Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, silviaz said:

Drops to 9.76v while cranking then quickly goes up to 14.5v

Anything above ~9.5V is acceptable. The higher the better, but it will almost always drop to at least 10.5V, if not lower, even with a new big battery and everything else being good.

9.76 is not a concern. If it goes below 9, you'd be sure that there's a problem with either the battery or the connections.

34 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Anything above ~9.5V is acceptable. The higher the better, but it will almost always drop to at least 10.5V, if not lower, even with a new big battery and everything else being good.

9.76 is not a concern. If it goes below 9, you'd be sure that there's a problem with either the battery or the connections.

Ok guess I can rule out the battery, probably even the starter and alternator (maybe) as well. I'm gonna clean those leads and see what happens if it's still shit I might take it to an auto electrician. Unless the immobiliser is that f**king heavy, but it shouldn't be. 

If I start the car every day, starts up perfectly never an issue.

Isn't 12v low, shouldn't it be around 12.5v?

Edited by silviaz

12.8 for a great condition, fully charged battery.

If the battery will only ever properly charge to about 12.2V, the battery is well worn, and will be dead soon. When I say properly charge, I mean disconnect it from the car, charge it to its max, and then put your multimeter on it, and see what it reads about an hour later.

Dieing batteries will hold a higher "surface charge", but the minutest load, even from just a multimeter (which in the scheme of things is considered totally irrelevant, especially at this level) will be enough over an hour to make the surface charge disappear.

 

I spend wayyy too much time analysing battery voltages for customers when they whinge that our equipment (telematics device) is causing their battery to drain all the time. Nearly every case I can call it within about 2 months of when the battery will be completely dead. Our bigger customers don't even debate it with me any more ha ha ha.

A battery at 12.4 to 12.6 I'd still be happy enough with. However, there's a lot of things that can cause a parasitic draw in a car, first of which is alarms and immobilisers. To start checking, put your multimeter into amps, (and then connect it properly) and measure your power draw with everything off.

Typical car battery is about 40aH. Realistically, you'll get about half this before the car won't start. So a 100mA power drain will see you pretty much near unstartable in 8 days.

On 2/2/2025 at 1:26 PM, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Ohh even easier.

 

Go dial up 700rpm on the hand controller. Rip off the TPS plug, wait till the idle drops and then adjust the IACV screw so it's just a tad below the target on the hand controller (say 650rpm), plug the TPS back in and idle will climb back to target.

Done.

On the R34 can't you just unplug the IACV? This is the way I've always done it on the R33.

Disconnect IACV, get it idling around 650rpm, and then do a power reset on the ECU to get it to relearn idle (factory ECU).

 

The big reason no one has touched on as to why you'd want to get the base idle right, is that it means the computer needs to make smaller adjustments to get a good idle at 700-750rpm.

 

Also, cleaning the IACV won't normally make the car suddenly idle lower or higher. The main issue with the IACV gumming up is that the valve sticks. This means the inputs the ECU gives, aren't translating to changes in air flow. This can cause idle choppy ness as the ECU is now needing to give a lot of input to get movement, but then it moves too far, and then has to do the same in reverse, and it can mean the ECU can't catch stalls quickly either.

Edited by MBS206
  • Like 1
53 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Car should sit at 12.2 or more, maybe 12.6 or 12.7 when fully charged and happy. If there is a decent enough parasitic load then it will certainly go lower than 12.2 with time. You can't beat physics.

Ah right. Maybe my rb just loves chewing through batteries lol.

1 hour ago, MBS206 said:

On the R34 can't you just unplug the IACV? This is the way I've always done it on the R33.

Oh yeah forgot to also mention need to also unplug the IACV as well. Thanks for the reminder @MBS206

Unplugging the TPS takes it out of closed loop so you're able to screw down the IACV without the ECU trying to add/subtract timing to maintain the idle (not sure PowerFC can even do this, but Nistune and the OEM definitely does)

I noticed something. On the tps sensor and the sensor behind the adjustment screw is adjusted towards the far left. Are these screws supposed to be centered? (this sensor was in the same position before the tune as well) 

Also attached a photo of where my car usually idles at when warm (sometimes a tiny bit above that). I think I might have screwed up the calculation and it might have better than I thought lol at 750rpm still not 650rpm though.

4.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by silviaz
5 hours ago, silviaz said:

I noticed something. On the tps sensor and the sensor behind the adjustment screw is adjusted towards the far left. Are these screws supposed to be centered? (this sensor was in the same position before the tune as well) 

Also attached a photo of where my car usually idles at when warm (sometimes a tiny bit above that). I think I might have screwed up the calculation and it might have better than I thought lol at 750rpm still not 650rpm though.

4.jpg

 

 

 

TPS sensor needs to be adjusted such that idle voltage is 0.45V, then relearn the TPS if applicable. From what I recall in the R32 GTST and similar ECUs they care far, far more about the actual TPS closed switch but later models seem to only keep track of voltage.

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, Dose Pipe Sutututu said:

Good enough tbh 😀

Yeah was thinking that. I've had the car go lower idle possibly around 650rpm every once in a long time after pouring fuel and would sound quite rough like a misfire, almost like it's shit fuel or something but who knows.

Edited by silviaz

Small update took it to an auto electrician and said all was normal, the power draw was normal and it was a bit of everything but nothing to concern with. Apparently my battery is ok, but because it's a smaller size battery instead of the oem size one, it might cause me issues. Looks like if there is a solution here I might need to upgrade to a bigger battery.

2 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

Not sure what you mean haha. That one doesn't fit mine but when I get sick of my one I'll get a standard one. I just gotta find a way to make it fit cause some shit is in the way.

17 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

That's the one I have in my R32. There isn't a bigger battery that will fit an R32.

I did some research, considering you have a neo engine, how is that battery compatible? I checked centuries website and super cheap and says it's not compatible. Only this full size one is. https://www.centurybatteries.com.au/products/ns60-mf

18 minutes ago, silviaz said:

I did some research, considering you have a neo engine, how is that battery compatible? I checked centuries website and super cheap and says it's not compatible. Only this full size one is. https://www.centurybatteries.com.au/products/ns60-mf

The engine has nothing to do with it.

The physical space behind the headlight is the limiting factor. And the height. The height of the NS70 is the same as stock. So the clamp bar across the top goes on nice. The battery tray is big enough for it to sit on. The X is for extra capacity - it has even more lead in it than the non-X NS70. Heavy f**ker. But it's not a track car, so I will suffer a couple of extra kg.

In the case of the R34, maybe the physical space there is not as deep (forward-backward, not up down). Hence why they say the 60 is the biggest.

But I would never trust a catalogue to tell me what will fit. I have the car. I have the existing battery. I have the tape measure. I have the dimensions of all the available batteries. I find the biggest box that will go in. (With the right terminals in the right places, of course).

 

  • Like 2
50 minutes ago, GTSBoy said:

The engine has nothing to do with it.

The physical space behind the headlight is the limiting factor. And the height. The height of the NS70 is the same as stock. So the clamp bar across the top goes on nice. The battery tray is big enough for it to sit on. The X is for extra capacity - it has even more lead in it than the non-X NS70. Heavy f**ker. But it's not a track car, so I will suffer a couple of extra kg.

In the case of the R34, maybe the physical space there is not as deep (forward-backward, not up down). Hence why they say the 60 is the biggest.

But I would never trust a catalogue to tell me what will fit. I have the car. I have the existing battery. I have the tape measure. I have the dimensions of all the available batteries. I find the biggest box that will go in. (With the right terminals in the right places, of course).

 

Ah right that makes sense.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...