Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I've had a Vipec V44 plug-in on my Stagea 260RS since 2008. I recently changed my timing belt and set the CAS back to roughly the same position. The car has been driving fine. The other day I checked the timing and discovered it was 10 degrees over advanced, so I retarded it by 10 degrees after double-checking with a different timing light. Now the car drives worse than before. It hesitates coming on boost and makes much less power. I removed the top timing belt cover and confirmed the cam pulleys were correctly lined up with TDC. I also confirmed the cam half-moon shaped key for the CAS is still in position and hasn't broken off. So I'm at a bit of a loss as to where this 10 degrees of offset may have come from. Does anyone have any ideas?

Oh yeah, in setting the timing, I upgraded my firmware. I think I was about 4 or 5 versions behind the current release. Would this have caused any issues? In the base timing adjustment screen, the original offset (for 10 degree ref) was -82, as set by the Vipec tuner. Now it is -96 for the timing to be right. Do either of these numbers sound about right for an RB26?

One other thing, I did change the timing belt somewhere around 2008-2009 after the Vipec install and tune. I went back to the workshop and they checked the timing and adjusted the offset from -80 to -82. I was wondering in my head if the timing belt was always off by 1 tooth, but the fact I've changed the belt once already and it made minimal difference to timing, makes me think the possibilities are very slim.

Any ideas? I'm at a bit of a loss.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/464164-rb26-base-timing-woes/
Share on other sites

My thoughts are there was possibly a timing correction built into the tune that may have been lost when the firmware was updated?

Isn't the timing offset just for the ECU to know where TDC is, not actually for setting the timing? I'm pretty sure that's the case with Haltechs but could be wrong. Worth investigating though.

Have you tried adjusting timing via the CAS as opposed to through the ECU?

Thanks for your reply mate. I actually took a save of the ECU tune after it was initially dyno'd in 2008. You can see the timing offset factor was -80 back then. I think the tuner changed it to -82 when I visited him in 2008/9 after I changed the timing belt the first time and he set the timing. On the weekend I initially adjusted timing by rotating the CAS. It ended up nearly at the limits of its adjustment, when it was centralised before the timing belt job. That's what raised the alarm to me. I think I had done the firmware update just before checking the timing.

Solved it! The old timing loop problems strike again. I found a bit of ignition lead and connected it between the coil and spark plug, then set the timing off that. Believe it or not, it was 9 degrees off! Previously I had tested the timing loop on the little timing wire loop at the back of the engine, as well as on the low voltage wires on the back of the coil. Both of these gave identical readings. Nissan must have some fancy timing light or something. I'm pretty sure the Vipec mechanic used the low voltage wires on the back of the coil, but maybe he had a better timing light than mine.

The car is doing damn well now. Very happy. Thanks for your help guys.

  • Like 1

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...