Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My 1988 Nissan Cefiro has recently failed a WOF on the park, tail and license plate lamps not illuminating with the headlights. Hasn't been working for a few weeks but haven't gotten around to looking into it. Figured it could be the headlight switch on the steering column but testing it seems to show that's not the problem. I've looked at and replaced the blown fuses on the interior fuse block and that's not the problem. I've looked at and tested the tail light relay in the engine bay and thats' not the problem. I have looked into the auto light relay unit in behind the right headlight, and have found slight corrosion on one of the relay power pins, however I don't know if thats the right issue. I'm pretty stumped, and it's probably going to come down to a shorted wire somewhere in the circuit... What do you guys reckon?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/435800-a31-faulty-headlight-circuits/
Share on other sites

I've had this problem more than once and it was the switch, to test it, unplug the stalk and bridge the two wires together responsible for the running light circuit, I can't remember off the top of my head which wires but I will check tomorrow.

It's probably a smarter idea to bridge them via a fuse and see what happens, but if there is a short circuit and you bridge it with a little piece of wire you'll know about it pretty quickly (it will get HOT), but then again your fuse should have popped if that's the case already.

It could be an incomplete ground anywhere on the circuit, which was my problem the first time (front left parker globe holder), so check your parkers first, it's very unlikely to be a ground in the interior.

The headlight circuit will run fine without that brown box plugged in, so don't worry about that.

I'm using an S13 switch at the moment while I source a working A31 switch, the running lights only come on when the headlights are on (second click), they don't come on with the first click, not sure if that's because if a different design to the A31 stalk or what, but an S13 stalk should get you out of trouble in the meantime.

I've had this problem more than once and it was the switch, to test it, unplug the stalk and bridge the two wires together responsible for the running light circuit, I can't remember off the top of my head which wires but I will check tomorrow.

Sounds like a plan. While I had the stalk out, I used a screwdriver to bridge the center contact with the contacts on either side of it and the system worked fine, so my assumption was the switch worked fine but there was something further along in the circuit that wasn't bridging it properly.

EDIT* Although now that you mention things popping... I had my left hand headlight die around, if not at the same time, as my running lights failing... but my headlight fuses are perfectly fine. Possibly a bad earth around the headlights?

Edited by promaori

my left headlight globe went a few months before I had some drama's as well, so yeah something sketchy in the design in that front left corner I think...although headlights are on a completely different circuit so they should be unaffected

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...