Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I am getting a missfire on my GTT RB25DET engine. I changed the plugs from the Iridiums I had previously gapped from 1.1mm to 0.8mm. I did not like the fact that I had regapped Iridiums so after having this problem I decided to swap in some 1.1mm BKRE7E-11, left them with the 1.1 gapping as well. Problem I have encountered is the famous bad idle and check light flashing at low rpm and having the TCS and SLIP lights on contstantly. I am going to pull the code today and see what is causing it, the coils look perfect no cracks as I inspected them thoroughly but maybe my eyes are deceiving me. I know the usual cause of a misfire is either coilpacks, gapping or in some cases timing. The car worked fine and has never been touched but I always had a slight miss ever since I got the car but in the last week I am getting a break up when in boost and around 5000-6000rpm. My question is are all Neo coilpacks the same, I don't want to run and buy Splitfires as I am removing the engine in a matter of months and I would prefer to get proper working replacements. I am wondering if I can get a set from an N/A RB20DE Neo or RB25DE Neo or will I have to get from an RB25DET Neo setup, does anyone know offhand?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/333482-neo-coilpacks/
Share on other sites

RB25DE Neo and RB25DET Neo coilpacks are exactly the same

Second that, in fact I've got a mix of these in my car now.

TriniGT if you have access to RB20DE Neo check if the coils have HANSHIN MCP-1440 written on them and look like the photo below. If yes they're exactly the same as RB25DE/T Neo coil packs.

I never had any visible damage to my coil packs, however some of the replacement ones I got (2nd hand OEM) were busted when I tested them for correct resistance.

Also have a read through my misfire thread here, it may give you some pointers. Mine is still getting a random stutter on idle, I am planning on re-checking vacuum hoses and cleaning the AAC next.

2360353540102364341S425x425Q85.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/333482-neo-coilpacks/#findComment-5406295
Share on other sites

Also I checked the resistance on the primary side of my GTT coilpacks and I have found the culprit. Here are my readings,

Coilpack 1 - 1.686

Coilpack 2 - 1.683

Coilpack 3 - 1.546

Coilpack 4 -

Coilpack 5 - 1.581

Coilpack 6 - 1.671

My Part Number for these coils are MCP-1440 as stated earlier. I got a set off a Neo but not sure if it was an RB20 or 25 as they were off in a box, the part number is MCP-1340. Does anyone know if I can use them? Here is the primary side resistanc eon the five I got,

Coilpack 2 - 1.440

Coilpack 3 - 1.385

Coilpack 4 - 1.423

Coilpack 5 - 1.424

Coilpack 6 - 1.556

Now my next question is is the lower the resistance the better and the higher the resistance? Wondering if I can put it these five and the lowest resistance one from my bunch to make a set? Your thought?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/333482-neo-coilpacks/#findComment-5411168
Share on other sites

I have three different part numbers although I don't have the actual coils to see if they are in fact different:

ALL R34 neo

RB20DE 22433-AA000

RB25DE 22433-AA100

RB25DET 22433-AA101

Measuring resistance is not enough. You need to examine the coils and the surrounding areas to look for shorting or drive at night with tne coil cover and bonnet off (or may be able to see just be loading it up while parked). There are numerous threads on insulating the coils or just reducing the plug gap to .8mm.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/333482-neo-coilpacks/#findComment-5411179
Share on other sites

I don't see the need to regap the plugs, once you have proper spark it should be fine at stock boost. Any way, I got a replacement coilpack and swapped number four and refitted my setup, rechecked timing and started the car. CEL has gone so far but the TCS and SLIP lights are still there. Ran an ECU diagnostic and came up with 17 only this time so the coilpack so far has cured two symptoms. I decided to erase fault codes and start again, so far no codes are appearing, no TCS, SLIP or CEL light. My idle is a little lumpy at times but I am yet to drive her. Maybe with some driving it will clear up. I have since found some other stuff to do to her in the mean time before putting her back on the road; leaking upper rad hose and thrashed steering rack rubbers. Does it ever end.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/333482-neo-coilpacks/#findComment-5411447
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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...