Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, I have done a search but nothing turned up in relation to NATS.

A little bit of background info first. My car is a 2002 350GT-8, it has the factory immobiliser deactivated (the LED that has a 'Security' sticker under it is off) but a factory fitted alarm that is still working (I set it off to test it). It also has an Autowatch 3 point immobiliser fitted that has a little LED indicator light next to the VDC button.

I was told that in order to start the car, I have to turn the key to the 'ON' position, at which point the Autowatch LED will light up continously, then when it turns off, I will be able to start the car. But the problem I've been having is the car basically has a mind of its own, sometimes it starts, sometimes it takes 2 or 3 attempts.

So I took it to a Nissan workshop and got them to hook up the Consult-II tool and search the whole system for error codes. The only thing that came up was 'NATS error', which I know refers to the security system but I'm not sure what exactly.

Are there any experts out there that can shed some light on this annoying problem? Thanks in advance :(

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/
Share on other sites

I would say he needs to check the car for you...

Thanks for that Captain Obvious.

And I bet he wants to charge me money just to do a simple 5 minute fix instead of just telling me what it is so i can fix it myself.

When I discovered how to get the oxidisation off of the windows, I shared that info with everyone, not a problem.

Isn't this forum about being part of a group that supports each other and shares the same interests, not a place for opportunists trying to make money anyway they can?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288031
Share on other sites

Hey mate calm down, I don't think he was trying to be a smart as$ :P

Chris is good with these types of things and has a lot of experience and I'm sure will be more than happy to help you out anytime, just send him a PM and have a chat with him :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288047
Share on other sites

What the hell was that for? There is no need to be rude and call me names...

Perhaps some things are easier to check if you know how and obviously you don't, so please pull your head in and don't call me names.

Also, maybe he wasn't planning to charge you, I know if it was me and it only took a bit of his time, he would bend over backwards to help.

As for the oxidisation discovery, isn't that pretty easy to explain on here and perhaps fault finding a 2002 Factory immobiliser is a bit harder to do whilst online.

Also, I know what this forum is for and it isn't for openly having a go. If you are upset then please keep it to yourself, or complain to a moderator. As for opportunitists making money, it is your car, your money and your choice.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288074
Share on other sites

Hey mate calm down, I don't think he was trying to be a smart as$ :P

Chris is good with these types of things and has a lot of experience and I'm sure will be more than happy to help you out anytime, just send him a PM and have a chat with him :)

Hi Pulp, thanks for trying to smooth the situation over, but Stephen knows he is being a smart as$, thats the second time he has chimed in with a useless comment to try and make me look stupid.

Chris is no doubt good, but at the end of the day he is a business man and will try and make a buck, so I should expect that.

But you can be sure that any new information I find out about these cars will be posted loud and proud for all to see :) Have a good one

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288082
Share on other sites

Just for the record, there was absolutely NO intention to be a SMART ARSE and I take exception to that.

As for trying to make you look stupid, again that wasn't my intention, so my apologies.

However, if that is what you think please yourself.

As for Chris, I think if you think he is out just to make money, then I think you have that wrong.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288096
Share on other sites

What the hell was that for? There is no need to be rude and call me names...

Perhaps some things are easier to check if you know how and obviously you don't, so please pull your head in and don't call me names.

Also, maybe he wasn't planning to charge you, I know if it was me and it only took a bit of his time, he would bend over backwards to help.

As for the oxidisation discovery, isn't that pretty easy to explain on here and perhaps fault finding a 2002 Factory immobiliser is a bit harder to do whilst online.

Also, I know what this forum is for and it isn't for openly having a go. If you are upset then please keep it to yourself, or complain to a moderator. As for opportunitists making money, it is your car, your money and your choice.

So you think he wouldn't charge me? Then why come on here and say 'I know what the problem is..' etc. but not tell me?

And as for me being rude, I think you earned it. Two times you replied in my posts and both times it was with a useless comment. My tip to you is don't post unless you have something worthwhile to add or a question.

Anyway, we have both had our say, lets agree to disagree and get on with it.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288105
Share on other sites

Just for the record, there was absolutely NO intention to be a SMART ARSE and I take exception to that.

As for trying to make you look stupid, again that wasn't my intention, so my apologies.

However, if that is what you think please yourself.

As for Chris, I think if you think he is out just to make money, then I think you have that wrong.

Thanks for the apology Stephen, I believe you mean it and if what you say is true, then I must be reading your replies in the wrong light. Thats the trouble with reading and not hearing what someone says.

So I apologise for my remarks to you then, have a good one.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288115
Share on other sites

Remember no matter what you might think, being rude to someone doesn't help the situation.

If you think my comments are wrong and I have earned it, ask me about it in a PM, because I think you will have me wrong.

As for Chris, I presume he is a busy man, like all of us and perhaps he would prefer to work over the phone at the very least... I know of a very different side to him and he has never got money out of me... so far.

Have you tried to call him... his number is on all of his posts?

agree to disagree

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288117
Share on other sites

I would say he needs to check the car for you...

exactly.

if it was a car that I did during compliance I could tell you over the net via PM. I dare say its not.

I really need to see the car so I can verify : alarm model, installation, put a face to a name :)

and no if its a 5 min fix (which it sounds that way.) I'm NOT going to charge you.

stephen has met me. I'm not an opportunist- I do work on A LOT of these cars daily and have a decent understanding of them.

As for Chris, I presume he is a busy man, like all of us and perhaps he would prefer to work over the phone at the very least... I know of a very different side to him and he has never got money out of me... so far.

Have you tried to call him... his number is on all of his posts?

busy- me . never :P (say he that just finished a sedan and has 4 more cars waiting- none of which are on this forum.)

at the very least give me a call during the day- I *may* be able to sort it over the phone.

tell me who did the compliance on the car as well . sticker is inside the passenger door.

Edited by Chris Rogers
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288232
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Captain Obvious.

[And I bet he wants to charge me money just to do a simple 5 minute fix instead of just telling me what it is so i can fix it myself.

When I discovered how to get the oxidisation off of the windows, I shared that info with everyone, not a problem.

Isn't this forum about being part of a group that supports each other and shares the same interests, not a place for opportunists trying to make money anyway they can?

considering that the car has 4 major networks in it its not something that I would even attempt unless you had a background in autoelectrics and electronics.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4288242
Share on other sites

considering that the car has 4 major networks in it its not something that I would even attempt unless you had a background in autoelectrics and electronics.

I think you'll find that it only has 2 major networks, called CAN H and CAN L. One being high speed for the important things like ABS etc. and the other is low speed for power windows etc. And these two networks are linked for redundancy, allowing bcm's to be able to continue communicating if a section of the comms bus is broken.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4290875
Share on other sites

I think you'll find that it only has 2 major networks, called CAN H and CAN L. One being high speed for the important things like ABS etc. and the other is low speed for power windows etc. And these two networks are linked for redundancy, allowing bcm's to be able to continue communicating if a section of the comms bus is broken.

I thought it was a single CAN network with 2 communication lines (CAN H line and CAN L line)? Not 2 networks. Then there is the K line for all the OBDII diagnostics stuff, navi/TV/display bus and probably A/C bus.

I'm with smoothV35, unless we share information we will never learn.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4295212
Share on other sites

I thought it was a single CAN network with 2 communication lines (CAN H line and CAN L line)? Not 2 networks. Then there is the K line for all the OBDII diagnostics stuff, navi/TV/display bus and probably A/C bus.

I'm with smoothV35, unless we share information we will never learn.

I know what you mean mate, just depends how you look at it. For example, the Internet is one network, however it obviously has countless networks within it aswell.

Even though CAN H and CAN L are physically linked, logically they are separate, so they can be classed as their own type of network, thats what I was alluding to :)

Discussion is good though, we can learn off each other, and my plan is to totally crack open the mystery of how this cars internals work so we can do what we want to it.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/246664-nats-error/#findComment-4296095
Share on other sites

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...