Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

My reverse lights don’t work. There was only one fuse blown in the car and it was a/t control fuse what ever that is but I replaced it Incase it had something to do with it and they still don’t work.

i then checked the globes and they look fine, just a bit of rust in the plug the globe sits in. I then checked to see if power was getting to the connector in the boot and still nothing. So I believe it’s the reverse light switch, however I can’t find it. Is it on the side of the gearbox or is it built into the auto selector? Can anyone guide me in the right direction please.

thanks

1 hour ago, GTSBoy said:

a/t means Automatic Transmission. A good clue that something is f**ked down there. You don't blow fuses for no reason.

Have you tried searching for "reverse switch auto" on here?

Previous owner did a trans swap because it was bad so I’m assuming/hoping it blew from the old one. As for searching on here I can only find things relating to people doing auto to manual swaps and having trouble with wiring. All I really want is just to know where the location of the switch is so I can test it.

14 minutes ago, Rusty Nuts said:

If you had just followed the advice that GTSBoy had given you the fourth entry of the search gives you the answer.

The fourth one for me shows a guy wanting to connect the wires from an auto box look to a manual box. Is the plug in a different location on the automatic transmission and is the trans the same on the r33 as the r32? If that’s not the right one could you link me the one you are talking about?

  • 2 weeks later...

I still can’t find this stupid reverse switch. I did also find out it has 5 gears which makes it a Re5R01a, not sure if that makes a difference in the location or not but there is very limited info on this so I might just end up taking it to a professional seeing as how retarted I am

3 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

I would strongly suggest, that like most early automatics, the reverse switch is bundled up with the inhibitor switch in the shifter.

Like as in it’s inside the car? Not under or screwed in the side of the trans?

This is why my fuses kept blowing. I ended up putting a bigger fuse in and ran it until something started smoking, And well the dash is the last place I expected. I replaced the part as I was lucky enough to have a second one laying around. Everything works fine now.

FFC58F06-1982-4725-BDA8-A04CD5E43558.jpeg

5D1D11F2-0A21-436D-86DB-E1A1E45D3DB3.jpeg

Edited by Steem
3 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

As a diagnostic tool, despite it revealing your problem, I find it horrifying.

Yes I agree it’s not the best way but I have spent too long trying to fix this with little tools I have. It was a last resort. But I also want to thank you for your help with both problems I have posted here, I really appreciate it

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...