Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok silly question.

Has anybody got a squeek from the front somewhere they can hear when cruising along with the windows up and radio turned down. I reach around and play around with things underneath as I thought it might be something slightly loose. I dont think it is shocks or bushes as I cant here it with window down. And you can hear the noise if you turn the wheel and the power steer idle up cause the revs to jump a bit i.e causing a little vibration which trigggers the squeek/rattle.

Its hard to find as it is only really when you cruise around and seems like from drivers side.

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/63599-squeek-in-front-r33/
Share on other sites

I have the same problem. Its coming from the drivers side and sounds like its behind the dash somewhere possible in the engine bay. Its intermitant but i sounds like a squeeky spring on an bed. Its not too loud but you can hear it when cruising. I dont think its suspension or anything as it make that sound as soon as you start the car and are not moving. I been told to check tesion off the belts as they can make funny sounds and possibly put dry lube on them. Think i might go do that. :(

Bit of a long shot, but have you looked at the front bonnet rubbers? They are adjustable, and if old and over-compressed they don't provide enough support for the bonnet. Used to notice it on long drives (after at least an hour), drove me nuts till I worked it out. The old ones were so buggered I changed them, no noise since :headspin:

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...