Tony Brooks

I tend to agree, certainly the 3% if it is higher than wages or inflation should go - and I would affect me. Unfortunately governments can influence inflation and so one way of lessening the pension bill would be to run at a higher inflation, but only increase pensions by wage growth, and as we have seen over the last decade wage growth does not always keep pace with inflation.

So you are saying that the depression in the filter is within Racor's limits. I notice on the photo that the pipe that would normally come from the injector leak off unions seems to have an open end with paper below it. Did you twist that pipe over 180 degrees and remove the leak off banjo section to help in getting the head off?

Where was/is this vacuum gauge connected and what else was going on to produce the vacuum? If the inlet of a filter produced a vacuum or even a depression when running It would suggest a blockage on the tank side. If the gauge was on the outlet side when running then it would suggest a blocked fliter.

It certainly would not hurt to do that, but the drilling for the oil feed to the rocker shaft is at the opposite end of the block, I think, so that seems less likely, but never say never. The offending stud is close to the pushrod hole, but unless the crankcase breather was horribly blocked, I can't see that having any bearing on the bubbles.

To the best of my knowledge PRVs are not fitted in car fuel tank breathers, or anywhere else, save the lift pump. Car makers will not fit equipment which is not needed and, as has been said, the high fuel turn over in most vehicles makes bug precautions necessary. There are regulations that limit the amount of hydrocarbons emitted to the atmosphere, but as far as fuel tanks are concerned this is not a problem for diesels, but is for petrol, so nowadays they fit a sophisticated breather system involving charcoal filters and venting to the inlet via a "pulsed" valve operated by the engine ECU. I am rather rusty on this, so things may have moved on.

That is what the equipment manufacturers told farmers to do with their equipment that only worked on a seasonal basis, when the problems of bug and bio-diesel started to surface.

FWIW, I am not sure checking for CO above an engine as opposed to in the exhaust is a particularly reliable way of diagnosing head gasket problems, especially on a diesel and with such a low concentration. The vast majority of diesels, in effect, run a very weak mixture that limits the amount of CO produced in combustion, BUT at idle the amount is likely to be higher than at moderate speeds. As the 1.8 is an indirectly injected engine it should produce less CO at low speeds than a direct injection engine of a similar design vintage. As I said up thread, the usual way is checking the coolant for hydrocarbons, not CO. However, if it gives the OP peace of mind the time/cost of changing the gasket seems minor to me.

Do not clean the full top of the piston, leave a ring of carbon around the top, say about 1/4" wide. This stops damaging any carbon build up between on the side piston crown that is said to improve the seal. I have never greased the bores, but when using abrasive cloth to clean the head face, I always stuffed the bores with rag. Edited to add: Within the details I can see in the photo, I can't see any indication that the bubbling around the stud was a failing head gasket, although photos give limitations. On the 1.8 the most common failure point is between cylinders 1 & 2 or 3 & 4, between 2 & 3 is less common. So well away from the studs.

Who, as I understand things, also supply materials, so arguably not as independent as one would hope. That is not to say their results were tainted by their own interests, but they might have been.

I understood that any company specific additives were added at the tanker filling stage and until then the fuel was more or less the same. Remember that the fats and oils used to produce bio-diesel are subject to chemical processing, that includes (I think) caustic soda and then "washing", so I doubt its composition would be the same as the raw fats and oils.

My view is that that would be far more useful in the long term than any helmsman course, as long as you find a good one. I think the majority of inland boaters just picked it up as they went along. The courses are really only confidence building rather that teaching boat handling under all conditions and situations.

Very unlikely, look at the small print on the delivery tankers are you will see they are owned by the same companies as the major names use. I understand many supermarkets and large commercial fleet operators buy via Mabanaft. It is common for people to promote the supermarket fuel is bad line, but it has to be produced to the required EN standard, exactly the same as the main name forecourts, and remember when a major petrol company produced and marketed a "better" fuel that wrecked customers' engines. Watch and fuel distribution depot and see the variety of branded tankers filling from the same facility. As Momac says Tesco may have been infected with bug in their storage tanks and I know that when someone who knows questions the supermarkets them about what the large pieces of filtering equipment are doing on their forecourt they get very cagey. Edited to add: If you are on any forecourt for diesel and notice a number, but not, all diesel pumps are out of use then be wary, that often meams those pump's filters have blocked, and that tends ot indicate a high bug content in the fuel.

Be wary about any course with RYA endorsement. It is a franchised operation and from many reports I received when I was running the maintenance & electrical courses the quality of the courses vary widely from excellent to dire. Maybe the RYA now do unannounced checks and demand qualifications in training, but as far as I could see they did neither and refused to acknowledged national and internationally accepted prior learning/experience from potential instructors. Hence the variable quality. So personal recommendation is the way to go and hopefully other members who had been in a similar position will recommend.

You may be correct, but there were problems with "rafts" of bug forming at the water - fuel interface. As reported to me Eberspatcher amongst others. The point I was trying to make is that it was/is not a biocide, so comparing it with them is not really fair. Another in a similar vein was Fortron. It "killed" bug by a different process to the biocides and I think it needed longer to work.

Not as a demulsifier, which it was, but as far as being a biocide, I agree, useless. But as I remember it did not claim to be, just that it allowed water to drop out of the fuel to allow it to be removed via the tank drain, that all narrowboat have - not. No water and the bug finds it far more difficult to breed.

Unless you have the use of a shore line I fear you will have electricity problems. Even with solar on a 28ft boat (GRP cruiser I assume) the winter months will be difficult. Pease research this aspect and check what the BSS has to say about petrol generators, their the fuel, and storage if that is an option you are thinking about.

It was a sort of false red oxide paint for "decorative" purposes, but it now comes in other colours. It has a mat or semi-mat/silk type finish. Much favoured for working boat cabin roofs. I found that it tended to shed pigment badly.

That is probably where water was held in contact with the paint. I would want to feather these areas really well in the hope that is water has managed to creep between the pain layers, the feathering allows any lose areas to come off.

1. Yes, I lightly abraded with a fine abrasive foam pad and used garage floor plaint and by and lt largely it stayed on OK, but did chalk a bit. It stayed pretty much non-slip. I think it may have come off where the epoxy I used for edge sealing crept onto the face. 2. Yes, the non-slip treated gloss along the edges and the handrail, and some rust needed locally sanding out. Those areas got anti-rust primer then the primed areas self colour undercoat and top coat the lot. The main parts of the roof had been panted in non-slip Protectacoat that had black rubber granules in it that eventually showed through the paint. I used a stiff nylon scrubbing brush, or sometimes a fine brass brush and sugar soap to scrub the roof down and rinse. Then repaint with a semi-mat/silk finish oil based coat. I found the mat paints always seemed to shed pigment after a while and leave streaks down the cabin sides.

Yes. Yes, I think so. You could always do it again cold, I would expect it to be a little lower, but that looks very good to me.

I agree, if the survey showed major hull defects that could not be seen when the boat was viewed and the defect was not pointed out at that time, then demanding the purchaser pays 50% of the rectification cost of loses the deposit if they decline to complete the deal looks like fraud to me. I can't see how it could ever be enforceable if the refusal to repay the deposit ever went to court.

No idea, it could be timing, either valve or injection, but I would expect other problems like difficult starting, exhaust smoke, and lack of power. It might be an injector that is sticking when cold, but, again, I would expect other symptoms. Remember that the base engine was designed over 80 years ago and then converted to diesel, so I would not expect it to run a well as modern engines where the design is helped by computer modelling. I would not worry about a bit of lumpiness when cold, as long as it runs well when hot and starts easily from cold.