Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hello all..

I start my car in the morning to see it sit at 950 to 1000rpm...temp outside s 20oc.(RB26)

It was previously after idling for 15 to 20 seconds decides it needs to warm and idles higher over 1200rPM.

This has gotten worse and in the mornings now it just sits at 950 to 1000RPM.

Can a water temp. sensor be at blame...do these die slowly....or is it something else?

Can I replace it myself or does the motor have to come out..lol

Any help will be appreciated.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/167370-not-revvinghigh-when-cold/
Share on other sites

Ordinarily, when the water temp sensor dies, the car still has good cold start but runs ultra rich at operating temp (ECU thinks the engine is still cold, and overfuels).

Poor cold start could be the Cold Start (Air) Valve.

I've heard the opposite about water temp sensor, that the car drives fine when warm but like an absolute dog when it's cold. maybe there are 2 failure modes.

GTR? yeah motor out job mate.. you gotta pull the motor out to do anything on a GTR :banana:

I have been told that....even if the revs are at 950 when cold..more fuel is being delivered,,,could this be normal...

The car is not missing or stalling at this rev..

I cleaned the pod filters last time and the start was healthy...1500rpm...but this went back again to the same revs after a few weeks......

Might try this again...

I am using a power fc...can anyone tell me what the figures should be in the idle/temp.area of the program and also the

acc....off and on ....

:banana:

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...