Jump to content
SAU Community

Fuel Economy 33 34


Recommended Posts

hi, im looking to purchase an r33 or r34 (gtst and gtt respectively) in the near future. theres just a few questions i have which i couldnt find the answers for.

Which one has better fuel economy, in standard form (not looking for any beatings here), and how many k's will you get? my car gets 400km out of a 69L tank.

Which car responds better to cheap mods such as exhaust etc. my friend told me a mate of his put a cat bak zorst on his 33 and the car's fuel economy fell drastically (lost 100km per tank!)

Someone on here mentioned the neo engines weren't as good as the older engines, is there any proof of this?

the reason im leaning towards the r33 at the moment is because its cheaper and the fact that i've driven one before (a s1 though, looking to get a s2) and its a very driveable car.

the reason im leaning towards the r34 is because of the cleaner/nicer interior. both cars look pretty good in my eyes, also the r34 is less common.

sorry for the long post, but im trying to do my research as ill be looking to keeping the car for quite a while.

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been keeping a log of the amount of fuel i've been using this year in the R34. And so far it's 12.5 litres per 100km. This is mostly driving around victor with the occasional drive to adelaide and a bit of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cough..... well guess either my car is running soooo friging rich its not funny or im running about 1 bar boost on a practicaly stock car with no boost mods...

10psi an 9.8 per 100ks.... not likely......

5 psi > 14lt per 100 on a from mixed city mostly highway drive

parra cbd to home via freeway (misses) syd cbd to home via freeway with nothing much over 3-3.5k rpms.

always 98ron usualy vortex98 but occasionally bp98.

mods = 2.5" catback.... K&N replacement filter, new coilovers with awsome recoil and some struts, quickshift kit, so yea, no real power mods bar a little minor catback restriction. if i put the foot down a chunk more

average 14lt per 100kms

p.s. s2 r33 so not really the same compare to the r34's more efficient neo vct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats pretty bad hey. does modding it affect the fuel economy much. thinking in terms of pod, turbo back exhaust and running 12psi (thats what my friends sr20 is running)

I posted this question in the Maintenance forum a while back, and the general feeling is light modifications do nothing to your fuel economy. Look at stan (satanic) among others, they're getting around the same (13L) and they have alot more mods and power than my stockie. I guess if you want to control boost via your foot, you end up with roughly the same mileage out of a tank.

Having said that, on the stockie.. even with giving it some on cruises, i don't notice any increase in fuel usage. That might change when I wind up the boost eventually though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always got impression R34 drank more than R33... anyway mine (stock) got 430KMs with roughly about 18 litres left till the tank was dry. So in theory I could get to around 450 Kms and still have juice left. This was also when my tyres were 30 PSI, now they are 40 PSI I expect my economy to go up even more. (recommended is 36 PSI)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm, more boost = more fuel = less economy eh

just saying, in my experience with people what your friend said about 300kms to a FULL tank is about RIGHT on the money, i always read about people getting more but i've never actually seen it and i've talked to a few

I keep a log also but my log is on how much i put (l) vs how many k's i have done, hence why im saying 14l per 100 is about avg on my r33s2 on standard boost, newish plugs, some platinums though which are about 1000kms old now, replaced O2 sensor - 1300kms ago, hmmm there is one point that is interesting, I've never owned low profile's before, when I had them they were on 40psi - cold, which i thought was way to much with heat and expansion since the tyre itself says 50psi max rating, so i droped em to 32psi... wondering besides wearing my tyres differently aka the centre as opposed to evenly how much better fuel consumption ?

stands to some reason with less tyre on the road.

hmm whats optimum with low profile 18" for as close to flat for even wear as possible ??

*******

to avoid double post, reply above, vct should mean optimum air fuel mix for better power at all rpm, which should mean less overfueling and hopefully less underfuelling, guess it depends eh, figure at regular driving it would use less to get you around... but also with a horizontal loud pedal... probably more unless you have a non neo overfueling at high rpm rb25?

Edited by gts-4 dreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I constantly get 450 to 500km from a tank of fuel, stock other than turbo back exhaust. Alot depends on how you drive it, like any car really. Give it a boot full and yeah it will guzzle the go juice, but drive like a grandpa and you'll get more milage. I don't race on the street or drive at a million mile an hr, just going with the traffic and i usaully get 450km from a tank. i've got over 500 a couple of times but that was just seeing how much i could get without boosting it, drove sedately.

But then again i've got less then 300kms out of a tank full at some trackdays!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Perfect, will be back to update once the deed is done.
    • Scratchy scratchy with something sharp/pointy, and some contact cleaner/carby cleaner/degreaser/something.
    • Absolute legend, if I have time tonight she'll come out and will sus out if someone along the road has hamfisted anything to do with the pump. If the resistor is all gunked up how would you recommend cleaning it?
    • The ECU has nothing to do with the fuel gauge. Any observations you have made as a result of changing the ECU are meaningless and just coincidence. There is a variable resistor attached to a float in the fuel tank. The float sits near the bottom on an empty tank and floats up to the top on a full tank, dragging the contact up and down the variable resistor with it. If there is gunk on the resistor it can interfere with conductivity or it can jam the movement of the float (ie so that it hangs up at 25% instead of continuing to fall below that towards the bottom). It can also be a wiring problem caused by hamfisted fuel pump upgrades, or a mechanical problem caused by hamfisted fuel pump upgrades (ie, the hanging of a new fuel pump so that it interferes with the movement of the float). And the list of possible causes probably has a few other things that I can't be bothered to try to invent right now, but will likely have been experienced by others. Take the sender out and inspect.
    • Hey guys, have searched the internet all over and no one else has posted about this issue I'm having so here it goes. My fuel gauge was reading quarter full when it was actually empty, had a few other issues too and decided to swap to the proper ecu (had a nistune z32 ecu which came in the car) and now not only has the issue remained but it's actually gotten worse now reading half full when the gauge is 0. Anyone got any clue how to fix this? 
×
×
  • Create New...