Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi i recently got my Ps and started driving my 92 R32 GTS25 by myself and i have filled up twice now and i think im getting really bad fuel economy. Im a pertty big noob when it comes to cars so i couldnt really tell u wat mods i got. Both times i did around 320 km per full 60L tank and i asked a few ppl and their gtrs do better then that so im just wondering if there is anything wrong and if your guys got any suggestions thx

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/106384-r32-fuel-economy/
Share on other sites

Such a large factor with fuel ecconomy is dependant on how the individual drives the vehicle...

e.g. Car: R32 GTS-t

Mods: Lots...

Good week at work, 400kms easily...

Sh*t week at work - girlfriend - momentary fits of rage, 253kms (and own PB)

It really does depend mate... also, mods? Any? It's an RB25, and you might have your lead shoes on...

But around the 330 - 400 mark I think you'll find is pretty stock standard.

Cheers. :unsure:

Do a major service on your car, something sounds wrong on yoursl ...my r32 na does way better than that on a full tank like 400-500+kms., with the occasional flooring it lol.....

some advise, watch your fuel guage when driving normaly, then watch it when you floor it a few times the fuel guage shows how much you really use when doing that.

Edited by NeesaanGTS
auto rb25t with 190rwkws and i get 370 to 450 from 60l champ

thats 15L/100km ! thats hardly good either..

acidkid: if yours is auto that could explain a lot.. seems like economy on the autos is quite a bit worse than the manual.

I get something like 130 - 140 klms per 15 litres for my manual r33 - Though just today i got 120 in about 20 ltrs ( but thats cos I had a full tank, and i was demonstrating the turbo for a couple of my friends).

who cares about fuel economy, you drive a skyline not a toyota echo,

if i want fuel economy i wouldnt be driving a skyline,

enjoy it while petrol is still affordable, theres less and less oil in the world, in 10 years time we'll prob be paying $2- $3 a litre

yeah. at the start of each tank i've been known to say many a time "okay, no hooning it for the whole tank to see how many Ks you can get" ... well, that plan always goes out the window.

i get a bit over 300km to the tank most of the time. i should change these o2 sensors like everyone says! i have trained myself to always just put it in neutral down hills and rolling toward the lights though.

my car is r34 gt4

i got 21 litre per 100 km

i think it's very bad

i already check once by maintenance man. they check exhaust emission. and said no any problem...

i want to know: how to check o2 sensor? and can inject oil to tank fix problem?

i bought this car form japan, nobody driver it in nearly half year, is this reason for fuel problem?

Hi i recently got my Ps and started driving my 92 R32 GTS25 by myself and i have filled up twice now and i think im getting really bad fuel economy. Im a pertty big noob when it comes to cars so i couldnt really tell u wat mods i got. Both times i did around 320 km per full 60L tank and i asked a few ppl and their gtrs do better then that so im just wondering if there is anything wrong and if your guys got any suggestions thx

if your car was turbo i would say that u should be able to get more but NA you should definately be getting more, probably should be closer to 450. Definately get it checked out by an EFI diagnostic center.

Edited by RRR32_GoDzIlLa
yeah. at the start of each tank i've been known to say many a time "okay, no hooning it for the whole tank to see how many Ks you can get" ... well, that plan always goes out the window.

i get a bit over 300km to the tank most of the time. i should change these o2 sensors like everyone says! i have trained myself to always just put it in neutral down hills and rolling toward the lights though.

If you put it in neutral that would use more fuel according to my understanding.

When you put it in neutral the motor has to dump fuel in to stop the car from stalling. If you are rolling down a hill or rolling towards the lights in gear you are using less fuel because your motor is turning itself from the momentum of your wheels. I think most ECUs cut fuel on deacceleration.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

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

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...