Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all, been a while since iv posted here.

In a nutshell im running a haltech e11v2 piggybacked onto the stock ecu (was to run auto) and basically something is giving noise to the ecu via the temp sensor, it can vary up to 30 degrees cycling as often as every half second or so. This causes big idle problems from shutting off to blowing smoke etc. Iv tried running both the wires separately (not both at the same time) to the ecu and the noise is still there.

Iv not been able to find anything out there with anyone having the same problem. Iv also tried a different sensor. The feed is getting 4.88V and the other is shared ground with the tps. That of which also gives me problems time to time. The noise is only there whilst engine is going and its not relative fluctuations to RPM.

Any pointers would be appreciated! cheers.

Hey mate, have no idea about your exact problem but I do similar work on large mining gear.

Does the feed stay stable when unplugged and engine running? Checking across the pins and also feed to ground, are there any fluctuations. With it unplugged does the ecu show a fault or just a random number (ie -30)

Does it fault at all temps or only cold/hot?

Thanks for the reply,

the feed is stable with ignition but not whilst engine is running. Hot and cold doesnt matter basically the same thing. Only its worse under 70 degrees because its fluctuating cold start curcuit.

I cant disconnect it as its resistance based, if I unplug it it goes to -60 or something, which instantly kills the engine. Im going to try earth the sensor to battery but not sure if that will work.

Id kick off the alternator belt next incase it's done a diode and has a slightly erratic voltage output. And double check ecu voltage for stability.

Have you done any recent welding on the car?

Id kick off the alternator belt next incase it's done a diode and has a slightly erratic voltage output. And double check ecu voltage for stability.

Have you done any recent welding on the car?

Probe the TPS to see if it is doing bullshit to the voltage on the common earth?

I have swapped the alternator to one with half the kms, and no welding for a long time before this began. It literally happened after being parked for 5 days.

I have run wires directly from ecu to sensor to no resolve. Im thinking of going straight from the ground on the sensor to the negative terminal on battery to rule out poor earth feed?

An GTSBoy, the tps is also brand new haha originally it was my only issue. Itd just lose the zero setting and try to idle out of the base map

Maybe give main chassis earths a clean too, I'd check from batt neg to sensor neg and see if it's 0v. If so I can't see it hurting earthing out the sensor to check

Yeah iv checked it all, and made a big 35 square cable for engine earth too

Does the problem change with tps disconnected? Same pulsing?

I cant unplug it or it dies lol. needs the reading to go into zero throttle idle map.

Ill have a play later in the week when I get a chance lol

  • 2 weeks later...

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...