Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, first post on this forum. I have recently bought a new car. An 1994 r33 gts-t,which has a RB25de neo in it (n/a as im still on my p's) im having and issue with it idling (plan on cleaning the aic this weekend/during the week) and it is running rich and very poor fuel economy. I believe it may still have the r33 gtst ecu (ecu has blue label on it) I would like to know if it is possible that the ecu is the problem, i have clean the afm, done plugs and changed the coilpacks to splitfires. thanks and i look forward to being involved with this community :D

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/439276-help-please-rb25de-neo-issue/
Share on other sites

Wait, so it's a GTS-T and someone's pulled out the RB25det and put in an RB25de?

If so, you may as well have bought one with a turbo. You're driving a car you're not meant to, regardless of engine. Removing the turbo doesn't make it P plate friendly.

As for your problem, I'd start by sourcing a non-turbo ecu for it.

Cowboy1600, i dont know what you mean, not p plate friendly. Its a gtst... Yes... Which now has a completely different motor in it, rb25de neo from an r34 making it n/a. Which means by law it is 'p plate friendly'. In regards to dtc 54 i dont understand why its throwing that unless it also has had a manual conversion that im unknown of and they havent changed the ecu there either.

Welcome to SAU Blake!

Technically the guys are right about driving a GTST minus the T. Keep your head down, don't be too silly & you should be right (unless you get a copper who know how to read a compliance plate).

Running a GTST ECU on a NEO N/A is not the best idea.

What were the plugs like when you pulled them out?

There could be a few things going on here. Yes the ECU could be at fault. You could also have an intake leak somewhere or even an exhaust leak before the O2 sensor causing it to fuel up a bit, but seeings as its thrown a code for the O2 sensor, I'd start there & double check everything else to be safe.

Researching the part # on the ECU would be a good thing too.

update to this. Replaced the o2 sensor today, seems to be running not as rich. looked up the ecu last night, found out it has correct ecu for engine. I am now chasing a vacuum leak in the engine which i will sort when i clean the aic this weekend :D

Edited by Bwillie

seems like gapping spark plugs to 0.8mm, setting the idle properly, checking the timing, set to 30 degrees (woohoo) and running 98 octane shell v power is making it run much smoother and MORE POWER! Cleaned aic etc, didnt seem to be that dirty compared to others ive seen!

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...