Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I just wanted to find out what kind of fuel usage your getting out of the non turbo's. I used to own a non turbo R33 about 5 years ago and after owning 4 turbo Skylines I was thinking of going back to a non turbo R34. My non turbo days were so long ago that I can't remeber if it actually used less petrol than the turbo's.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/147763-non-turbo-fuel-economy/
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

I just wanted to find out what kind of fuel usage your getting out of the non turbo's. I used to own a non turbo R33 about 5 years ago and after owning 4 turbo Skylines I was thinking of going back to a non turbo R34. My non turbo days were so long ago that I can't remeber if it actually used less petrol than the turbo's.

it would use less fuel - but u will be missing out on performance

my girlfriend gets around 350 - 400km on a full tank? is there something wrong there? its a 97 gts-t.

(well it used to be turbo but she had to get the turbo removed - government restrictions.. but its going back on real soon!)

my girlfriend gets around 350 - 400km on a full tank? is there something wrong there? its a 97 gts-t.

(well it used to be turbo but she had to get the turbo removed - government restrictions.. but its going back on real soon!)

that sounds about rightish for a low compression na...

mine used to get 500+ easily... lately around 470, but its running rich and going into the mechanic soon.

Off boost at a cruising speed, a turbo car will generally be more fuel efficient than a NA car. OEMs tend to gear turbo cars to use that extra midrange torque.

Keep it off boost, and it'll be doing a lower RPM for that speed.

Of course, once you get up on boost its a different story.

mate, of course they do.

my best is 657Km's from 58L before the AAC valve decided to not play the game anymore.

Through this year the fuel light would come on between 510-520Kms and I would get between 110-120Kms (with the light on) before I would even look to fill up.

Your probably wondering how I have such high numbers? It's highway to work and back everyday and my car is still stock, well for the moment it is

Just don't bring the thing on boost!

My turbo R33 with exhaust, FMIC, a couple of other small things, will do 460km, and used 54litres,

Mind you, there was MANY a time I hit redline pushing 12PSi down it's throat, but alot of cruising off boost also.

Keep it under vacuum, use the natural "pull" of the motor, and it'll cruise efficiently, generally, when the car goes to "take off" after a couple of seconds, roll off the throttle slightly, or upshift. I keep mine below 2500 RPM for fuel economy. Otherwise, give it aboot full!

If worried on fuel economy, buy a 1990 Barina/Swift, drive it daily, get a hypo liner for the weekend warrior work.

I do about 13.5L/100k, the first time I filled up after my sparkies change.. i'm like 14.7L/100k.. no idea why.. I'll keep checking =)

it translate to about roughly 380km to 50L of petrol

maybe I should change my O2 sensor as well? wonder how much it'll cost..

cheers

o2 sensor will set you back $120ish for a direct replacement NTK one.

and about $50 (roughly) for a falcon el one, which you have to splice some wires etc.

i just replaced mine last month and sorted out an o2 sensor earth grounding issue... will update with proper km per L figures soon

maybe I should change my O2 sensor as well?

Make sure you do an O2 sensor diagnostic on your ECU first. I originally thought that my O2 sensor was a dud (poor economy), but after testing it i found it to be fine.

any hints on how to do it? =)

cheers

http://www.skylinesdownunder.com/forums/sh...light=ecu+codes

Theres some info if you sift through that thread. I found I could more accurately monitor my O2 sensor using my new consult cable (gives voltages) but this should still give you an indication if your o2 sensor is porked.

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...