Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

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.

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!

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?

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...

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

    • 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...