Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Lumpy rough missing startup

When my 07 350gt (stock and no recent work) starts, dead cold, the car stumbles for about 5 seconds before firing on all cylinders. Fine on a warm start and some days is ok.

It fires up on first crank but stumbles and misses. The revs are up at 1000 but it's not firing properly. I'm thinking iacv?

Edited by 30ONA
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/468396-lumpy-rough-missing-startup/
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Memm said:

Had similar issues when I use to own my R33/BMW.. Some days ran rough and started hesitantly but cleared up once warm if I was lucky - Ended up being fuel pump on both cars

It runs fine. It's just the first 5 secs.

What was wrong with the fuel pump?

Does it seem to miss in a regular/repetitive pattern?  which would suggest an issue with an injector, spark plug or coil pack.

Or in a very random pattern?  which would suggest something common, like a fuel pump or other component.

No pattern that I can determine.

This was a cold start video just now but the ambient is about 30. I am yet to get a video of the issue.

A theory. If I start the car straight up and have the issue compared to if I turn on the ignition and let the pump prime the line and then start up and there is no issue I could understand fuel pump. But neither seems to make a difference.

In my last tank I put in some injector cleaner and hasn't seen the issue since. I'll keep trying to get a video of the occurrence.

Are fuel pump issues intermittent? Wouldn't it also cause issues driving not just at start up?

VID_20170102_134918.mp4

VID_20170102_135013.mp4

Seems unlikely symptoms for a fuel pump.  I would expect a bad fuel pump to show symptoms under load with a cold engine too.  but I  wouldn't  rule anything out at this stage.

Might be a bit of a stretch, but what is your battery like?  do you usually make short trips?  my wife's J31 maxima is usually only driven short distances, and if we don't take it for a decent drive on the weekend it will start to have some hesitation from a cold start after 2 weeks or so, usually only 1-2 seconds before running fine.

I would suggest changing your plugs if you havent done that in a while. Scotty Kilmer said some hesitation is caused by the fuel running rich which is what you get when the engine is cold. Bad spark plugs dont do well in igniting a rich fuel mixture.

Other than that please make sure your injectors are clean, and do the IAC learning properly. You will need 12.9V and all electricals turned off, including door lamps. Hooking up another idling car like jump starting may solve the 12.9V issue cause Its hard to get that value while the engine is not running.

11 minutes ago, X jap said:

I would suggest changing your plugs if you havent done that in a while. Scotty Kilmer said some hesitation is caused by the fuel running rich which is what you get when the engine is cold. Bad spark plugs dont do well in igniting a rich fuel mixture.

Other than that please make sure your injectors are clean, and do the IAC learning properly. You will need 12.9V and all electricals turned off, including door lamps. Hooking up another idling car like jump starting may solve the 12.9V issue cause Its hard to get that value while the engine is not running.

Yeah plugs might be getting long in the tooth. Iridiums with about 75000ks on them. Fuel economy is still fine though. I'll have a look at them.

Is IAC learn the same as IAV on data scan 3? Because it never works when I try it. I didn't know you need to up the voltage. Where can I find the procedure?

Screenshot_2017-01-03-15-03-20.png

if it is like the DE idle learn, there are prerequisites, like engine coolant at full working temp. And according to the FSM, there are a couple of throttle valve learn procedures that are supposed to be run first.

Ok so here is the video. Its defiantly an issue with temperature. It was about 24 in the garage this morning compared to the other video at over 30. Next time I'll turn on the ignition and wait a few seconds for the pump to prime and see if that makes a difference. I wonder if it is possible with this really hot weather that parking up in the extreme heat then the car cools and loses the remaining static line pressure?

VID_20170105_055914.mp4

  • 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

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...