Good on you Einstein. You just posted up a duty cycle graph which alone is about as useful as a kent full of cold water as supporting evidence to you..."argument"!!! Perhaps in your zeal to debunk, along with blowing significant levels of sunshine up the areses of your peers, the Nissan "injunears", you might have posted up a graph showing dwell TIME against coil current. Now that might have been some useful supporting documentation. So you, as an injunear, believe that it was a chosen path, injunearing wise, to place heat and vibration prone electronic components onto a heat cycled and vibration prone platform in the path of air heated to around 100deg.C do you......? Really now. You cannot see that as expediency and convenience which easily saves a significant length of wire, insulation and some additional fasteners. Along with simpler assembly. These cars are not some hand assembled collectors item. They are mass produced and under the same constraints as anything else mass produced. Individually, nothing of much consequence but in the scheme of a production run of cars over 10/15 years amounts to several million dollars......? Do NOT ever think this kind of planned redundancy does not happen. Sorry injunear, despite you best intentions, there are far more sinister powers at work. THAT is another story. If you believe some R&D department actually R&D'd these relatively delicate electronic components onto an abusive (electronic wise) environment deliberately, then indeed you are stupider than you first sound. Perhaps leave the practical stuff to us "nuts and bolts" men that you injunears usually ignore, or at best look down you noses at and dismiss as slightly eccentric, grubby handed buffoons who are decicated to interfering with, and kyboshing your precious designs that are almost universally compromised anyway by economic factors deemed necessary by the bean counters way over your heads rather than by sound engineering/mechanical practise which is the basement area us "nuts and bolts" men like to inhabit. Dum-dee deeeeeh!!!!! E
I just used the kit from CZP, including S2 PTU, mounting plate and adapter harness. http://www.conceptzperformance.com/...Type=NIS300&UID=20130315202515101.171.127.231 It is $168 for new parts, versus $50-$100 for second hand PTU/plugs, you will also need to rewire plugs, relocate and or make a mounting plate. I went with the reliable tested plug and play solution, as a preventative measure, my old PTU seemed to be working fine, it know sits on the shelf as a ready swap out for diagnostic purposes, using the adapter harness allows a quick swap if need be.
Rather than ranting and raving, waving your arms about, patting yourself on the back whilst insulting and criticising others, try to intelligently and calmly discuss what it is you do not agree with. I will be more than happy to accommodate you.
another point that is probably worth mentioning that there is ample wire length in the harness for relocation of the PTU to underneath the nose panel, or adjacent to the passenger side Relay/Fuse box. Loom has to be peeled back and separated from the CTS and Cluster temp sender unit, roughly to where the CAS branches off. Retape and then re-route.
Apart from the "intelligently and calmly discuss" part, I dont see any of the issues listed here... I was singing at the end of my dissertation.....lawl! E
Regarding PTU relocation, I'm making a loom from sctarch and thinking of having the PTU next to the ECU in the passenger foot well area, any thoughts on this from anyone? I gather the length of wire from the PTU to coilpacks is not really critical. Is this right?
id consider keeping the PTU a fair way away from the ECU Pete. Keep induced rf down to a minimum. Is what Id do neway. E
Fair nuff, no doubt when I've got the engine bay back together there'll be plenty of places to keep it safe in there. In my road car it's in the battery compartment and doing fine there.
Ummm, Brisz and Tass, this started, and can still be a really good post about one of the shortcomings of the Z32. You are both obviously knowledgeable, and even though you have different points of view, this topic can still be kept clean and on topic, to the benefit of all Zedders. Can we get back on topic and not get personal, even if we agree to disagree? My personal experience is that the original PTU suffered from mechanical faliure of the friction welded joins of the wires from the thick film circuit to the terminals, or from corrosion failure of the plug and socket terminals. I have never seen a failure of the thick film hybrid circuit itself. The CZP upgrade kit is a very cost effective upgrade (I've used it), but obviously it won't fix plug/socket related faults. Whether the original design PTU fails due to heat cycles, vibration or poor quality friction welds, I dunno. I suspect the latter.
My PTU is in the passenger footwell under the wood panel. No idea if it's messing with the ecu through induced rf or anything (I wouldn't know what problems to look out for) . It was originally a s1 PTU, which hasn't failed yet but I've swapped to a s2 now.
Many have moved the PTU already Many have moved the PTU to a position in front of the radiator for good reason. Whilst the issue is fairly minimal in terms of effect - Less Vibration and RF induction from the engine components and more cooling is not a bad thing when it comes to electronics. As for moving the PTU closer to the ECU or any other engine RF emitters like alternator, coils etc. seems a bit silly. Whilst it wont make a huge difference (remember the peter brock RF eliminator box didn't make a noticeable difference when fitted - lol), it will still make a difference and a clean signal is always better in the long run for a car than it is not. Multiple Grounding Systems are no different (unless of course you had a bad grounding in the first place), but nevertheless eliminating voltage potential difference means the car will run better even if not noticeable, as many engine devices like the CAS are very subsceptible to RF induction and voltage potential difference. :zlove:
The ignition/spark plug leads are of very low resistance (Approx 0.5 Ohm). What I found odd was that I could not get a resistance/continuity for the secondary winding. Rather, there appears to be some capacitance??? Neither of which seem to be accounted for in any of the circuit diagrams??????
It was a past owner that moved it. Might have been done when the car was converted from auto to manual.
:bash::bash::bash: The resistance of the secondary winding. There is no connection. I have measured the secondary winding resistance on several coils we have here. Including that from ecotec which is also DFI. And they all give a reading. The Z must have a built in capacitance. I'm so sorry if this sounds stupid. And that some of you think I must be some kind of idiot because I cannot use a multimeter or something. But I believe this to be fact, albeit new information to me. If I connect the output terminal of the coil to 12 volts. I get a voltage drop of approx 2.6V across secondary winding. Ie. At 8Kohm. 0.325mA.
So from what information I have been able to gather. What I should have said is there "appears" to be no connection. And rather than capacitance, "spark suppression" of some kind. Ie But like I said this is all new information to me. And AFAIK this is not exactly common knowledge. So rather than just poking fun at me. If you know exactly what is going here. Perhaps you could shed some light on the matter. www.littlediode.com/datasheets/pdf/Datasheets-BU9/BU941P.PDF
Yes good point. Original S1 failures could have been due to a bad batch in manufacturing which compounded a less robust design. Hence leading to the S2 and recall. Interesting that they didn't recall here. My Zed had a failed S1, the Nissan dealer insisted on sourcing a S1 replacement because the S2 was found not to fit. Charged more to fit the S1 because it was more difficult to source and the Nissan price was more expensive. (Recall note was only for US) Obviously didn't notice that there was an upgrade kit.
Well it is all a "packaging" solution at some point by engineering. The different location in an RB means that there was a different solution, drawing from that that heat is not an issue is drawing a very long bow, I think you will find airflow back there will be much better in a straight six Skyline then a V6 Z32 (this comes back to what we know about the Z32 engine bay), looks like a reasonably cool spot to me. I too am not a fan of moving the PTU, modifying often brings problems of its own and now that you have exited the knowledge base of 1000's of cars you are practically on your own, just fixing the car is all that is required, put down the blue anodised catalogue, restrain from aiming for "there I fixed it with a solution far better then many smart men" delusions. Point in case, a PTU relocation "tech article" from our very own tech section. :rofl: http://www.pexcom.com.au/z32cms/e107_plugins/content/content.php?cat.170 Sorry links dont seem to work to our "tech" section, search PTU (option 3) to see full article. Note the picture of the PTU strapped to the MAF harness. If you look at the wiring diagram in the FSM you will see a dotted "pipe" that is a shield designed to limit inducted interference from other signals in the engine bay, hopefully it is doing a good job shielding the MAF signal from PTU interference, or is it, I would expect possible symptoms to be hunting stumbling etc, or there could just be reduced performance due to "safe" calculations by the ECU.
OK, I'm that much of a joke as an engineer. But you could not tell me the resistance of the spark plug leads back here when I asked the first time. Irrespectively, I have measured the resistance anyway. Which is negligible. Which tells me that Nissan have done nothing here, in terms of high tension resistance, to reduce RFI. Although the insulation and nature of "Coil Over Plug" ignition would to an extent, reduce RFI. COP ignition reducing RFI from high tension leads mainly because they are so short. Also that Tas must be correct in saying the PTU reduces RFI. Again, evident due to the non-requirement for condenser(s) in this part of the system. Now going back to the resistance of the secondary winding. I do believe I have found the reason for my initial mistake. If you apply 12V to the ground terminal of the secondary winding. And attempt to measure the voltage at the output terminal. It will be 0V. However if you apply 12V to the output terminal and measure the voltage at the ground terminal. Now, initially I stated 2.6V but upon double checking with the input voltage (actually 12.37V battery in this case). I have found the drop in voltage to measure 2.84V. Where I have gone wrong is: 1. As most of my electrical qualifications are actually in electronics. I am used to dealing with diodes of forward voltages <0.7V; 2. My multimeter tests for diodes of forward voltage up to 2.9V. Well actually it displays "2.907V". Now if I attempt to measure Vf of a diode the wrong way around. It will still display "2.907V". Usually if I measure the Vf of a diode the correct way around. The multimeter will display "0.500V". Or whatever the Vf. Since the Vf of the secondary winding is around 2.84V at this power. It would make sense to me that at higher power the Vf of the secondary winding must be around 2.9V. So when I measure it with my multimeter. I am getting very little difference in the reading the correct and/or incorrect way around. Ie. "2.904-2.905V" as opposed to "2.907V". Ie. A subtle difference of a couple of mV. All very interesting, not really. All common knowledge to good Auto Electrician, most likely.
