Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  williamsf1 said:
does anyone here honestly care about fuel economy???

if you do, and you own a big 6 turbo car ( GTR in my case ) you own the wrong car!!!

I couldnt care less how much fuel is! if your that concerned about MPG, get a getz or a jazz! lol... or even a very sporty toyota hybrid .. errr!

so seriously, yes V power racing is a good pump fuel, infact it is less than 2% off the best power we got on MARTINI 110!

so at $7 per ltr V $1.50 it is a good bang for your buck :ermm:

but you cant get it here in SA .... yet :geek:

so the fuel to have currently? BP98....

Well you've obviously got too much money running out your ears mate, pass some here will ya :laugh:.

Why spend more money on fuel than you have to? My car runs better than it did before AND gives better economy as a result of the O2 sensor change plus I'm saving money on fuel at the same time, bonus all round.

12L/100km still isn't truely what I'd call economical relative to a Jazz Or a bloody Prius which uses barely half what my Skyline does, but the money I'm now saving on petrol will help pay for other things I do to the car, or whatever else. Bare minimum I will save over a year is about $600 (if I was to travel less than 300km a week, but I normally travel at least 350), not exactly loose change.

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

well i give it the thumbs up i think it cost 4c more than premium but its lasted longer based on...

i filled up the tank to the normal few clicks

ive done 208Kms and my fuel gauge hasnt moved , normally moves anywhere from 190km-200

ive driven with air-con on most of wednesdayh and part of thurs

and still giving it a heap

so whilst not driving like a grandma and using aircon ive gotton better economy

OT, but has anyone used Caltex's premium fuel - whatever its called (98ron?) one. I got a 40 fuel card from them given to me but going to use it in our work car unless there premium fuel is good enough for the skyline.....

Caltex don't have 98ron do they? Just the usual Vortex 95ron crap.

I tend to steer clear of 95 ron as its too 'on the edge' for even a stock rb20det. Stock being stock exhaust, boost, ic, airbox.

Years back on a cool day mine wouldn't take any ign (via the crude cas advance method), not 1 degree more as it would ping on a 25degree day.

Madaz, its definitely worth the extra $2 per tank to drop the 98ron stuff in. Especially during summer.

  chops said:
Not if you were going to buy something in the store anyway Joel.

One of the best things ever was getting the company car.

I haven't looked at the price of fuel in ages - when the weekender needs fuel it just gets it.

Sorry if that's rubbing things in.

couldn't agree more chops, love having the company car not having to worry about petrol. Funny thing though was when i got my company car the price of petrol went down to what it is now from the $1.45 mark it was!

  Madaz said:
how much was your new AFM Jared and is it a aftermarket sort or standard nissan one

Never changed the AFM mate, just the O2 sensor. Did I mention AFM?

  Cubes said:
Caltex don't have 98ron do they? Just the usual Vortex 95ron crap.

I tend to steer clear of 95 ron as its too 'on the edge' for even a stock rb20det. Stock being stock exhaust, boost, ic, airbox.

Years back on a cool day mine wouldn't take any ign (via the crude cas advance method), not 1 degree more as it would ping on a 25degree day.

Madaz, its definitely worth the extra $2 per tank to drop the 98ron stuff in. Especially during summer.

Caltex does sell a 98 octane fuel called Vortex 98 funnily enough. Not sure about availability in Adelaide though, I'm always going to BP.

My initial testing of V-Power...

These were my last economy figures on Ultimate 98.

13.70L/100km

14.97L/100km

14.57L/100km

14.87L/100km

This is the first fill up with V-Power.

13.08L/100km

I've also noticed no noticable power loss going from Ultimate to V-Power. Will have an updated economy figure in a week or so, that will help to confirm my results.

My car took 30 litres of V-Power to travel 190km, which is about 15.79L/100km.

3/4 city driving and 1/4 highway. Normal driving without much boosting/quick acceleration/etc, but I had to go up quite a lot of steep slopes and idle for quite some time (5-10 mins) occasionally.

Mods: RB25DET NEO, Spitfire coil packs, Apexi AFC NEO, FMIC, boost controller. Probably this is the reason why it's so high...

  Nozila said:
howie/shoebox - those fuel consumption figures you both getting are quite high even for the mods given especially shoebox's since you got afc to adjust your air/fuel.

I agree! I'll probably switch to Caltex or BP to compare after i finish this tank. I was expecting more like 11 or 12 litres per 100km...

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...