Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi guys

I have a alarm system and the remote doesn't seem to operate as it should.

thought randomly it works fine.

I assumed it was the battery, but when I replaced it it was still the same.

anyone have a rough idea of what may be the issue or is it simply the fact my remote is stuffed?

If there is anymore information I need to share to assist with someone helping me.

please let me know.

Regards

Sloane

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/230330-alarm-remote-not-operating/
Share on other sites

I have the smae problem wuth my remote.

I used to try changing the battery, I now just crack the shits and tap the remote on something...... lol not the best fix, but it makes me feel better :)

If any one knows a way to fix this issue,I would also be greatful for the information.

yeah mate had the exact problem with a customers car at work. pulled it apart and found two dry solder joints. resolder them and it worked like a treat. if you are good with a solder iron then give it a go cos if you take else where they will tell you to replace the remote.

Same god damn problem with me aswell!

Curse the previous owner who had to install a shitty eBay alarm grrr !!

Solder it aye? Hmm.

And what if that doesnt work lol ?

I played around with the 2 dials in the remote..

Didnt do anything for me.

MRXTCZ

Curse the previous owner who had to install a shitty eBay alarm grrr !!

Solder it aye? Hmm.

Don't touch it unless you have a back up plan if you stuff it up lol

I notice its been working fine when I point remote to engine direction :ermm:

I remember I've got a Spare Remote but its at a relatives so will have to pick it up.

I lurk on a huge list of forums, lol.

And your dead right, dont try to fix the remote if you dont have a fail-safe plan, that's just asking for trouble, and will put you into a bad situation.

With my previous car, someone installed a cheap ebay POS alarm, and wired it in quite stupidly, so I had the car towed (became unstartable) to an auto electrician and set him to task to remove the mess and set the car back to stock.

He did this, and then I went and got a proper alarm system installed in the car.

B.

  • 3 weeks later...

hey guys

stupid remote not working again

i tried my spare remote to see if it worked and didn't do anything either....

now I'm getting all sorts of weird beeping and basically have no friggin central locking meaning i need to open door via the key.....

and to start my car now I have to put key in ignition

set the alarm off then press remote to disable immobiliser and alarm (only time it seems to work)

just to start my car!!!! :sleep:

I'm going to ring the installers tomorrow who installed the alarm about the issues I'm having.

I got this installed on 25th January 2008

spent about $2200 at their workshop

Just curious as to whether they should fix this issue under a warranty?

Can some please verify that.

If all goes down the drain I will be seeing Chris Rogers.

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...