Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

u could just tell us what causes bad fuel economy

I have two thoughts now, if your afrs are near on that 12.

The 12s are on WOT tune, so everything in between that and idol sucks ducks nuts. meaning drinking fuel as you dont drive round with your foot flat all the time.

2nd thing could be a fuel leak still, which would mean it could still be tuned properly. Just the fuel isnt all making it to the engine.

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

yer, it doesnt seem to matter whether i boost it or not, my economy is still bad

which leads me to think its something else

i would hope that the tune was done propperly, coz it cost a f**king fortune, surely i shouldnt have to tell my tuner to tune not just for WOT but for normal driving as well????

the economy was bad with the stock ecu anyway, so im pretty sure that the tune, while it may not be helping, isnt the issue

there is always a strong fuel smell when i reverse, but i can never smell fuel in the boot area after running the car

im interested in the evaporation issue the aussie fuel filler/nossle issue that was bought up before, and i pm'd the guy from nissan silvia who fixed his economy by replacing his charcoal cannister (he reckons he did nothing else) so, im going to hook mine up again also

my o2 sensor is brand new

ive had a heap of fuel hoses replaced as it was discovered that they were perishing (along with every other hose in my engine bay that ive had replaced)

this problem just seems to common, so many of us suffer from such bad economy

i want to know what causes it and how to fix it

spook i have no canister and i can get a bit over 400km with normal driving (which includes a bit of boost)

i got 350km last tank and that included a whole lot of boosting over glorious

can you pull up o2 sensor readings on your pfc? have you cleaned your afm recenty?

yer, ive been watching the o2 sensor readings on the hc

seems to be working correctly

i havent cleaned my afm

woudl it being dirty affect its readings?

ill check and see what sort of voltages its reading;

Maybe get a PFC retune?? My new car has a PFC and I get awesome ecconomy (411ks out of 35 L ;) ) The new car gets no fuel smell at all where as the R33 you could smell it all the time (Stock ECU) I think engine managment would be the main factor that effects fuel ecconomy

damn, some of these posts are crazy, the other day i got 350km with 36litres, and i have a stock ecu, with other mods, i have a power fc waiting to go in, these posts are sorta scaring me puting it in and tuning it :)

Spooks,

Go back to MM and get them to look at it firstly. I think that you should give them an opportunity to explain.

On a side note I had my PFC tuned there and am quite happy with the fuel economy, granted I mainly drive it on weekends and it is warmed up before every drive and then cooled down...

yer, im not convinced its the tune

fuel economy was bad before the pfc (350ks to a tank, with just exhaust, dump pipe, fmic and plenum)

im going to get my mechanic to check a few things out for me next service and see what he comes up with

then im going to get in touch with elite and see what he says

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

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...