Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just yesterday my GTS-t started developing weird stalling issues. I turned the car on, revs sat where they normally would (~950) for a second and then dropped to around 300ish and bounced back up to 950 again. It did this repeatedly until it stalled. Started the car again, same thing. Started again and had massive trouble starting it, had to step on the accelerator to get it started. This time when it came to life, no idle hunt, just a nice clean 950 RPM.

Later in the day, same thing occurred however this time I found that if I stepped on the gas and held it at say 2000 RPM, the revs would not drop, they would stay where they are supposed to. I got the car running and then took it for a spin around the block at which time the engine check light came on. I turned around, took the car back home and just before I arrived it went off again and haven't seen it come on since.

Today I changed the spark plugs thinking they may have had something to do with it as they were due for a change but that didn't alleviate the problem. I'm starting to think now maybe the AFM or the TPS might be on the blink but I honestly don't know where to start.

One more thing of interest is that a few weeks prior to this starting I cleaned the AAC valve, I thought that this may have done something but then I thought if I had caused something to go wrong, problems would have started straight after, not now after putting roughly 1000 more k's on the clock.

The car is mildly modded with a PowerFC, cam gear, boost controller, exhaust and pod, please if anyone could help or has any ideas, I'm open to suggestions :rofl:

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/134811-idle-stalling-issue/
Share on other sites

Well I was told at my last service that the O2 sensor was actually stuffed so I don't think that it would just start like this out of the blue as the PFC is on a closed loop anyways

closed loop means using the O2 sensor..

so maybe disable that feature and test ..

Sorry, I meant it wasn't using the closed loop function. Doesn't matter anyways, found the problem. Looks like it was a TINY slit in one of the vacuum hoses coming out of the AAC valve. Got a new piece, switched it over and hey presto, works a treat!

Thanks for the input anyways fellas, greatly appreciated!

I'll keep that in mind, I've had the same problem the last couple days but I noticed its only happening in the heat (I'm in Adelaide too). At night or early morning its fine, but turn it on during the day when it hasnt been running for a few hours and it wouldnt stay on.

I was worried it may have been something more sinister.

I'll check my aac hoses as you've done first, also ill give the valve a clean, but definitely post again if you have more problems as the heat comes in!

Edited by Mike_

service manual page

i recall reading somewhere it only rich or leans it out a small percentage its not a massive change so it would be odd to make it stall

but the manual says so, so it must be the case. well you can always unplug it, the car should work fine, it will just waste fuel

post-2054-1158588169.jpg

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...