Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey been trying to replace this part but not sure what it is called, looks to me like a heater tap but the auto shops never have a listing for one. Is it an actual mechanical part or is it just a hose connector?

Its in the centre of the picture with the 4 hose inlets/outlets

Screenshot_20211201-215853_Chrome.jpg

On 12/1/2021 at 6:39 PM, Dontspankmabitchup said:

No shit? So I can just replace it with regular metal hose connectors and be done with it? 

I'm pretty sure, but keep in mind 08/1993 to 02/1994 there's a heater control valve part listed as a part of those hose connectors. No idea why and when I go to search up the part number I can't find any photos of it. The english name used is pretty funny so it leads to some jokes on old forums but not much else. I don't know how necessary it is considering how the BCNR33 doesn't have any mention of a heater control valve at all. The BNR32 has a heater control valve that stops the flow of coolant right at the heater core inlet and a water sensor approximately in the same spot as where the heater core bracket is for the R33s. The BCNR33 part diagram for the same parts shows nothing, which implies to me that coolant is always circulating through the heater core.

On 12/1/2021 at 8:32 PM, Dontspankmabitchup said:

Alright ill bypass it and if doesn't blow hot air constantly ill assume all is good. Maybe the constant flow is why the heater cores always rot out... Or to prevent it?

It probably makes the hose barbs that are plastic that much more fragile over time but keeping the coolant circulating is probably a good thing.

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...