Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys!

Sorry i'm a bit strange and this is also my first post. Hopefully i will get some serious helps from you guys!

I currently own a R33 GTST and it was running like a dream! About 2 days ago i tried put a bigger battery on. Then i realised that i put the wrong way around positive and negative terminals. However it didn't affect to the car as all the electricals are still working, no fuse blew off. Straight away i started up the car and it only cranks... won't start at all.

I checked the fuel system and it's fine, injectors click click.

We tried to push the car straight down from the top of the hill, then put on first gear and rev it up a bit then it suddently start up and idle fine! But if i turn off the key there is no way to start it back on even it cranks.

From what i've tried i can feel the fuel pump working once i turn the key on, haven't check out the spark yet BUT if i roll it, it will start up so i guess there is nothing wrong with spark.

There are some lights on the speedo indicate fuel and water!

I will reset the ECU tonight and see what will happen tomorrow.

Please suggest me what to do! I really stuck...

Thanks guys!

Edited by r33 rb30dett

I'd be 99% sure it'd be a fuse, as it's the "first defence" from the terminals.

Did you check all three fue boxes?

-Under the driver side dash

-Next to the battery

-The big black box in the engine bay

I'd be 99% sure it'd be a fuse, as it's the "first defence" from the terminals.

Did you check all three fue boxes?

-Under the driver side dash

-Next to the battery

-The big black box in the engine bay

It will def be a fuse. You cant put the battery terminals on backwards without blowing something lol. Did the bit spark not give it away? :P

My guess will be one of the "Engine Control" 10A ones under the dash.

It will def be a fuse. You cant put the battery terminals on backwards without blowing something lol. Did the bit spark not give it away? :P

My guess will be one of the "Engine Control" 10A ones under the dash.

mate i checked all the fuses and they are fine!

anyways i will be getting a consult cable from a friend, then do some testing with the computer and hopefully it will tell

Its a long shot but it could possibly be the ignition/ecu relay next to the ecu (big blue ones)

When i soldered a couple of wires without disconnecting the battery i stuffed one of them, i swapped them over and all was good.

when you turn the key to ign you should hear two clicks from the passenger side.

just a possibility ?

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


  • 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...