![]() | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Nanocom fails on a 2.2l Defender |
![]() ![]() |
|
|
Ianh Member Since: 17 Sep 2018 Location: Essex Posts: 1802 ![]() ![]() |
^^^^^^^^^^
The 2.2 Only comes with injectors that have a 6 digit code. See below from member landhank which was posted earlier in this topic. Also checking bell auto services site it confirms this. See the video on their site showing the 2.2 has six digit injector codes. https://bellautoservices.co.uk/bas2rrc-hel...ogramming/
|
||
![]() |
|
landhank Member Since: 27 Oct 2021 Location: RLP Posts: 37 ![]() ![]() |
Iam using V1.35 and tried the beta version of V1.36 as well. Both are coming up with the same problems. The pilot correction isnt working, too. It comes up with a can fault code 7F. I checked it on 3 cars by myself and had many contacts with different users/owners in this forum and in the blacklandy forum as well. All are reporting the same problems. I tried to get an answer from the support team on the 29.09.2021, 02.10.2021, 04.11.2021 and the 09.12.2021. Ive got an answer on the 10.12.2021 where they told me that the 2.2l is covered. Of course i answered and reported all problems that i know... without getting an answer back until today. I was in contact to one of the mods from the nanocom forum as well. In that forum there is a thread about "Defender 2.2 Bad Readings" which started in 2016 without any result and a thread about "Puma 2.2 Injector Code" which has no idea how to fix the problem. Of course i would be more than happy if bbs would come up with an update because, as i said, the tool worked more than fine on my 2.4l and it would be fantastic if it would do so on the 2.2l. @DieselDriver, obviously bbs is answering your emails... if you want, i can send you some screenshots of all those problems later on to forward them to bbs? Maybe that helps to sort out all that trouble? Cheers Landhank |
||
![]() |
|
DieselDriver Member Since: 13 Dec 2017 Location: Carinthia Posts: 244 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ok, please send me an email with all your questions (please a PDF file). Then the BBS support should answer all the things (I send you my email via private message).
Do all 2.2 Puma engines worldwide uses 6 digit injectors? I think no, because why did BBS implemented the 6-digit injectors and not the others? |
||
![]() |
|
landhank Member Since: 27 Oct 2021 Location: RLP Posts: 37 ![]() ![]() |
As far as i know all 2.2l models have the 6-digit injectors because this engine is equipped with parts from VDO/Continental and not with Denso parts like the 2.4l model.
|
||
![]() |
|
DieselDriver Member Since: 13 Dec 2017 Location: Carinthia Posts: 244 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ok strange, but I do not understand why BBS implements only 6-digits support, when none of the 2.2l Puma Defenders uses this injectors.
Let's wait for their answers - maybe they can clarify this. |
||
![]() |
|
Ianh Member Since: 17 Sep 2018 Location: Essex Posts: 1802 ![]() ![]() |
I think you meant to say but I do not understand why BBS implements only 16-digits support. |
||
![]() |
|
DieselDriver Member Since: 13 Dec 2017 Location: Carinthia Posts: 244 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sorry, of course, I meant 16 digits.
update: development department from BBS will answer soon. ![]() |
||
![]() |
|
Julie Member Since: 07 Oct 2017 Location: Nantes Posts: 421 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Puma 2.4 engine = Denso injectors = 16 digit coding = Nanocom support Puma 2.2 engine = Siemens injectors = 6 digit coding = no Nanocom support It's that simple... worldwide |
||
![]() |
|
DieselDriver Member Since: 13 Dec 2017 Location: Carinthia Posts: 244 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
update:
Blackbox Solutions is working on a solution for programming the injector codes for Puma 2.2. In the past they also fixed all bugs, let's just wait a bit. landhank, I also forwarded the email I got from Blackbox Solutions to you. |
||
![]() |
|
Fernando Member Since: 25 Oct 2017 Location: CABA Posts: 86 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I am having the same problem with a 2.4 engine Puma (Invalid CAN response: 7F)
|
||
![]() |
|
Ianh Member Since: 17 Sep 2018 Location: Essex Posts: 1802 ![]() ![]() |
Any updates on the three areas where the nanocom fails on a 2.2 defender.
1. Injector coding 2. Showing wrong readings when trying to check oil and intake temp etc in the ECU. 3. ALM support I raised on https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic68425.html plus what’s the answer as to why one member on here used the nanocom to set indicators to blink when activating alarm and in doing so immobilised the engine ! Have they investigated why this happened and rectified the issue ? |
||
![]() |
|
Ianh Member Since: 17 Sep 2018 Location: Essex Posts: 1802 ![]() ![]() |
Just wondering if BBS have fixed the problems above as 7 months have passed!!!
|
||
![]() |
|
Ianh Member Since: 17 Sep 2018 Location: Essex Posts: 1802 ![]() ![]() |
Checking on the injector coding issue I went on the Nanocom forum.
Under the “diesel management” section there is a topic called “Puma 2.2 Injector Code” several users have highlighted the issue regarding not being able to input or read 6 digit codes for the 2.2. Nanocom have advised they are working on it but nearly 2 years have passed and there is not a complete fix. So far they have a patch Release_136_Beta3 to try while they fix the issue, this was highlighted in may 2022. This lets the 6 digit codes be entered however the read function still does not work. NB. I also pointed out that on this forum, in this topic, a member stated that Pete at BAS stated that there is actually no such thing as a pilot correction learn in the 2.2 engine management and it is worth Nanocom checking this out as prior posters there have highlighted they get an error when trying to do pilot correction learn on a 2.2 . This may be because there is no facility to do pilot correction learn on a 2.2 ‘s engine management but the feature to do it on the 2.4 has been mistakenly left as an option on the Nanocom for the 2.2.!! If you have a nanocom and want this issue sorted it will help if you go on the Nanocom forum and also highlight that you would like a fix to this issue. The more people do this the more likely it is to get resolved in quicker timescales. |
||
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
|
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
![](../images/layout/footer/disclaimer.gif)