Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

so im told. AFM's r inacurate :) they measure how much air goes thru the intake of the turbos. wher as the Map sensors r in throttle and measure the boosted air which is more consistant.

aint that right?

ok correct some of us mislead ppl. why r afms so much better than a Map read system?

Edited by markimak

AFM measures the volume of air going into the engine, a map sensor guesses the volume by comparing revs, pressure, and throttle position.

The volume of air is what realy counts, as it's the amount of air getting into the engine, not what pressure is behind it that gives you power. and say you hit full boost at ~ 4000rpm, the map sensor is going to read the same manifold pressure right till redline, and will have to guess the load axis for the ecu.

i have no idea if that makes any sence. But do a search, it has been covered heaps.

sounds like it could be the knock sensor, nissan sesnors are crap! i had to replace my afm, o2 sensor and now my knock sensor in my 180.

also make sure you do not drive your car or leave it idling if the oil has no presure otherwise you will need new bearings whcih means a rebuild.

the MAP sensor is direct manifold air pressure. not a vaccumed pressure like afm.

ok, firstly i have nfi what 'vacuumed pressure' is. pressure is a force pusing on something, vacuum is the pretty much the opposite. regardless, it's wrong. The mass air flow meters used in a GTR use a hotwire element that converts a change in temp to a voltage sigal which give an accurate measure of airflow. it has nothing to do with pressure as such. a Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor measure the pressure in the manifold (not in the throttle as you mentioned, after the throttle(s)). this is ok, but it's no where near as accurate as a hotwire type AFM. do a search in this forum as it's been covered many times before and you will learn a little about the differences.

Hey dude i know how ya feel mine is doin the same only it fluctuates all over the place one minute it will drivin along fine then to pull up it doesnt want to idle. At first i thought afm's straight up but i pulled them off cleaned them out an it run a little better for awhile. So i had them tested an they checked out fine. I had a diagnostic check done on the car an in my fuel mapping area i was over fuelling pretty heavy in the high rev range so we pulled fuel out of that area but unforntunatel the problem still lingers

think this is a problem with alot of GTR's the amount of other GTR's that have done the same thing. hmm. mine hasnt acted up for over a week..

wat i did.

remove top AFM

clean afm with carby spray.

took off the connecting. cut old one off made up new connectors.

disassembled the afm cleaned connections. its only 4 screws.

connected all up.

Made heat shield for AFM plug with alfoil (looks dodgy, i did this to protect the heat shrink on the connector plug i made up.)

ran its so far so good.

noticed it aint as punchy as it was before. been meaning to reset ECU.

i was reluctant to snip up my harness. but had a spare plug off another GTR and used it as a reference.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...