Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A followup to let you know I spoke to the auto electrician and he said that a bosch sensor with a Nissan plug on it probably does exist, but its likely it won't be as cheap as the EL one just because of the volume Ford ones made in.

The EL one is installed in my R33 and running like a champ. The stumbling and flat spots I was getting at part throttle after a cold sart is gone. The light misfire (pops) at certain points when lifting off the throttle at 2-4k rpm is gone. And I've still got better fuel economy to look forward to.

Heres an interesting link, specifically this part about our O2 sensors: http://www.gt-skyline.net/maintenance/oxyg...gen_sensor.html . The important part is that Nissan recommends changing it at 40k km intervals. Every mechanic I've been to has said my O2 sensor was fine on basis of

  • 1) the ecu diagnostic didn't complain.
  • 2) a voltmeter responds when hooked up.

Both ways of testing are incorrect! My old O2 sensor was still operating when I pulled it out, but it's response time was so slow it was as good as dead. It goes without saying that buying a second hand O2 sensor is not a good idea.

4door_sleeper, doesn't look like it has made any difference :D

Yes i had to cut wires. Chop both plugs off and then wire them up. Unfortunately the sensor i bought had different coloured wires to my sensor. Luckily i had a friend good with electronics and the GTR Workshop manual, so we were able to work it out. (I think)

I have replaced AFM, O2 sensor, done full service (apart from spark plugs) and ran 2 injector cleaners through it. Im still experincing poor fuel economy.

R32 GTST auto, pod, 11 psi and i get ~350km to a tank.

Hey GRADENKO,

I have looked at an R31 RB30 sensor.

They have the same amount of wires, (though only two wires are the same colour from memory), & the EXACT same plug, which makes things a lot easier to connect instead of cutting and re-joining wires. As for the threads, I will compare both tomorrow. If its the same as the EF sensor, then I cant see why it wont go in, unless somethings drastically different.

When I spoke to NGK they told me this could happen as the o2 sensor isn't designed for the application.

How about a VLT o2 sensor? Is it a different part number to the VL NA sensor? If there different then we know that the o2 sensors for turbo need to be different due to the extra heat and some times fuel that dumps past them?!?

Heat isn't a factor. A lean running N/A engine will actually be hotter than your average, rich turbo engine. Don't forget that the turbo works off heat and will absorb up to 100degC from exhaust gas running through it. Our common zirconia oxygen sensors have an operating temp of 350-900degC (corresponding with the average working range of an engine), and I'm sure they're built to last much higher temps.

AFAIK, the only things that kill an O2 sensor are age and leaded fuel. Running rich on (premium) unleaded shouldn't affect its life.

  • 2 weeks later...

Well finally got to check the sensors, with the following outcomes;

1) VL Turbo & NA motors run exact same oxy sensor (same part number and same as 3.0lt Skyline.)

2) The threads between Skyline & EA-EF oxy sensors different, with skyline type being bout half the size as Ford type.

3) Ford type, even though bigger than Skyline type, is still smaller than the one fitted (in my car at least). I have a custom dump pipe off the turbo.

So it sems back to the drawing board for me @ least!

Guys who have fitted Ford sensor, do you still have the factory dump pipe/exhaust, or did you custom fit it?

Hope it helps.

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...