Jump to content
SAU Community

Hesitation when throttle is jabbed quickly - S1 TPS in S2 R33 RB25

kleb420

By kleb420,
in General Maintenance

 Share

Recommended Posts

kleb420 Apprentice

kleb420

Posted
Posted (edited)

hey there guys

have been a long time reader but first time posting

i have recently had my 96 S2 R33 with RB25DET at the tuner after a bunch of new mods

he was having an issue with the car hesitating for a second or 2 when the throttle is jabbed quickly.. making it feel quite un responsive and laggy ( throttle is fine otherwise, just has to be increased slowly.. its most noticable down low or when giving it a quick rev in neutral)

he believed it to be a TPS issue so i got a new NISSAN TPS the same as what i had in the car. which surprisingly was a S1 TPS (obviously with a S1 Throttle body too, installed by previous owner) with the extra plug and fly lead hanging off it.... he managed to tune it ok but it still has the same issue - just to clarify ive got it plugged into the fly lead plug not the one on the bottom of the sensor.. i believe this is the signal plug

so this is a two pronged question

1. other than the way the the TPS mechanicaly connects to the throttle body are the sensors both the same electronically? 0.5 - 5v DC? - if so it shouldnt matter that i have a S1 sensor on a S2 motor

2. when i tested it i seem to be getting 0.6v at closed throttle and 3v ish at WOT.. i believe its ment to be 0.5 - 5v from what ive read on SAU.. i have hesitated to adjust it as dont want to screw up the tune i have just had... but is this likely to cause the problem i am having.. or is it possible he has compensated for these incorrect voltage readings in the ECU (VIPEC) or something?

 

any assistance would be greatly appreciated.. and ive been searching for a couple hours and couldnt find anything that answers this completely.. so sorry if this is a repeat post :)

thanks

caleb

Edited by kleb420
89CAL Grand Master

89CAL

Posted
Posted

If you have a VIPEC you can watch the TPS voltage on your laptop. You can also do a TPS calibration with the VIPEC software. You should be able to see if is seeing the throttle at 0% closed and 100% at Wide open throttle. If this is the case it wont need calibrating

Take it back to your tuner?

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

Yuh, if it was a factory ECU I would have said TPS adjustment 100%.  Because it's aftermarket ECU, there is nothing stopping you/the tuner from adjusting it either in the ECU or in the engine bay.  In other words, the tuner shouldn't be having any trouble with the new TPS if he set it up as he installed it, like he should have.

kleb420 Apprentice

kleb420

Posted
  • Author
Posted

ok think ive worked it out. checked it on my laptop and it confirmed the voltages i was reading... range was 1.4% at closed ant 99.8% at WOT... but i dont think that was the problem.. when i loosened the TPS i could move it alot without the ECU getting a change in %... so i believe its because the shaft on my TB is a bit smaller than the inside of the TPS.. bit of foil tape around the shaft and its much better :) also re calibrated the TPS % in the ECU so all is well now.. not 100% but very close

 

thanks for the imput guys

caleb

  • 2 weeks later...
sonicz Rising Star

sonicz

Posted
Posted (edited)

Too high or too low fuel pressure can also cause this im addition to the two step voltage the ecu is able to provide the fuel pump. If its a  aftermarket one it wont flow the same as stock on low/high voltage switching.

Thats what it was for me and it had nothing to do with tps

Edited by sonicz

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • GTSBoy
      remote oil cooler hose size, 8,10 or an12?

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I will rebutt this and the preceding point from Dose....but without doing any calcs to demonstrate anything and without knowing that I am right or wrong. But... The flow capacity of a fluid transfer system is not limited by the smallest orifice or section of conduit in that system, unless it is drastically smaller than the rest of the system. OK, I use the word drastically perhaps with too much emphasis, but let's drill down on what I really mean. The flow capacity of the system is the result of the sum of the restrictions of the entire system. So, to make an extreme example, if you have a network with 3" pipe everywhere (and let's say a total length of only a few metres) and that 12mm ID restriction of the oil filter connection being the obvious restriction, then for any given amount of pressure available, the vast majority of all the pressure drop in the system is going to occur in the 12mm restriction. But.... increase the length of the 3" pipeline to, say 1000m, and suddenly the pipe pressure loss will likely add up to either be in the same order of magnitude, possibly even exceeding that of the 12mm restriction. Now the 12mm restriction starts to matter less. Translate this to the actual engine, actual oil cooler hose sizing, etc etc, and perhaps: The pressure loss caused by flowing through the narrow section (being the 12mm oil filter port, and perhaps any internal engine oil flow pathways associated with it) is a certain number. The pressure loss through, say, -12 hoses out to the cooler and back is negligible, but The pressure loss through -10 hoses out to the cooler, at the exact same length as the above, starts to become a decent fraction of the loss through the 12mm stuff at the filter port. Maybe even it starts to exceed it. I could actually do these calcs if I knew 1) how much oil was actually flowing in the line, 2) gave enough of a f**k to do things that I hate doing for work, voluntarily for a hypothetical discussion. Anyway - I reiterate. It's not the narrowest port that necessarily determines how much it can all flow. It is the sum. A long enough length of seemingly fat enough pipe can still cause more loss than a semmingly dominant small bore restriction.
    • MBS206
      remote oil cooler hose size, 8,10 or an12?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      To pick up what Dose is putting down. Not a lot of point running a huge hose if the motor is still restricted to the smaller size... It's only capable of flowing so much at that point...   *Waits for GTSBoy to come in and bring in the technicalities of length of pipe, and additional restriction from wall friction etc etc*
    • QB6SAGR
      Tein Circuit Master- rebuild worth it?

      By QB6SAGR · Posted

      Hooley Dooley these things have some history! If i sell them they will need a certificate of providence to prove they have been in the hands of verified RB20 royalty! They have been stored in a plastic tub, away from sunlight and moisture. They are in mint condition. And they will stay that way, as i have sprung the money for a set of shockworks coilovers. I'm just working on getting them in at the moment, after rebushing the rear of the car, and while the subframe was out i welded in the GKtech reinforcement bracing as well.  They will get a workout at Ararat King of The Hill in November. I ran 48s on the short course there a few months ago, and i am hoping with new bushes and shocks in the rear i can launch a bit harder. There was a fair bit of axle tramp when i tried too hard off the line. a few of the corners had dips mid way which also made the car feel a bit unsettled, hopefully this will help there too.   
    • Dose Pipe Sutututu
      remote oil cooler hose size, 8,10 or an12?

      By Dose Pipe Sutututu · Posted

      Food for thought, the stock oil filter thread is a 3/4-16 UNF, which has an ID of about 10 to 12mm (according to ChatGPT lol). Now compare than to an 10AN, which has an ID of about 14mm (Raceworks is 14.2mm, Speed flow is 14.27mm).  
    • MBS206
      Dose's Sometimes DIY and Pay Someone Home & Boat Improvement Thread

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Yep, totally get that. However hooking in for Generator back up is only a few hundred bucks for the wiring. You could put a couple of those in (for different circuits explicitly) and run a couple of baby generators. Bonus, you can balance them across different circuits, and now have backups in your backup. I'm looking at buying places that won't even have water etc, and I don't mind the idea of getting off the electric grid either, even with everything you've said. This country already has enough power outages that even the mains grid isn't that reliable anymore. I do agree though on spending a bit more to get better gear, and to add some extra redundancy in to the system too.
×
×
  • Create New...