Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Possibly a useless response... but...

When I back off from full throttle in my work van I get a shudder as the A/C kicks back in (you can only feel it if you've gone from full throttle to clutch-in idle rpm).

No idea if thats likely to be the problem in something a little more refined like a 34 GTT ;)

Also, from my bogan days ... An incorrectly aligned tailshaft or worn uni joints will give you shudder as you back off as the slack gets taken up. Again, probably not an issue on a 34 GTT.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46795-is-this-a-problem/#findComment-949790
Share on other sites

the entire car does

has it anything to do with air going trying to go out the wrong way thru the turbo or something when i let off the accelerator?

Have you got an aftermarket BOV? If you have and it's set too tight then you'll get this shudder if it doesn't open fully.

This is what was happening with my car anyways.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46795-is-this-a-problem/#findComment-951379
Share on other sites

You shouldn't get any fluttering sound at all else the BOV is still too tight. If you loosen it a fair bit until it starts leaking under boost and then tighten it a little from there you should be fine. It should be a clean opening every time, even under bugger all boost when you're off the throttle.

Should be problem solved from there mate.

Good luck. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/46795-is-this-a-problem/#findComment-951781
Share on other sites

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...