Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

on most cars there is still a good 10-15L in the tank when the light comes on

its always interesting to fill up when the light is on - count the litres and see how much u had left in the tank - makes it pretty easy to work out

yeh i get told some ppl can do another 100km on their tank when light comes on, so me thinking it was a good idea to drive around a lil more b4 filling up, only went like 30-40 km, was thinkin 50 would be the limit... went around the corner, and it started chugging like it was about to stop :rant:, lucky this was at 1am at night, and in kalgoorlie (country town) everything is pretty close, i just babied her at like 20kmh to the petrol station... $110 later she was full again :D

The fuel gauge on the R34 must be very cautious! When my fuel light first comes on I still have over 20L in the tank.

So on 45L I do 450km, theoretically if I drove it till she was dry (20L = 210km) I'd get about 660km out of a tank?

Holy jeebus.

Edited by Lithius
The fuel gauge on the R34 must be very cautious! When my fuel light first comes on I still have over 20L in the tank.

So on 45L I do 450km, theoretically if I drove it till she was dry (20L = 210km) I'd get about 660km out of a tank?

Holy jeebus.

660km? thats awesome i only do nearly 400km on a full thank...

in the pulsar I could drive for ages on the fuel light, it was really conservative.

in my R33, even once the fuel light comes on it goes back off occasionally as the fuel moves around (going up hills or down hills or whatever).

however, during this on/off phase i fuel-surged going around a corner so now I fill up as soon as the low fuel light comes on. not worth the risk on a turbo motor, unless you drive like a grandma with the fuel light on.

660km? thats awesome i only do nearly 400km on a full thank...

i did manage 657K's out of my last tank and felt it was time to fill up but only refilled with 59L. I'm on target for at least 640K's on this current tank of fuel.

I was always told it is bad to run right to the bottom of the tank, cos you pick up all the stuff that normally sits in the bottom....I had issues with my commodore a while back with fuel pumps shittng themselves because of excess buildup of sludge and crap in the bottom of the tank....

Just curious, 10KM from a servo that's all...

What's the furtherest you have had the balls to push it when the empty light is on?

I once had a 1.3L 16V manual Charade two door that I did this very test on- One time, I drove for 180km from the needle touching the 'E' mark to when the car started to sputter and I pulled into a servo. I still can't believe I didn't have to push it :cool: Very economical little cars.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...