Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

any ideas as to why an r33 auto trans would only select 2nd gear when in drive, have no kick down funtion and feel like an almost burn't out clutch?? these are the symptoms my car has, but there only every once and a while, take today car has been doing this since tuesday morning today it started doing this then after i had stopped at a servo it went back to normal driving mode, then while driving it went back into 2nd byitself and stayed there...

any ideas as to what part of the transmission might cause this problem? its a wiring issue i'd say but what part...

Cheers, Matt...

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/135047-r33-auto-issues/
Share on other sites

Does it go back to normal if you turn the car off completely and restart it?

Mine would occasionally do this but go to 3rd gear. A 'reboot' fixed it every time.

it has fixed itself again, but no i would turn the car off and then when i had to drive again it was still there, in the end i parked at my GF's work to pick her up, i parked on a hill with the front of the car facing down and then 10 min's later when we left it was back in normal drive mode?? i'm thinking there was no trans fluid in the torque convertor?? thats all i can think of..

cheers for the reply..

Edited by rsx84
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/135047-r33-auto-issues/#findComment-2533684
Share on other sites

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...