filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

Message
Author
minimutly
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:36 pm

filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#1 Post by minimutly »

Hi all , first time post, after much reading and searching.
My nely bought kit came with a single hole toroid tank (in the middle). The filler and feed pipework is polythene, and I'm having thoughts that filling might take a little long, I'm also not too impressed by the idea of these pipes, as well as the solenoid and level cables running under the spare wheel well. So now is the time if I'm to go for a 4 hole. What do the experienced think?
The car is a rover 75 kv6.
Ps, while typing this (on a samsung tablet, the bloody text dissapears between each letter -it's giving me an epi! Is there a fix?)

Thanks,
Huw

SimonHobson
Intermediate Member
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#2 Post by SimonHobson »

The first time I came across single hole tanks I was "not impressed" - I sat for about 20 minutes while the car in front filled up exceedingly slowly.
Then when I went on a course I questioned this (they were using single hole tanks on my mates RR) and was told that it's more to do with the valve itself rather than single vs 4 holes. And true to their word, the Emma multivalves do seem to fill adequately quickly - I can't/couldn't do a side/side comparison but I don't recall my 110 (Emma multivalves, 8mm copper) being slower to fill than my old Disco (4 hole tanks, large flexible hoses with JIS fittings).

So all I can say is that it doesn't seem to be a problem with Emma valves, but I can't say what anything else is like.
Land Rover 110 V8 LPG
Land Rover 90 petrol (no longer diseasel :D), still awaiting V8 & LPG
http://www.diy-lpg.co.uk

Tubbs
Installer
Posts: 3730
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:21 pm
Location: Midlands
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#3 Post by Tubbs »

The tomasetto ones are not too bad either. But they can have a problem with the little plastic thing inside the filler connection at the valve end. If they fill slow you just push it in with the end of a biro and off they go....
But the emer ones are quicker it has to be said.

MrGorsky
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#4 Post by MrGorsky »

Forgive me for hijacking the thread, but does the flexi-pipe stuff fill slower than the copper then?

I thought the flexi-pipe was the same internal size?

Tubbs
Installer
Posts: 3730
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:21 pm
Location: Midlands
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#5 Post by Tubbs »

Depends if its got any kinks in it :D

Gilbertd
Senior Member
Posts: 9258
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Peterborough

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#6 Post by Gilbertd »

MrGorsky wrote:I thought the flexi-pipe was the same internal size?
It is, near as makes no odds, but it does look rather skinny so you would think it would take a long time to fill. After all, you bung petrol in through a nozzle that's about an inch across, not squirt it in through a skinny little pipe. The flexi pipe may also look thinner than copper because it doesn't have the outer plastic coating.
96 Saab 900XS, AEB Leo, sold
93 Range Rover 4.2LSE, Lovato LovEco, sold
97 Range Rover 4.0SE, multipoint, sold
98 Ex-Police Range Rover 4.0, AEB Leo, daily motor
96 Range Rover 4.6HSE Ascot, AEB Leo, my spare


Proud member of the YCHJCYA2PDTHFH club.

MrGorsky
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#7 Post by MrGorsky »

I've just replaced my copper pipe with Faro polypipe whilst re-siting my filler.

It's got no kinks and gentle bends as much as possible.

First time I filled it up I was sure it took longer than it did before.

That's the only reason I'm asking....it might not of course, but you know how it is when you change something...!

Tubbs
Installer
Posts: 3730
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:21 pm
Location: Midlands
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#8 Post by Tubbs »

Ahh but you see, you re sited the filler. Probarbly making the pipe longer in the process.
Or its probarbly all in your head :!: it took the same time.

MrGorsky
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#9 Post by MrGorsky »

I didn't move it far!

Probably my head to be honest, it does that a lot.

minimutly
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#10 Post by minimutly »

Well it's not just the internal size of the pipe, the inserts required at both ends are smaller still.

Huw

minimutly
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#11 Post by minimutly »

No approximate filling times then? The valve is a brc mv europa 2
I'm swinging towards using copper instead of poly due to the extra restrictions of the inserts. In an ideal world i would go straight to a 4 hole cylindrical 100l, but bolting in the mounting frame would be a mamoth task on its own.
Huw

classicswede
Installer
Posts: 2570
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:56 pm
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#12 Post by classicswede »

Why not use a JIC hose with adaptor to the MV
http://www.classicswede.co.uk/LPG/cat17 ... 10800.aspx

LPG installer Anglesey North Wales

DIY LPG Kits

07824887160

minimutly
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#13 Post by minimutly »

Ok, need to find out more about this hose. I thought the only options were copper or poly. Is there a specific size I should be looking for?
Thanks,
Huw

SimonHobson
Intermediate Member
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#14 Post by SimonHobson »

http://www.tinleytech.co.uk/acatalog/JI ... tings.html

Interestingly they offer an adapter to fit the hose directly onto a multivalve - presumably only those with a male thread (takes a female nut) 8mm inlet connector. At the filler end, you just choose a filler with a JIS end instead of an 8mm compression fitting.
Land Rover 110 V8 LPG
Land Rover 90 petrol (no longer diseasel :D), still awaiting V8 & LPG
http://www.diy-lpg.co.uk

minimutly
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#15 Post by minimutly »

Yes had a look at the jic stuff, thanks for the tip. The only thing is, this insert thing you have to fit sits in the female tank fitting, has to be beefy enough to connect a tapered fitting to it, so maybe the restriction is little better than with poly pipe?
Mr Gorky, how long, since no-one else seems to want to help, does it take to fill your tank, and with how much?
For what it's worth I'm leaning towards going with what I have, then making a decision, copper or jic, if I need to. (I suspect I will be dissapointed).
One thing against jic, it's bulky to get around corners, and my tank is a (centre) bottom entry donut, so it'll be difficult to keep close to the boot floor.
Thanks all,
Huw

MrGorsky
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 9:10 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#16 Post by MrGorsky »

Well,

I've had my polypipe in place now for a few weeks. It is a bit slower to fill (I don't have exact times I'm afraid) not more than a minute (longer than it used to) on 70litres I wouldn't have thought, but I'm not getting as much in as I used to.

I'm getting about 6 litres less in the tank than I used to. At least the filling has slowed to a crawl by then.

I always use the same pump to fill up at, and the only thing that has changed is the pipe. Unless the pump was changed somehow of course....but I can't help that.

The pipe run can't be more than 6 inches longer than it was before, maybe that's enough to do it cause the difference Is that possible?

I'm considering going back to copper on the filler side (short run, easy to make neat) and having poly on the output side. The flexibility has made the run under the car much neater and that matters to me (even though no one will ever see it!)

If I remember I'll time it next time I fill up.

I have an Emer Mulrivalve BTW.

minimutly
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:36 pm

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#17 Post by minimutly »

Thanks that would be good. Copper fill and poly feed to the vapourisor sounds like the way to go, best fill and efficiency.
Huw

classicswede
Installer
Posts: 2570
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:56 pm
Location: North Wales
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#18 Post by classicswede »

If you want fast fill then Jic pipe is the way to go
http://www.classicswede.co.uk/LPG/cat17 ... 10800.aspx

LPG installer Anglesey North Wales

DIY LPG Kits

07824887160

Tubbs
Installer
Posts: 3730
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:21 pm
Location: Midlands
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#19 Post by Tubbs »

I timed this the other day at my local pump. Emer valve with poly. A litre in just under 3 seconds. What exactly is wrong with that ? I think that's ok. Some pumps are worse than others. The other pump local to me in craven arms is dog slow. But the tank is miles away from the pump. The one I usually use is a countrywide pump. With the tanks directly behind it.

SimonHobson
Intermediate Member
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Cumbria
Contact:

Re: filling time multivalve vs 4 hole

#20 Post by SimonHobson »

minimutly wrote:... this insert thing you have to fit sits in the female tank fitting, has to be beefy enough to connect a tapered fitting to it
Hmm, yes. That could be a lot of pipe & fitting to hang off a small bit of brass.
One thing against jic, it's bulky to get around corners
Yes, it's quite bulky.
Land Rover 110 V8 LPG
Land Rover 90 petrol (no longer diseasel :D), still awaiting V8 & LPG
http://www.diy-lpg.co.uk

Post Reply