Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Just had a new alarm installed in my r33 yesterday, but the battery went dead overnight. I gave it a charge, and checked the current coming out of the battery with no interior lights on - 400mA. Seems like quite a lot. I thought maybe the alarm might have a backup battery which would be charging, but it should have been done by now if it was.

I tried pulling fuses in the engine bay - no difference. The only fuse in the boot which made a noticeable difference was the main fuse, which doesn't tell me much (even then, something was still drawing 100mA).

Are there other fuses in the car I can check? I thought of removing power from the alarm but it's in a really tight spot and all black wiring etc.

What to do?

Thanks!

talk to your installer...

its that simple... alarms are something left to proffesionals, especially on such nice cars... and its his work too, you should never let one sparky touch another sparkies work...

so you have a current probe? pull fuses until it dies. this includes the alarm fuses.

400mA is enough to flatten a battery over night.

failing that - take it to the fitter and let them sort it out..

I'd be taking it STRAIGHT back, its only 1 day old! Installer needs to fix the problem.

I'm just gonna see how long it takes the battery to run dead again. I had the car for 6 days and it always started easily, and that included 2 days of not driving it. So if it dies in less than a few days, I'll know the problem was caused by the install, and I'll ask him to come back.

Turns out it wasn't the installers fault at all, just a huge coincidence that the battery lasted a week no problems then died the day of the install.

I pulled the stock headunit out and that dropped most of the leakage (thanks Chris). Still 150mA elsewhere though (100mA on 'TAIL L' fuse and 50mA dunno).

If anyone has any suggestions on what to look for on TAIL L I'm all ears!

Cheers!

Edited by bombastic

Props to Leon for a fine job after all :D He spent half an hour on the phone to me today discussing it, and was going to come out tomorrow and sort it out for me until I discovered the fault.

I won't plug the name of the business in this thread though as I would hate for anyone to be put off by the title of the thread if they did a search. But if they have read this far then no harm done.

Apologies if I gave you any grief, Leon! The main reason I came on here and posted was I wanted to be as sure as I could that it wasn't your fault before I got you out. SAU wins again, credit goes to Chris for suggesting stereo.

stereo is a common one. clarion and pioneer of that vintage use the same amplifier (usually a toshiba item.) and it develops a short. worst one I saw was 1.25A. that fried a battery over night before we found it . (this was an alpine unit)

spoke to him for 15 min myself before he rang you clarifiying your problem. get a base draw on the car (should be 50mA or less) and work out where the rest of it is. 150 Ma will drain a battery but NOTHING like a 400mA one will. if you drive the car daily it wont be a probelm. problems ring us first :D

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...