Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Recently got my 26/30 tuned, running about 22 psi. Just noticed at idle that there is a high pitched whistle coming from the plenum area at idle, seems to be about 1/2 - 2/3rds of the way along towards the firewall.

Goes away when I apply the smallest amount of throttle. Also goes away if I spray WD40 in the general vicinity. Was wondering if it might be a blown shaft seal due to the boost - although I bet there's RB26s running more boost than that with no problems.

Anyone had this before?

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/279969-squeal-from-rb26-plenum-at-idle/
Share on other sites

Did you take the plenum off or anything during the build?

Perhaps the gasket isn't sitting flush and a slight leak - sounds pretty much like what you are describing

yes it was removed. no problems until recently when the boost was increased and hence my suggestion it might be related, except that it doesn't seem to occur with other GTRs running more boost.

i'll try the carby spray, hopefully its not a butterfly shaft seal.

Edited by Scooby

had this exact same thing on my gtr running 19psi, but I don't think it is related to boost.. it just went away on its own..

this probibly won't help much but I did find where it was coming from,, hard to discribe but if you follow the two ajustable rods from the throttle to the manifold , mine was squealing from there..... don't know how this will help you .

but to answer your question I had it before

not sure if thats the butterfly shaft seal

Edited by tricstar

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...