Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The alternator in my R33 GTSt is pretty much stuffed, but I'm finding it hard to source a replacement. I spoke to an auto electrician about reconditioning it but he doesn't think it's worth it with the Hitachi alternators and he couldn't find a new one.

What have other people done? Are there any aftermarket options or is genuine the only choice? Is the RB25det alternator the same as the RB30e?

Has anyone successfully recond an R33 alternator?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/199923-replacing-alternator/
Share on other sites

well not a 33 one, but I have recoed 32 gtr and 31 alternators. I'm really surprised a good auto electrician wouldn't give it a shot. Definately don't buy a new one, maybe he was trying to scam you into that?

if you are in sydney I got mine exhange from the place cnr Princes Hwy and Canal Rd in Tempe, and it was cheap too. got my starter motor done at the same time.

Yeah, initially I thought that too, but he seemed pretty genuine. When I get a chance I'm going to ring around a few more places, I've had an R31 alternator reconditioned successfully so I don't see why the R33 would be different...

Ray at RE Customs will be able to recondition one for ya.

Mate of mine got his 33 reconditioned couple months ago.

He is located in East Melbourne 03 9548 3414.

Edited by bluey33

Hey mate,

I was in a similar situation few mths ago when my 34 alternator completely gave up...a brand new alternator from Nissan was $1100AUD ex Japan. I took it to my Mech (Evolution Automotive at Eight Mile Plains) and they got it reconditioned with new internals and a 12 mth warranty. Definately get it reco'ed...don't take a chance with 2nd hand ones as you will more than likely be back to square one later on.

Try changing the brushes yourself first its heaps easy, there like 3$ and usually the cause of most alternator failure (or reg).

Would one from a VL work? I got the same b/s about my hitachi and just replaced it with an old bosch unit (apparently bosch parts are much cheaper/easier to come by)

Turned out the brushes were fine, and while it wouldn't fail on the test bench the likely fault is one of the electrical components. Repairing it would have ended up costing the same as buying a new alternator off another nissan. Not sure what model it's from, but the part number is ARJ036 and it's rated at 100Amp rather than the standard 80Amp.

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...