Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

When i bought the car it was running a stock BOV. I then spent $200 on a Turbosmart BOV and it was great for a little while.. But now I'm having a rough idle issue.. When I'm driving and drop gears and go into neutral (or put the clutch in) the revs drop and the car stalls.. Sometimes it'll go down to 100 revs and bounce back up to a thousand but lately it's been stalling more.. Does anyone with knowledge about RB20's know what a common cause of this could be? Everything is stock except brass button clutch, splitfire coil pack and front mount.. Would putting the stock Bov back on stop this problem? Sorry for asking the question but I can't find another thread that has a direct answer. Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/448511-r32-gts-t-idle-problem/
Share on other sites

Sorry for asking the question but I can't find another thread that has a direct answer. Thanks in advance.

Not wanting to be too mean to you, but there would have to be 10^4 threads on here with the exact same question and lots of us screaming at the poster to replace the factory BOV. -4 search points for you!

Not wanting to be too mean to you, but there would have to be 10^4 threads on here with the exact same question and lots of us screaming at the poster to replace the factory BOV. -4 search points for you!

Hahaha thanks for not being a complete dick. But I try to increase my search ability I'm still a nub tho.

Not wanting to be too mean to you, but there would have to be 10^4 threads on here with the exact same question and lots of us screaming at the poster to replace the factory BOV. -4 search points for you!

If you didn't say it, I was going to have to.....

^^what? i can't believe how many australian guys run plumb backs they are far less prevelant over here.

perhaps clean your IACV...you can test to see if its your bov by watching the bov piston return when free reving it..

Gaz all of the AFM guys run plumbbacks to avoid OP's problem.

If it's not a recirc blow off valve then replace the factory one. You can sell the turbosmart one for sure if you're worried about the $200

Edited by Blackkers

umm i run afm and atmo bov and don't have that problem...it can be sorted without changing the bov.

It's also the law in oz.

Like you say it can be sorted but the reality is its not really worth mucking around with one is oz just to cop a defect for it.

Atmo BOV's cause so many more problems than they are worth on an AFM equipped car.

You can fiddle with the atmo BOV, get a retune to make it work (If you have an aftermarket ECU, otherwise factor in money to buy that) then it still wont run quite as nice as a PB BOV, then get a fine for having a venting BOV

alternatively, use stock BOV, buy aftermarket PB BOV, don't need retune, drives as stock

If your buying an ATMO BOV for the sound then you can still get that from an aftermarket plumback.

This is why I say they are not worth the trouble. You are right, they can work. But why would you bother?

  • Like 2

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...