Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

On 4/16/2025 at 6:33 AM, GTSBoy said:

Nah, it's different across different engines and as the years went on.

R32 era RB20, and hence also RB26, the TPS SWITCH is the idle command. The variable resistor is only for the TCU, as you say.

On R33 era RB25 and onwards (but probably not RB26, as they still used the same basic ECU from the R32 era), the idle command is a voltage output of close to 0.45V from the variable resistor.

R33 with RB26 seems to go off of learned voltage for idle. Seemed like whatever the baseline voltage was once ECU first gains power will be the idle voltage. With ignition on unplug/replugging the TPS would relearn the idle TPS voltage.

Edited by joshuaho96

I dunno. I just go off what I know works. On RB20, the idle switch meant something to the ECU and the potentiometer was ignored.

In Nistune, with the switch unplugged, you could bridge the terminals in the loom connector and see IDLE come on and off. Not so by moving the pot.

The R32 RB20 ECU and the 26 ECU both look like this.

image.png

Sure there is the "throttle sensor" (pot) on pin 38, and also sure, the idle switch is also directly wired to the TCU, whereas the pot is only directly conected to the ECU. But I am sure that the throttle position from the pot is passed to the TCU across the data bus on pins 21, 22 & 31. Maybe the ECU likes to know throttle position, but it sure as hell doesn't use it to determine the idle condition.

Meanwhile, on the later engines, like the 33 25DET and my Neo, you remove the TPS and move the pot to-from the 0.45V position, and IDLE comes and goes in Nistune. No throttle switch on the ECU diagram. Just the pot.

19 hours ago, MBS206 said:

Have you confirmed the 2 pin coolant temp sensor on the motor is working properly?

I've had a very similar issue when I forgot to plug mine back in many years ago.

Same thought crossed my mind ~ depends on how one connotes 'stalling'...ie; gets a rough/stumbling idle as it get warm until it stalls... or... idles ok and simply falls-over when it gets to temp...

...you can test the whole circuit with a couple of resistors ...unplug coolant temp sensor, bridge terminals with a 2K7 resistor (ECU will do cold start), or with engine warm bridge with a 330R resistor (ECU will consider engine to be at normal operating temp)...it's a quick way to check wiring integrity/ECU response when you don't have a multimeter handy ...

  • Like 1

Duh... to answer my own silly question, it's actually described in the FSM...

spacer.png

...400 pages away at the end of the manual, for RB25DE/DET signal descriptions, it cites the TPSwitch signal action, is dependent on the TPSensor value ~ this tends to infer the builtin POT voltage signal is the primary, and the switches are fallback/secondary should the POT fail/TPSensor signal lost (and switch alone with no TPSensor signal allows for base idle speed setting).... makes sense... they (TPS units) used to fail/wear the POT with time, they're not exactly built to last ~ having the switch as a redundancy gets around this...(or, it's less likely both signals would be lost as they're on different power rails)... and of course wrt RB26DETT, you have to electrically disconnect the IACV solenoid from the harness, to defeat idle air control...  

21 hours ago, GTSBoy said:

I dunno. I just go off what I know works. On RB20, the idle switch meant something to the ECU and the potentiometer was ignored.

In Nistune, with the switch unplugged, you could bridge the terminals in the loom connector and see IDLE come on and off. Not so by moving the pot.

The R32 RB20 ECU and the 26 ECU both look like this.

image.png

Sure there is the "throttle sensor" (pot) on pin 38, and also sure, the idle switch is also directly wired to the TCU, whereas the pot is only directly conected to the ECU. But I am sure that the throttle position from the pot is passed to the TCU across the data bus on pins 21, 22 & 31. Maybe the ECU likes to know throttle position, but it sure as hell doesn't use it to determine the idle condition.

Meanwhile, on the later engines, like the 33 25DET and my Neo, you remove the TPS and move the pot to-from the 0.45V position, and IDLE comes and goes in Nistune. No throttle switch on the ECU diagram. Just the pot.

I should try the experiment you're talking about, the throttle switch is still there carried over from the R32 and it's still all wired up but after I did the whole intake manifold refurb and had to recalibrate the TPS I managed to somehow get the idle switch reporting activation at 0.22V, then when I adjusted it to 0.45V for idle it decided the engine was permanently no longer idling which caused some very weird behavior, closed loop idle was disabled so it would basically be at the whims of the cold start valve and whatever the base timing table was at. Then just unplugging/replugging the TPS with the ECU live caused it to relearn the idle TPS position and decide 0.45V was idle. Presumably there's nothing in the TPS that allows for the throttle switch to "recalibrate" like that, not easily at least.

  • 1 month later...

Hey all,

It's been a bit since I have been able to update.  I pulled the fuel pump, first off it was a "universal" pump and the strainer was very clogged, and it was folded over on itself.  I replaced the fuel pump and all is well....  No more stalling.

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...