but I'm keen to at least be able to tick off some of the basic
>> things before she has to be without the van for a week+ and it costs
>> her unnecessarily (if I (we <g>) can sort it etc).
>>

>

>Absolutely, so make sure fuel is being pumped to the front, then make
>sure it is being squirted in. If it is, then it gets expensive.

And should it get too expensive (worst case here then), are there any
petrol Connects that don't have such expensive bits (or likely to have
such issues for 200k miles) or are all fuel injection things equally
expensive?

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[...]

> And should it get too expensive (worst case here then), are there any
> petrol Connects that don't have such expensive bits (or likely to have
> such issues for 200k miles) or are all fuel injection things equally
> expensive?

There was only one petrol offering, a 1.8. The additional fuel costs over
200k miles would wipe out any possible savings on maintenance. Consequently
they are fairly rare.

You have to be realistic if running any every-day vehicle that is 14 years
old, and essentially treat it as disposable if anything other than trivial
goes wrong. Have a realistic idea of its replacement cost, and if a repair
is more than 2/3 of its value, scrap it.

[T i m]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 08:41:56 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> And should it get too expensive (worst case here then), are there any
>> petrol Connects that don't have such expensive bits (or likely to have
>> such issues for 200k miles) or are all fuel injection things equally
>> expensive?
>
>There was only one petrol offering, a 1.8.

Ok.

> The additional fuel costs over
>200k miles would wipe out any possible savings on maintenance. Consequently
>they are fairly rare.

Ok. ;-(

>
>You have to be realistic if running any every-day vehicle that is 14 years
>old, and essentially treat it as disposable if anything other than trivial
>goes wrong.

Sure.

> Have a realistic idea of its replacement cost, and if a repair
>is more than 2/3 of its value, scrap it.

The problem with that (of course) is you could easily be 'out of the
frying pan, into the fire' / buying someone else's problem. ;-(

e.g. Short of buying something new with a warranty (that actually
covered the bits that break) then anything just outside of warranty
will probably cost more in depreciation and I'm not sure if it would
be (statically) less likely to go wrong (later = more complex = lower
MTBF?) or cost any less to repair?

Don't get me wrong, spending (risking) £1000 on a £1000 vehicle may
seem pointless but it's still £1000 even if it's a £8000 vehicle and
you are more likely to lose more if you don't spend out on having it
fixed (and sell it as a repairable).

I'm guessing the costs of one of these extra warranties would also be
more money down the pan and probably not fully cover the cost of
replacing a fuel pump in any case?

All food for thought though ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:34:43 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>I believe there is a known fault on these involving part of the wiring
>loom chafing, that might well throw up loads of codes.
>

Any idea how closely a 2L Di Mk6 Transit might relate to a 1.8 Di 03
Connect re that then MrC?

http://fordtransit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=124587

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[...]

>> Have a realistic idea of its replacement cost, and if a repair
>>is more than 2/3 of its value, scrap it.
>
> The problem with that (of course) is you could easily be 'out of the
> frying pan, into the fire' / buying someone else's problem. ;-(

OTOH, if you spend the cost of the vehicle in repairs, a subsequent trivial
repair will make running costs stupidly high.

> e.g. Short of buying something new with a warranty (that actually
> covered the bits that break) then anything just outside of warranty
> will probably cost more in depreciation and I'm not sure if it would
> be (statically) less likely to go wrong (later = more complex = lower
> MTBF?) or cost any less to repair?

Any vehicle of the last 10 years or so is sufficiently complex that repairs
are likely to be expensive. They are also infinitely more reliable and
better to drive than cars of my youth!

> Don't get me wrong, spending (risking) £1000 on a £1000 vehicle may
> seem pointless but it's still £1000 even if it's a £8000 vehicle and
> you are more likely to lose more if you don't spend out on having it
> fixed (and sell it as a repairable).

In my way of looking at things, if you buy a £1,000 vehicle, it is
disposable. You hope to get a couple of years out of it, and anything after
that is a bonus. Once it needs an expensive repair, weigh it in.

> I'm guessing the costs of one of these extra warranties would also be
> more money down the pan and probably not fully cover the cost of
> replacing a fuel pump in any case?

I doubt you would even get warranty cover on a 14 year old van. They are
most definitely not worth having in any case.

[MrCheerful]

Frayed knot. In general I stay clear of anything commercial. But I
understand that basically a connect is just a diesel focus underneath,
and they have plenty of faults.

[T i m]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:43:12 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>Rectification Route – In this instance the fault was located to the in
>tank fuel pump not running continually.

I think I've found that these don't have a pump in the tank? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Ok. ;-)

We don't have a vacum pump so don't think can re prime the pump if we
changed the filter.

Cheers, T im

[MrCheerful]

car shops sell the pump for about 8 quid. It appears you must have the
tdci version, which does not have an in tank pump. but it is common
rail, so slackening fuel unions at the injectors and cranking it over
should spurt fuel everywhere, even if it will not run.

[T i m]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:51:53 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>>

>> We don't have a vacum pump so don't think can re prime the pump if we
>> changed the filter.
>>

>

>car shops sell the pump for about 8 quid.

Yup, got the pump and a filter now. ;-)

So, change the filter, put the vacuum pump on the outlet and pump till
we get fuel through then put the hose back to the injector pump back
on and see if it will start, or do we crack one of the injector unions
and see if it spurts first?

>It appears you must have the
>tdci version,

In the rocker cover there is a sticker that says:

2T1Q-6L084-DA
ENDURA V277 75PS TCI
ELD08 <long number> -069

And on the rocker cover itself:

Endura Diesel DI.

>which does not have an in tank pump.

Ok.

>but it is common
>rail, so slackening fuel unions at the injectors and cranking it over
>should spurt fuel everywhere, even if it will not run.

And if it does, we still might have a faulty pump (insufficient
pressure) or faulty EDC / solenoids?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 07:32:51 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>

>Absolutely, so make sure fuel is being pumped to the front, then make
>sure it is being squirted in. If it is, then it gets expensive.

;-(

So, new filter (because) and vacuum primed the diesel though the
filter. Cracked the lines at the injectors one_at_a_time and saw
diesel coming out of each.

Tried again with some brake cleaner and had it running reasonably well
on that but not on it's own steam. ;-(

So, I'm going to pass it onto someone who owes daughter a favour to
get the pump out and then my take it to a specialist myself to get
both the pump and the EDC checked out and a price for replacement.

Cheers, T i m

[Peter Hill]

From the error codes you got it did say that fuel was the last thing to
fix and everything else should be fixed first.

I read the reduced fuelling as being "limp home mode". A SI engine would
just limit the rpm, this appears to prevent damage by reducing the fuel
delivery and hence max power.

So you have faults on timing chain tension, EGR and pedal sensor that
need looking at first. The first one if a real fault says it may be very
unwise to run the engine (which the ECM is correct in preventing) until
you can prove it's just a sensor/wiring fault. The other 2 may just be
wiring faults.

[MrCheerful]

Just looked at autodata again, it has both a chain and a belt and may
have common rail or traditional pump, aaargh.

[T i m]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:37:16 +0100, Peter Hill
<peter...@skyshacknospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>
> From the error codes you got it did say that fuel was the last thing to
>fix and everything else should be fixed first.

Oh, so the *order* of the codes is also important?

>
>I read the reduced fuelling as being "limp home mode". A SI engine would
>just limit the rpm, this appears to prevent damage by reducing the fuel
>delivery and hence max power.

Ok, that makes sense but it just ran fine on the way there (20 mins)
then just wouldn't restart (if that makes any difference etc).

>
>So you have faults on timing chain tension,

Would that have it's own sensor would you know Peter or could it
determine that from and 'slack' measured in timing between sat the
crank and the fuel injector pump (that I believe the chain drives)?

> EGR and pedal sensor that
>need looking at first.

I think the pedal sensor is one that has been there from since she
bought the van (not that that diminishes it's impact etc) but the EGR
is a new one.

>The first one if a real fault says it may be very
>unwise to run the engine (which the ECM is correct in preventing) until
>you can prove it's just a sensor/wiring fault.

Makes sense.

>The other 2 may just be
>wiring faults.

Understood. So, the people at the fuel injection specialists say they
can read the codes directly out of the EDC (that is attached to the
pump) and so *if* that does show codes on it's own then can we assume
that it's likely that it is at least the EDC is at fault (ignoring the
pedal position sensor or wiring issue at least)?

It also seems that the failure mode is that of an EDC dying and
considering the van was parked nose into the sun for a few hours on
the hottest day of the year ... maybe the extra heat was the final
straw?

Also, I think the cam chain replacement is quite a job (if that is a
valid code). Might be easier to go with the injector pump and cam belt
already off though. ;-)

All interesting stuff though ... even though I'd rather that we
weren't having to deal with it etc ...

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:42:31 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>Just looked at autodata again, it has both a chain and a belt

I understand they went from (wet) chain / dry belt combo to wet belt /
dry belt back to wet chain / dry belt again. ;-)

> and may
>have common rail or traditional pump, aaargh.

If I understand it correctly, common rail would have a common high
pressure feed and electronic injectors whereas traditional would be
that the (Bosch VP30?) pump 'distributes' it's outputs to the 4
injectors mechanically (rotary valve) with the timing and stuff
controlled via the EDC and two solenoids in the bottom of the pump?

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

yes, the common rail pump has just one output to the 'rail' and every
injector has an electronic switch to release the fuel.

[T i m]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 16:16:42 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>yes, the common rail pump has just one output to the 'rail' and every
>injector has an electronic switch to release the fuel.

And the little (common rail <g>) hoses that come off the side of the
mechanical injectors and goes back to the top of the filter T piece is
some sort of spillage collection?

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

they are waste pipes leading to the drain to be recycled.

The common rail is the incoming mains boosted by a pump, the injectors
are electric taps turned on and off by an elf. Your elf is on strike
or asleep waiting for a signal to go.

[T i m]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:13:20 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>

>they are waste pipes leading to the drain to be recycled.

Understood.

>
>The common rail is the incoming mains boosted by a pump, the injectors
>are electric taps turned on and off by an elf.

Understood.

>Your elf is on strike
>or asleep waiting for a signal to go.

What concerns me slightly is Peters suggestion that the error codes
come up in the order of importance and that if the cam chain is loose
(not out of the question after 175k miles) that it could be the cause
of the (non starting) fault?

Let's say it is and let's say it (the over loose cam chain) was
initially detached on her way out that day, that it could have gone
into low power mode during the last of the journey (potentially
unnoticed) and then acted like a 'once stopped don't restart till
attended to' mode?

I understand that lads that have the van now are going to code read it
themselves and presuming they have seen these things before, should
know what to do next and if they do take the injector pump off anyway,
the injection specialists will read the fault codes in that in any
case (whether or not it is the only issue)?

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[...]

> What concerns me slightly is Peters suggestion that the error codes
> come up in the order of importance and that if the cam chain is loose
> (not out of the question after 175k miles) that it could be the cause
> of the (non starting) fault?

I didn't read Peter's post that way; I think he was just suggesting that if
there was a cam-chain fault, it would be unwise to start it.

IME you can hear the chain before it gets to that point, and you usually get
a non-start or limp-home condition that 'cures' itself long before the chain
will break.

> Let's say it is and let's say it (the over loose cam chain) was
> initially detached on her way out that day, that it could have gone
> into low power mode during the last of the journey (potentially
> unnoticed) and then acted like a 'once stopped don't restart till
> attended to' mode?

Was any warning light on during that journey? Was performance very limited?

[MrCheerful]

I do not believe there is an 'I can't do that, Dave' mode in the ecu,
imagine it triggering as you overtake something.

Failed CKP does not usually produce an error code. It is simple to
check, and cheap and common to replace.

[T i m]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:37:09 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> What concerns me slightly is Peters suggestion that the error codes
>> come up in the order of importance and that if the cam chain is loose
>> (not out of the question after 175k miles) that it could be the cause
>> of the (non starting) fault?
>
>I didn't read Peter's post that way;

Whilst bit Chris, the order of importance bit of the 'This is
important so I've inhibited the starting' bit?

>I think he was just suggesting that if
>there was a cam-chain fault, it would be unwise to start it.

I think Chris was referring to this fault code:

===PCM DTC P1664===
Code: P1664 - FIP malfunction
Module: Powertrain Control Module
Diagnostic Trouble Code details
FIP malfunction
FIP timing chain tension
PCM
This DTC may be caused by :
PCM
FIP
===END PCM DTC P1664===

>
>IME you can hear the chain before it gets to that point, and you usually get
>a non-start or limp-home condition that 'cures' itself long before the chain
>will break.

That's good news then. ;-)

>
>> Let's say it is and let's say it (the over loose cam chain) was
>> initially detached on her way out that day, that it could have gone
>> into low power mode during the last of the journey (potentially
>> unnoticed) and then acted like a 'once stopped don't restart till
>> attended to' mode?
>
>Was any warning light on during that journey? Was performance very limited?

I wasn't there but neither was noticed that she was aware of (she
says).

That said, it was a very urban trip, all 30's and less are rarely free
of a fair bit of traffic so I'm not sure how 'obvious' (to someone not
necessarily tuned to such things [1] and who typically drives 'gently'
(it's an old van so she tries to look after it)).

Unless it would be *very* noticeable etc?

Cheers, T i m

[1] A mate noticed his Transit was down on power, came up with
numerous ideas as to what it could be (none even close) and asked if I
could take a ride in it to see what I thought. I'm no expert but after
asking him plenty of question and getting him to demonstrate exactly
'how / when' he noticed it most, I concluded (mostly from the new
sound he pointed out) that it was something to do with the turbo.

He took it to the garage. it was taken out for a test drive and NFF.
He got the top bloke to take it out and *he* thought it was something
to do with the turbo, did a temporary repair to a hose and it was back
to itself again. ;-)

I think you can get two situations with these sorts of things ...
someone new driving (or even passengering) in a vehicle might hear /
feel stuff that the regular driver has assumed was 'normal' but isn't
... and also only the regular driver can spot those smaller things
that become 'different'. ;-)

Like every time I passenger in her van and we go over something with
the nsf wheel I hear / feel a 'clonk' that she has long since learned
to ignore (I have mentioned it here, possibly a worn strut).

[T i m]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 23:05:20 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Let's say it is and let's say it (the over loose cam chain) was
>>> initially detached on her way out that day, that it could have gone
>>> into low power mode during the last of the journey (potentially
>>> unnoticed) and then acted like a 'once stopped don't restart till
>>> attended to' mode?
>>

>I do not believe there is an 'I can't do that, Dave' mode in the ecu,

;-)

>imagine it triggering as you overtake something.

No sure, which is why I suggested there might be a 'once turned off,
stay off' type failsafe (a bit like most immobiliser's if I understand
it correctly). [1]

>
>Failed CKP does not usually produce an error code.

I thought we were talking about cam chain tension MrC?

>It is simple to
>check, and cheap and common to replace.
>

Sure, but no so for a cam chain. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] When the Meriva ECU was going intermittent it would always start
from cold, would restart from hot but often wouldn't restart from warm
(because it was being immobilised etc). Not *once* did it ever cut out
once started, even when only warm. That was only a sample of one of
course but I though it was also 'illegal' to have any security type
system that caused a vehicle to just cut out once running because of
the obvious safety implications (except bait cars possibly). ;-)

[T i m]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:26:27 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> Have a realistic idea of its replacement cost, and if a repair
>>>is more than 2/3 of its value, scrap it.
>>
>> The problem with that (of course) is you could easily be 'out of the
>> frying pan, into the fire' / buying someone else's problem. ;-(
>
>OTOH, if you spend the cost of the vehicle in repairs, a subsequent trivial
>repair will make running costs stupidly high.

Yes, but what are the alternatives then?

>
>> e.g. Short of buying something new with a warranty (that actually
>> covered the bits that break) then anything just outside of warranty
>> will probably cost more in depreciation and I'm not sure if it would
>> be (statically) less likely to go wrong (later = more complex = lower
>> MTBF?) or cost any less to repair?
>
>Any vehicle of the last 10 years or so is sufficiently complex that repairs
>are likely to be expensive.

So it seems. ;-(

> They are also infinitely more reliable and
>better to drive than cars of my youth!

I'm not sure about your youth <ducks> but ignoring a trunion failing
on my MM Van (that I roped up to get home) and a half shaft snapping
on same (I pushed it home), it never let me down in spite of being
used pretty hard all over the place (inc regularly traveling from Nth
London to Crewe to see my girlfriend of the time). Mk2 Escort, no
trouble, M5 Cortina Estate no trouble, 2L Sierra Estate, just a
cambelt and one brake caliper hot seizing) and the latter was over 23
years! The Rover 218SD came with some issues (for £100) but cost
little to fix and did another 50k miles and 7 years (and got me home
twice with little coolant in the system). Similar with the 93 Astra
that always got us home.

The newest car we have had is the 2004 Meriva and in spite of it have
the lowest mileage of any car we have ever owned, has cost us the most
so far in time and trouble (always got us home so far though, all be
it we had to wait several hours for it to start). ;-(

>> Don't get me wrong, spending (risking) £1000 on a £1000 vehicle may
>> seem pointless but it's still £1000 even if it's a £8000 vehicle and
>> you are more likely to lose more if you don't spend out on having it
>> fixed (and sell it as a repairable).
>
>In my way of looking at things, if you buy a £1,000 vehicle, it is
>disposable. You hope to get a couple of years out of it, and anything after
>that is a bonus. Once it needs an expensive repair, weigh it in.

Quite, except this cost her about 2K 18 months ago and she has spent a
bit on it (5 new tyres, roof rack, locks, keys etc) and doesn't know
anyone we trust enough who is selling something similar to know if
it's simply going be buying someone else's problems?

>
>> I'm guessing the costs of one of these extra warranties would also be
>> more money down the pan and probably not fully cover the cost of
>> replacing a fuel pump in any case?
>
>I doubt you would even get warranty cover on a 14 year old van. They are
>most definitely not worth having in any case.

Understood.

Update: The lads got the pump out and we took it to an Injection
Specialists and they stuck it on their jig and read a Code 59 (Timing
error or summat) which they said confirmed a faulty EDC (at least). A
new pump was going to be c £900 so I got them to take the EDC off and
ran it round to the Co who re-manufactured the Meriva ECU a couple of
years ago.

It will take them a couple of days to process and then we can either:

Fit the EDC back on ourselves and then:


1) Give it back to the lads to fit untested and cross our fingers.

or

2) Give it back to the Injection specialists and get them to give it a
quick functional test (about £150) and assuming it is ok, then give it
to the lads to refit.

I couldn't really justify daughter spending that much money on a *new*
pump for van with those miles?

Cheers, T i m

[Graham J]

T i m wrote:
[snip]

>> In my way of looking at things, if you buy a £1,000 vehicle, it is
>> disposable. You hope to get a couple of years out of it, and anything after
>> that is a bonus. Once it needs an expensive repair, weigh it in.
>
> Quite, except this cost her about 2K 18 months ago and she has spent a
> bit on it (5 new tyres, roof rack, locks, keys etc) and doesn't know
> anyone we trust enough who is selling something similar to know if
> it's simply going be buying someone else's problems?
>>

What does she use this van for?

I can't imagine anybody having one unless it was for a business where it
has to earn its keep. Unless you can explain otherwise ...

So what is the cost to the business of not having the van?

If the business can't afford the realistic cost of running the van then
perhaps it should close ...???


--
Graham J

[MrCheerful]

when I needed a pump for my sister's vectra I sent it off to diesel bob,
ten years on it still runs great.

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:26:27 +0100, Chris Whelan
> <cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>T i m wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>> Have a realistic idea of its replacement cost, and if a repair
>>>>is more than 2/3 of its value, scrap it.
>>>
>>> The problem with that (of course) is you could easily be 'out of the
>>> frying pan, into the fire' / buying someone else's problem. ;-(
>>
>>OTOH, if you spend the cost of the vehicle in repairs, a subsequent
>>trivial repair will make running costs stupidly high.
>
> Yes, but what are the alternatives then?

None. As I said, on a low-value vehicle, if the cost is more than 2/3 of its
value, get rid.

[...]

>>In my way of looking at things, if you buy a £1,000 vehicle, it is
>>disposable. You hope to get a couple of years out of it, and anything
>>after that is a bonus. Once it needs an expensive repair, weigh it in.
>
> Quite, except this cost her about 2K 18 months ago and she has spent a
> bit on it (5 new tyres, roof rack, locks, keys etc) and doesn't know
> anyone we trust enough who is selling something similar to know if
> it's simply going be buying someone else's problems?

Yebbut it's not worth 2K now, even if it ran.

You would put tyres on any vehicle. I don't think a roof rack qualifies as
either repairs or maintenance. (And could be transferred to a replacement
FOC of course.)

>>> I'm guessing the costs of one of these extra warranties would also be
>>> more money down the pan and probably not fully cover the cost of
>>> replacing a fuel pump in any case?
>>
>>I doubt you would even get warranty cover on a 14 year old van. They are
>>most definitely not worth having in any case.
>
> Understood.
>
> Update: The lads got the pump out and we took it to an Injection
> Specialists and they stuck it on their jig and read a Code 59 (Timing
> error or summat) which they said confirmed a faulty EDC (at least). A
> new pump was going to be c £900 so I got them to take the EDC off and
> ran it round to the Co who re-manufactured the Meriva ECU a couple of
> years ago.
>
> It will take them a couple of days to process and then we can either:
>
> Fit the EDC back on ourselves and then:
>
>
> 1) Give it back to the lads to fit untested and cross our fingers.
>
> or
>
> 2) Give it back to the Injection specialists and get them to give it a
> quick functional test (about £150) and assuming it is ok, then give it
> to the lads to refit.
>
> I couldn't really justify daughter spending that much money on a *new*
> pump for van with those miles?

Assuming you go the route of getting a functional test done, (and you
probably should) what will be the total cast to the repair?

[T i m]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 19:40:15 +0100, Graham J <gra...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>[snip]
>
>>> In my way of looking at things, if you buy a £1,000 vehicle, it is
>>> disposable. You hope to get a couple of years out of it, and anything after
>>> that is a bonus. Once it needs an expensive repair, weigh it in.
>>
>> Quite, except this cost her about 2K 18 months ago and she has spent a
>> bit on it (5 new tyres, roof rack, locks, keys etc) and doesn't know
>> anyone we trust enough who is selling something similar to know if
>> it's simply going be buying someone else's problems?
>>>
>
>What does she use this van for?

Her startup business.

>
>I can't imagine anybody having one unless it was for a business where it
>has to earn its keep.

She actually likes driving it. ;-)

>Unless you can explain otherwise ...

I can't.

>
>So what is the cost to the business of not having the van?

No business?

>
>If the business can't afford the realistic cost of running the van then
>perhaps it should close ...???

And perhaps it will.

Cheers, T i m

[Graham J]

What is the long-term viability of the business? If successful, how
long before it can pay the proper costs of the transport it requires?

For a viable business it should be possible to borrow funds to start up.

--
Graham J

[T i m]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 20:12:00 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>

>when I needed a pump for my sister's vectra I sent it off to diesel bob,
>ten years on it still runs great.

As is my Meriva from the ECU repair by the same co (well, 2 years so
far). ;-)

Part of what stopped me just looking for a warranted second hand pump
was talk of needing the pump 'coded' to the van .. but according to
what I think I understand so far, that's not quite the case? It is in
that one needs to allow time for the EDC and ECU / Immobiliser to get
to know each other again but they will do that without having to use
any OBD tools?

So, if the (2yr guaranteed) EDC repair doesn't fix it, I might be able
to find a good second hand pump that will last 1) long enough for her
to find a better van or 2) long enough for her to sell it and her
business or 3) last long enough for her to get past the critical mass
and the beginnings of her fleet. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:20:59 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>>OTOH, if you spend the cost of the vehicle in repairs, a subsequent
>>>trivial repair will make running costs stupidly high.
>>
>> Yes, but what are the alternatives then?
>
>None. As I said, on a low-value vehicle, if the cost is more than 2/3 of its
>value, get rid.

Yeahbut, get rid to get what? She can't afford / justify anything
newer that *might* be better and what are the offs of anything of
equal age / mileage being any better than what she has now?

How much time will we spend looking for something else (worth having)
and what will that cost her in lost work?

>
>[...]
>
>>>In my way of looking at things, if you buy a £1,000 vehicle, it is
>>>disposable. You hope to get a couple of years out of it, and anything
>>>after that is a bonus. Once it needs an expensive repair, weigh it in.
>>
>> Quite, except this cost her about 2K 18 months ago and she has spent a
>> bit on it (5 new tyres, roof rack, locks, keys etc) and doesn't know
>> anyone we trust enough who is selling something similar to know if
>> it's simply going be buying someone else's problems?
>
>Yebbut it's not worth 2K now, even if it ran.

Quite and we (she / I) have no real interest in any residual value of
the van, just it's ability to allow her to run her business.

>
>You would put tyres on any vehicle.

But unless we can swap them over then that's more cost.

>I don't think a roof rack qualifies as
>either repairs or maintenance. (And could be transferred to a replacement
>FOC of course.)

Agreed. More time / effort though, similar with a tow-bar if the
replacement van doesn't have one fitted, and the Parrot handsfree kit
and steel bulkhead and high security slam locks (the last one we
replaced was £75).
>
<snip>

>>
>> Update: The lads got the pump out and we took it to an Injection
>> Specialists and they stuck it on their jig and read a Code 59 (Timing
>> error or summat) which they said confirmed a faulty EDC (at least). A
>> new pump was going to be c £900 so I got them to take the EDC off and
>> ran it round to the Co who re-manufactured the Meriva ECU a couple of
>> years ago.
>>
>> It will take them a couple of days to process and then we can either:
>>
>> Fit the EDC back on ourselves and then:
>>
>>
>> 1) Give it back to the lads to fit untested and cross our fingers.
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2) Give it back to the Injection specialists and get them to give it a
>> quick functional test (about £150) and assuming it is ok, then give it
>> to the lads to refit.
>>
>> I couldn't really justify daughter spending that much money on a *new*
>> pump for van with those miles?
>
>Assuming you go the route of getting a functional test done, (and you
>probably should)

Ok (ewe are falling that way now).

>what will be the total cast to the repair?

Around £200 for the EDC reman, ~£150 for the pump functional test and
whatever the lads charge to take the pump out and put it back again,
(plus the cambelt kit). Plus any work she has lost over the time the
van is off the road (she's no too bothered about that as it happens
short term, both because of the temperature and other stuff she needs
to sort out).

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:38:49 +0100, Graham J <gra...@invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>What is the long-term viability of the business?

Long term, potentially good.

>If successful, how
>long before it can pay the proper costs of the transport it requires?

Sorry, I'm not party to such numbers ... I'm just her Dad, helping out
when I'm asked. ;-)

>
>For a viable business it should be possible to borrow funds to start up.

That's not a position she wants to be in, had it been she would have
gone to Uni. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[...]

> Yeahbut, get rid to get what? She can't afford / justify anything
> newer that *might* be better and what are the offs of anything of
> equal age / mileage being any better than what she has now?

There are plenty of '03 Connects around for sub 1K. They will all be better
than the one she has now because they start.

> How much time will we spend looking for something else (worth having)
> and what will that cost her in lost work?

How much time has she lost with a non-runner?

[...]

>>You would put tyres on any vehicle.
>
> But unless we can swap them over then that's more cost.

What about the tyres on any other vehicle she bought? They could be in the
same condition. And swapping over the wheels is hardly rocket science.

>>I don't think a roof rack qualifies as
>>either repairs or maintenance. (And could be transferred to a replacement
>>FOC of course.)
>
> Agreed. More time / effort though, similar with a tow-bar if the
> replacement van doesn't have one fitted, and the Parrot handsfree kit
> and steel bulkhead and high security slam locks (the last one we
> replaced was £75).

If she *needs* those things to make her business viable, she should not be
trying to do it with a 14 year-old van. It makes no economic sense.

[...]

> Around £200 for the EDC reman, ~£150 for the pump functional test and
> whatever the lads charge to take the pump out and put it back again,
> (plus the cambelt kit). Plus any work she has lost over the time the
> van is off the road (she's no too bothered about that as it happens
> short term, both because of the temperature and other stuff she needs
> to sort out).

So probably sub-£600, which is fine. Still below the 2/3 vehicle value.

The realities of life are that there is no *guaranteed* way to run an old
vehicle cheaply and reliably. (That's particularly the case with vans, which
in their early life are the most abused and un-loved vehicles!) If that was
the case, we would all be driving ancient stuff, which would then cost a
fortune because few new vehicles were being bought. It's just the way our
world works.

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[...]

> Part of what stopped me just looking for a warranted second hand pump
> was talk of needing the pump 'coded' to the van .. but according to
> what I think I understand so far, that's not quite the case? It is in
> that one needs to allow time for the EDC and ECU / Immobiliser to get
> to know each other again but they will do that without having to use
> any OBD tools?

Some pumps have an in-built immobiliser that will not communicate with the
ECU without dealer-level programming. I don't know whether that applies the
that year of Connect however.

[Graham J]

T i m wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:38:49 +0100, Graham J <gra...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What is the long-term viability of the business?
>
> Long term, potentially good.
>
>> If successful, how
>> long before it can pay the proper costs of the transport it requires?
>
> Sorry, I'm not party to such numbers ... I'm just her Dad, helping out
> when I'm asked. ;-)

Is this a hobby where she is trying to minimise its costs, or a business
which is expected to provide an income?

Does she have professional business advice?

It seems that potentially the success of her business will rely on luck.
The luck that spending not very much on her van will keep it going for
long enough to be useful. From what others here have said, that's not
very likely.

Will another sort of vehicle meet her business requirements? Perhaps
something with more predictable maintenance costs?

Can the business contract out the transport requirement to get clearly
identified costs, incurred only when actually needed?

Can the business operate in such a way as not to need transport?


--
Graham J

[T i m]

Yes, I understand this one does to some degree in that once
re-connecting the pump you have to have the ignition on for 2 minutes
to allow them to authenticate and it should work after that. Time will
tell etc.

They said when they put the bare pump on their test jig it has to wait
for 20 minutes for the pump immobiliser to time out before the tests
can start.

They also said something about having to pre-program a bare (virgin)
pump but I'm not fully sure of all the details of all of that. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[MrCheerful]

My nephew tried the 'own your own vans' route for his business, but
after the first couple of years he realised it was far better for him to
lease brand new vans.

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:58:07 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Yeahbut, get rid to get what? She can't afford / justify anything
>> newer that *might* be better and what are the offs of anything of
>> equal age / mileage being any better than what she has now?
>
>There are plenty of '03 Connects around for sub 1K. They will all be better
>than the one she has now because they start.

LOL ... yeah, maybe when we go to buy them ... ;-)

And she doesn't just want an 03 Connect ... she wants a clean LWB /
High top Connect that is 100% genuine and not from hundreds of miles
away from here ...

>
>> How much time will we spend looking for something else (worth having)
>> and what will that cost her in lost work?
>
>How much time has she lost with a non-runner?

Had the circumstances been different, so far a few days? As it happens
'not much at all'. Had it been critical she could have hired a van for
a week for £35/day.

>
>[...]
>
>>>You would put tyres on any vehicle.
>>
>> But unless we can swap them over then that's more cost.
>
>What about the tyres on any other vehicle she bought?

Same applies, and so far she's kept them on till they wore out.

> They could be in the
>same condition.

They could indeed.

>And swapping over the wheels is hardly rocket science.

Subject to both vehicles having the same wheels, tyres and tyre rating
etc.

>
>>>I don't think a roof rack qualifies as
>>>either repairs or maintenance. (And could be transferred to a replacement
>>>FOC of course.)
>>
>> Agreed. More time / effort though, similar with a tow-bar if the
>> replacement van doesn't have one fitted, and the Parrot handsfree kit
>> and steel bulkhead and high security slam locks (the last one we
>> replaced was £75).
>
>If she *needs* those things to make her business viable, she should not be
>trying to do it with a 14 year-old van.

I'm not sure what any of those things have to do with the age of a
vehicle .... and whilst it may not be ideal, it's all she could afford
at the time and it's worked out ok so far? Are you suggesting that
even if she bought a brand new van it would never go wrong?

And remember there are businesses and Businesses. ;-)

> It makes no economic sense.

Whilst it may not, it's how she chose to do it.

>
>[...]
>
>> Around £200 for the EDC reman, ~£150 for the pump functional test and
>> whatever the lads charge to take the pump out and put it back again,
>> (plus the cambelt kit). Plus any work she has lost over the time the
>> van is off the road (she's no too bothered about that as it happens
>> short term, both because of the temperature and other stuff she needs
>> to sort out).
>
>So probably sub-£600, which is fine. Still below the 2/3 vehicle value.

But isn't the value of the vehicle somewhat arbitrary, something being
worth what someone is wiling to pay for it?

>
>The realities of life are that there is no *guaranteed* way to run an old
>vehicle cheaply and reliably.

Of course not, she knew it would be a gamble at the beginning (as is
the whole 'business' etc) but the van she bought matched all her
criteria at the time for the least cost.

>(That's particularly the case with vans, which
>in their early life are the most abused and un-loved vehicles!)

Sure. ;-)

> If that was
>the case, we would all be driving ancient stuff, which would then cost a
>fortune because few new vehicles were being bought.

We all were up until a few years back weren't we?

>It's just the way our
>world works.

One of the ladies in the BMW Motorcycle Club decided she wanted to
ride round the world (on her own). She didn't buy a brand new bike,
she took her old (~15 year) one *because* it was less complicated,
known to her and because it was old and simple, it meant she stood a
better chance of getting spares if required and assistance to fit them
(not that she really needed any assistance). ;-)

FWIW, my Rover was just up to 200,000 when I finally scrapped it and
her Corsa is nearly up to 200k as well. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 09:19:03 +0100, Graham J <gra...@invalid.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>> Sorry, I'm not party to such numbers ... I'm just her Dad, helping out
>> when I'm asked. ;-)
>
>Is this a hobby where she is trying to minimise its costs, or a business
>which is expected to provide an income?

Sort of the former than she hopes will turn into the latter.

>
>Does she have professional business advice?

Not that I'm aware of.

>
>It seems that potentially the success of her business will rely on luck.

Don't most these days?

>The luck that spending not very much on her van will keep it going for
>long enough to be useful.

Yup. ;-)

>From what others here have said, that's not
>very likely.

Time will tell. I got given (£100) the Rover 218SD on 150k miles with
2 new tyres and 6 months TAX and MOT (at the time) *because* my mate
was 'fed up spending money on it'. In a few days I had sorted out the
outstanding bits (for next to nothing other than some of my time) and
ran it for next to nothing for the next 7 years and 50k miles
(including towing all sorts of things including our folding caravan on
several holidays).

>
>Will another sort of vehicle meet her business requirements?

As long as it was very similar to a LWB / high top Connect, with a
towbar, solid bulkhead and roof rack, potentially yes.

What she wants is something that is as roomy as possible whilst not
being much wider than yer average car.

>Perhaps
>something with more predictable maintenance costs?

Is there such a thing?

>
>Can the business contract out the transport requirement to get clearly
>identified costs, incurred only when actually needed?

Nope, it's used every day.

>
>Can the business operate in such a way as not to need transport?

Nope.

The bottom line is that whilst she lives with us and has no debts and
loans she has the opportunity to trying stuff, stuff that she might
like (or not, in time) to see if it could be both a viable business
and something she actually wants to do for the foreseeable future. If
it's not there is nothing stopping her using those experiences to
change direction or sell her soul to the man and do something that may
pay well but that she enjoys less.

Personally, I / we think she is capable of much much more (she was the
'Highest Girl Achiever at the last year at school and invited to join
NAGTY (which she declined)) but it's not for us to decide what she
does in / with her life and we think she has achieved quite a lot (the
vast majority under her own steam), considering how shy she was not
many years ago. So, all we can do is try to help her within her own
preferred constraints. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:11:42 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
>

>My nephew tried the 'own your own vans' route for his business, but
>after the first couple of years he realised it was far better for him to
>lease brand new vans.

Quite, 'after the first couple of years' ... not something you
necessarily want to commit to is you have no idea if there is a
business there or you want to stick with it even if there is. ;-)

At least with her van all hers, even if she doesn't have or want the
work it's not costing her £xxx / month (over the running costs etc).

And I think she'd keep the van even if she didn't keep the business as
she loves driving it. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

MrCheerful wrote:

[...]

> My nephew tried the 'own your own vans' route for his business, but
> after the first couple of years he realised it was far better for him to
> lease brand new vans.

My Son is a roofing contractor employing a couple of guys. Leasing is a non-
starter because it's in the nature of the work that the vans get trashed,
and that would incur huge penalties.

He tried running old vans, but the repair costs and lost days were
horrendous. He now buys three year-old Transits from a long established van
centre. If there are any major nasties in the first six months, they get
sorted for free.

He then reckons to get six years out of them at minimal repair costs, and
considers them to be of insignificant value at the end of that time.

It's worked out to be the best way for him, and his type of business.

[MrCheerful]

The drivers/abusers are the problem, luckily my nephew's workers are
electricians and are more careful.

[MrCheerful]

One of the best bits of advice my accountant gave (over 35 years ago)
was to have two vehicles always available, just in case one has to be
repaired/waits for bits. He practised what he preached and had not one,
but two of the Van den Plas 4 litre (the Rolls Royce engined one) AFAIK
he still has at least one.

[Chris Whelan]

MrCheerful wrote:

[...]

> One of the best bits of advice my accountant gave (over 35 years ago)
> was to have two vehicles always available, just in case one has to be
> repaired/waits for bits. He practised what he preached and had not one,
> but two of the Van den Plas 4 litre (the Rolls Royce engined one) AFAIK
> he still has at least one.

I adopt a similar approach to computers - always have at least two, so you
can tinker without worrying about breaking things.

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:29:46 +0100, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>One of the best bits of advice my accountant gave (over 35 years ago)
>was to have two vehicles always available, just in case one has to be
>repaired/waits for bits.

Makes sense, as long as you can accommodate all the other stuff (like
2 x insurance, 2 x parking, 2 x servicing etc). It would be easier for
her to just hire another van at £35/d/w as and when etc.

>He practised what he preached and had not one,
>but two of the Van den Plas 4 litre (the Rolls Royce engined one) AFAIK
>he still has at least one.

We have always had (at least) two cars or two motorcycles available in
the household and as all the cars have towbars, any can also make use
of the trailers (goods / boat / motorcycle / caravan) etc.

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

Partly, yes, but on site they get damaged. The type of materials loaded in
to them destroys the load area, even with care. When you have spent the day
in the rain, and are absolutely filthy, it's difficult to protect the cab.

My Son is fussy about his own vehicles, but even his van gets ruined during
its lifetime.

[Fredxxx]

Perhaps a failed business might encourage her to learn more efficiently
through education rather than through one's own mistakes.

Perhaps a business course or two?

Just a thought?

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[...]

> Makes sense, as long as you can accommodate all the other stuff (like
> 2 x insurance, 2 x parking, 2 x servicing etc). It would be easier for
> her to just hire another van at £35/d/w as and when etc.

As long as off-road storage was available for one vehicle, you wouldn't need
them both insured at the same time. As long as you chose a company that let
you swap FOC, just move the insurance onto the one currently in use.

Servicing wouldn't be double; the total mileage would be the same spread
over two vehicles.

I know an electrician who runs an old Transit. He also runs an ancient Ford
Galaxy that he can use for work in an emergency. Only risk is that using the
Galaxy for work is questionable WRT his insurance. He knows this, and knows
how to answer any questions the police might ask him.

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:06:09 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

<snip>

>

>He tried running old vans, but the repair costs and lost days were
>horrendous. He now buys three year-old Transits from a long established van
>centre.

Nice if you have the cash or just justify (and want) the loan(s) etc.

>If there are any major nasties in the first six months, they get
>sorted for free.

Nice. The repair we are having done on the EDC is guaranteed for 2
years.

>
>He then reckons to get six years out of them at minimal repair costs, and
>considers them to be of insignificant value at the end of that time.

Quite.

>
>It's worked out to be the best way for him, and his type of business.
>

I am sure that is they way our daughter might also go, if / when the
business requires. However, because this is all something of an
experiment for her, she didn't / doesn't want to over commit to
anything or even commit over and above those things she is obliged
(like insurances / accountants etc).

No loans, minimum (reasonable) outlay, maximum utilisation and effort
and see what happens from there. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:43:35 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

<snip>
>

>My Son is fussy about his own vehicles, but even his van gets ruined during
>its lifetime.

Daughter is quite keen to look after her van, possibly more so than
her car because no one would judge her business on the car because
they never see it.

In fact I predicted exactly what the guy programming a new key into
her van would say the other day ... and that was it would be the
cleanest (inside and out) van he's seen for a long time (and it's not
new but 14 years old etc). ;-)

It was funny with her showing him where the OBD port was. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:49:58 +0100, Fredxxx <fre...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Personally, I / we think she is capable of much much more (she was the
>> 'Highest Girl Achiever at the last year at school and invited to join
>> NAGTY (which she declined)) but it's not for us to decide what she
>> does in / with her life and we think she has achieved quite a lot (the
>> vast majority under her own steam), considering how shy she was not
>> many years ago. So, all we can do is try to help her within her own
>> preferred constraints. ;-)
>
>Perhaps a failed business might encourage her to learn more efficiently
>through education rather than through one's own mistakes.

It may well ... however, 1) I can't see it failing to exist (even if
it's not hugely viable), only if she decides to knock it on the head
as she is banged out 6 days a week. 2) (Therefore) I'm not sure she is
interested in any formal 'efficiency / T&M exercises because she is
physically working as hard and efficiently (when working) as is
possible for anyone (and such has been commented on by her customers).

>
>Perhaps a business course or two?
>
>Just a thought?

And I graciously accept the positive thoughts on her behalf. However,
imagine that you love making chairs in the woods and part of that love
is the fact that you don't have to work to any time scales and aren't
making more than one or two at a time ... and that your overheads are
low because you are living in a caravan in the woods.

Now, that person might be happy earning 'a living' and simply may not
want a brick built workshop, 10 machinists and all that goes with that
as it's no longer doing the thing that make it all worth doing *for
him*.

Another real-world example of that was a mate ran 4 record shops and
as all the electronic downloads / streaming started he gradually
shrunk down to just one shop. I asked him why he didn't just go online
and he said he'd rather just sell up and go minicabbing. A big point
of him running a record shop was the people, his customers, not
something he would get surrounded by boxes in a warehouse. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:

[...]

> I am sure that is they way our daughter might also go, if / when the
> business requires. However, because this is all something of an
> experiment for her, she didn't / doesn't want to over commit to
> anything or even commit over and above those things she is obliged
> (like insurances / accountants etc).

It's nice seeing a young person doing something for themselves, and having
the support of a parent. I hope she does well, and when she's famous I can
tell everyone I *know* her Dad!

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:41:30 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> I am sure that is they way our daughter might also go, if / when the
>> business requires. However, because this is all something of an
>> experiment for her, she didn't / doesn't want to over commit to
>> anything or even commit over and above those things she is obliged
>> (like insurances / accountants etc).
>
>It's nice seeing a young person doing something for themselves,

Quite.

> and having
>the support of a parent.

Luckily (and possibly unusually these days) it's 'parents' ... and
when he was alive, Grandad and still her grandma etc. As she has grown
up and seen how other people / families are, she's even further
appreciated how lucky she is.

>I hope she does well, and when she's famous I can
>tell everyone I *know* her Dad!

Thank you for the kind words and I will pass them on (and thank you
(and everyone) for your help as well).

The (minor) frustration for us and any parent in the same situation is
when you know they could do better ... the issue is 'by who's
standards'.

Most if us want for the nice things in life an accept we have to
(often) sell our souls to 'da man' to get them but luckily (?) she's
not like that, she doesn't want for the latest this or best that and
has a strong enough character to not GAS what anyone else thinks about
that (unlike many of her age). That said, you would be surprised what
bargains (and quality) she's found in the charity shops. ;-)

So she get's up and out pretty early each morning (6 days a week),
always does her best and tries to give her customers both good value
and the best quality work. Part of why she does this (and especially
for the older customers) is she tries to redress the balance and trust
many of these older people have lost by being 'ripped off' by others
in the past. ;-(

The problem therefore is she probably isn't 'hard nosed' enough to be
making good money and because of her nature, may never be.

And to be honest, as a parent, I'd rather have that ... strangers
telling me how hard working, how considerate, how nice, polite (< that
was the first thing the AA guy said to me the other day <g>) and
trustworthy she is, than not hearing such things or seeing her take
liberties with people.

But she is young so there is plenty of time for her to find her niche
and everything she does (win or lose) is helping her to see / learn
the bigger picture.

The small part I try to play in all this is giving her some
encouragement to try to do stuff herself (like working on her own car,
van or motorbike or building / repairing things etc) and let her try
stuff if she shows an interest (like arc welding when she was about
8).

One interesting thing she experienced when working in the cash office
of a major clothing chain during the New Year sales ... she was
lifting about £1k from each of the 17 tills every *hour* (and taking
it back to the cash office I mean). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:50:13 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Makes sense, as long as you can accommodate all the other stuff (like
>> 2 x insurance, 2 x parking, 2 x servicing etc). It would be easier for
>> her to just hire another van at £35/d/w as and when etc.
>
>As long as off-road storage was available for one vehicle, you wouldn't need
>them both insured at the same time. As long as you chose a company that let
>you swap FOC, just move the insurance onto the one currently in use.

As the van is really just used to carry tools and some materials (so
not 'fitted out' as such), she could hire a van for £32/day at the
weekly rate, should she need. As it happens this time, it worked out
it wasn't appropriate.

>
>Servicing wouldn't be double; the total mileage would be the same spread
>over two vehicles.

Agreed.

>
>I know an electrician who runs an old Transit. He also runs an ancient Ford
>Galaxy that he can use for work in an emergency. Only risk is that using the
>Galaxy for work is questionable WRT his insurance.

Quite. One of her friends was able to put commercial use on the van he
happened to drive as his personal wheels for not much extra (he need
to do so to be able to carry stuff for the place he worked and to
claim the appropriate mileage rate).

>He knows this, and knows
>how to answer any questions the police might ask him.

;-)

An long-short update to the Connect / pump FI saga.

A new (reman) Bosch pump was initially offered to us by the FI place
the garage use for ~£800+Vat. Because the FI van wasn't available to
collect, we took it there ourselves and they tested it for us while we
waited and found it was a faulty EDC. Being as we were local to a ECY
reman place we know and have used we took the EDC unit to them and
they turned it round in a couple of days for ~£200, with a 2 year
warranty. The FI specialists put it back on the pump, ran a quick
bench functionality test and it ran fine for 3.5 minutes before
failing with the same error codes as before. ;-(

We had the EDC sent back to the repairers who tested and repaired it
again, returned to the FI guys, put back on the pump and again failed
but after a couple of minutes more. They know the unit and regularly
repair them (known simple fault) so were puzzled as to why the repair
hadn't held (re-bonded the wires to the two solenoid driver
transistors).

The FI place then came up with an alternative pump (via another
refurbisher) for £525 + Vat and so that is being delivered (to the
garage) today.

The FI guys were also kind enough to swap the re-worked EDC for
another (all agreed by the other Co etc) to be able to return the old
pump (exchange) and hopefully with that we will be able to arrange
some form of refund from the ECU Co (they have agreed on such in
principal).

We still feel it was worth the effort / gamble at the time but with
hindsight ...

Fingers crossed time now ...

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Whelan]

T i m wrote:


[...]

> We still feel it was worth the effort / gamble at the time but with
> hindsight ...

Sorry to rub salt in the wound, but the total cost will be more than the van
was worth.

You only need one more small disaster in the next year to be really
regretting not dumping it.

I'm not trying to appear clever (although it might seem like that); I'm just
speaking from my own bitter experiences of spending too much on ancient old
vehicles.

> Fingers crossed time now ...

I'm crossing mine for you too; you get my admiration for persistence!

[T i m]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:07:41 +0100, Chris Whelan
<cawh...@prejudicentlworld.com> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> We still feel it was worth the effort / gamble at the time but with
>> hindsight ...
>
>Sorry to rub salt in the wound, but the total cost will be more than the van
>was worth.

Worth to whom? ;-)

If you have (or could point us to) an internally and externally tidy,
LWB / High top Connect that for say the ~£900 it may finally cost to
get her van back on the road, that is 'guaranteed' to be immune from
any further costs the next day, let alone a week later, and ignoring
the time and effort it would potentially take to transfer the roof
rack, towbar, bulkhead, bluetooth phone and any other bits over, we
would be pleased to hear about it. ;-)

The only way I realistically see you getting close to that is if you
know someone personally selling something they have had from new, was
in perfect condition and you knew how they had treated it from day 1?
;-(

>
>You only need one more small disaster in the next year to be really
>regretting not dumping it.

I don't know about that. Given that it's cost her little (over and
above the purchase cost) over the last 18 months, it has already saved
her lots over say hiring, leasing (£200 / month for 18 months = £3600)
or the depreciation of anything newer she may have alternatively
bought that would have cost more ... and even more in interest had she
had to get loan out to buy it (and she probably would have).

The value of something can sometimes be more about it's total value to
you as a viable / (semi) known solution, over any arbitrary fiscal /
book value?

Apparently the guys dealing directly with the FI pump recently
scrapped a 2008 Connect that 'just' needed a new windscreen and some
other stuff. However, it wasn't lwb / high top so not as much if any
use to our daughter, even if it had been fully functional.

It reminds me when I had a Company Sierra estate with towbar and one
of the sales persons wanted to borrow it to move stuff and offered me
his (company) XR3i in return. I declined because if I needed to tow
something, their car would have been completely *useless* to me (even
though it would be a perfectly useable car to possibly 99% of the
population).

>
>I'm not trying to appear clever (although it might seem like that); I'm just
>speaking from my own bitter experiences of spending too much on ancient old
>vehicles.

No, I know (and appreciate) where you are coming from Chris, it's just
we don't have that crystal ball we would actually *need* to
*guarantee* we weren't simply stepping out of the frying pan, into the
fire? ;-(

>
>> Fingers crossed time now ...
>
>I'm crossing mine for you too;

Thanks, appreciated. ;-)

> you get my admiration for persistence!

I'm not sure it's worthy of such ... more commitment, circumstance and
'needs must' / 'the devil you know' I think Chris. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo <nnaokc50n13ctle6i...@4ax.com>, T i m
<ne...@spaced.me.uk> escribió:

>How much time will we spend looking for something else (worth having)
>and what will that cost her in lost work?

So her business/livelihood depends on a 14 year old banger and she
doesn't have any kind of backup plan in place if it goes phut?

You/she are idiots.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

[RJH]

On 23/06/2017 10:11, MrCheerful wrote:
snip

>
>
> My nephew tried the 'own your own vans' route for his business, but
> after the first couple of years he realised it was far better for him to
> lease brand new vans.

I spent some time a couple of years back looking for a sub-£1000 small
van for a mate. All of the 6 or so that I saw/drove were wrecks - just
thoroughly worn out. And not even a sniff of service history with any of
them. Asking when the oil was changed got a 'dunno' answer - the owners
didn't even bother lying. A couple had no oil on the dipstick.

In the end he impulse bought a small Citroen van with a non-turbo
diesel. He spent about £2000 keeping it on the road (including a new
engine and gearbox), before leaving it in a ditch.

The moral for me is there's no such thing as a cheap good van.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Chris Whelan]

RJH wrote:

[...]

> The moral for me is there's no such thing as a cheap good van.

With you 100%. I've struggled to find them in the past for myself, without
success.

[T i m]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 05:35:36 +0100, RJH <patch...@gmx.com> wrote:

>On 23/06/2017 10:11, MrCheerful wrote:
>snip
>>
>>
>> My nephew tried the 'own your own vans' route for his business, but
>> after the first couple of years he realised it was far better for him to
>> lease brand new vans.
>
>I spent some time a couple of years back looking for a sub-£1000 small
>van for a mate.

A nasty game (looking for any vehicle for someone else) at the best of
times.

>All of the 6 or so that I saw/drove were wrecks - just
>thoroughly worn out.

This one wasn't / isn't as was till we bought it off him it was part
of the business of a mobile mechanic.

>And not even a sniff of service history with any of
>them.

Same with this one ... just a list of the things that had been done
recently and hints as to what might need looking at.

>Asking when the oil was changed got a 'dunno' answer - the owners
>didn't even bother lying.

This one was very honest and helpful. Even threw in a brand new /
unfitted (big) battery for it (after we had agreed a price without).
He has also been available to help us with any little questions we
have had since.

>A couple had no oil on the dipstick.

I'm sure there are thousands of cars, motorbikes and mowers out there
like that too. ;-(

>
>In the end he impulse bought a small Citroen van with a non-turbo
>diesel.

Funnily enough, her ex swapped his old Hi-Lux for a Berlingo non TD
van and that's also still going strong. It's needed bit's like even a
fairly new vehicle and he offered to lend it to her for nowt (all be
it a bit small for her needs).

>He spent about £2000 keeping it on the road (including a new
>engine and gearbox), before leaving it in a ditch.

Why did he do that after spending so much as unless there was
something 'else', it could then have gone on for years?

>
>The moral for me is there's no such thing as a cheap good van.

I think there is, but you have to be lucky in getting one that is
being sold cheap because of a potentially expensive but turns out to
be minor issue (like a broken wire that looks like a bad ECU) or
someone you know is selling one for a 'good reason' (like they need a
bigger van or are giving up their business).

I bought two Morris Minor vans cheap (the first was £25) and ran both
of them (pretty hard) for years (both in distances traveled and loads)
and only one ever stopped me getting home once ... and that was a
sheared half shaft at the top of my road (I pushed it home myself).
;-)

Daughters van cost about £2k about 18 months ago and all she's spent
on it so far is servicing stuff (yes, she does it and herself), the
alternator overrun clutch (£25 and changed it herself), some new tyres
and fuel etc.

Had she been leasing a new van it would have been ~£200 / pm, assuming
she can get a LWB / high top (so already £3600), she services it her
herself (so does so when it suits her, no downtime), it would be
cheaper to insure than a brand new van and she doesn't have to worry
too much about the odd knock and scrape.

So, if this FI pump job ends up costing £800, she is still under the
cost of leasing a new one and who is to say that it won't now carry on
for another 18 months.

If it's lease hire I think there can be some fairly high penalties if
you give it back 'scruffy / damaged' and least to buy still requires
those monthly payments, even if it's not earning any money.

As I mentioned elsewhere ... this whole 'business' is an experiment
for her ... not only the work itself but the idea of running herself
so the smaller the long term commitment and background costs the
better. The fact that she has got as far as she has without any loans
and has more work than days in the week to do is also 'a good thing'.

And also as mentioned, if her van wasn't available short term or while
she looks for something else, she could hire one from round the corner
for £32/ day for 7 days.

Anyway, hers is back on the road now and only time will tell if she
carries on saving money with it. ;-)

Cheers, T i m