Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Is the inlet temperature sensor part of the AFM? It makes sense that it would be, since it measures the temperature difference in airflow to send the signal to the ECU. On my PowerFC diagnostic screen, it has "---" for the inlet temperature.

Does this mean it's not getting the signal at all? Is there any reason why the AFM would work but not send the temperature, because it otherwise seems to work fine (response, power, etc). If the sensor is attached elsewhere or if there is a common reason why it wouldn't be showing me the inlet temp, can someone please advise? I think this is the main source of my crap fuel economy, if it thinks the engine is always cold it'd be like driving around with the choke constantly on!

Edit: I should note, I have installed a Q45 AFM and re-wired the plug as per instructions I found here awhile back. I did it all over a year ago so don't ask me what I wired up to what :P I spliced it into the loom so that it still has the original plug, but tucked up out of the way and insulated. Is it possible I did something wrong there?

Edited by JimX
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/95993-inlet-temperature-sensor-not-working/
Share on other sites

do you have an r32 gtst with the AP PFC model, or a gtr with a pfc?

They remap a 32 gtr PFC to use on the 32 gtst, and the r32 gtst doesnt have the inlet sensor (std in a gtr) so it normally shows ---.

You can wire in a sensor though and it will display the inlet temp :P

edit / inlet sensor is located in the inlet maniold near the throttle body

Edited by Bl4cK32

Ah right. Does it use the inlet temperature to adjust cold start fueling, or does it use the coolant temp? If the latter then I guess I don't need to install one. Otherwise where can I get one and how do I wire it in? I have an R33 GTS-t sorry (should have said in original post).

Ah ok. Thanks for all the info, I guess I'll put a priority on getting a new O2 sensor now. The economy has been steadily getting worse since I got it, and not all due to power mods. Light-footed highway driving should essentially be the same as it always was but it's not.

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...