Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, just wanted to pick your brians and get some advice.

my 1995 R33 Gtst runs great. my mods are 3.5" xforce turbo back exhaust, gfb stealth fx bov, apexi power intake, just jap FMIC, power fc.

i just had the O2 sensor replaced and also had the injectors cleaned a little while ago.

but im still only getting 250 to 350 kms per 60litres of BP ultimate. i went for a highway drive to noosa and the best i got on a tank was 500kms. i would expect more than that.

on average its about 15L/100kms. not very good imho.

i am running 205rwkws and 13psi of boost.

given the new o2 sensor and supposedly cleaned injectors, where should i be looking to solve this issue???

any specialists you recomend?

thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/156260-help-needed-with-fuel-consumption/
Share on other sites

Keep off the throttle.

Use the power, and you'll use the fuel. Simple as that.

There's lots of previous threads (hint: try the search function) about fuel economy/usage. I have logged an arithmetic average over 15000km of 7.4km/l

Gentle highway running, rolling on/off throttle and keeping out of boost I can sneak up to 9.5, and extended fast running with hard acceleration and big throttle opening + boost runs it down to under 6.0

Most likely nothing inherently wrong with your car, but that's what they do.

^ I think he's got a power fc.... :ninja:

so about 13.5L/100km's Dale? interesting way of quoting economy figures... most people will understand litres per 100km's..

If you're not giving it a lot of stick, 15L/100km is quite high...

Trust me man, thats pretty normal, especially if ur in the inner suburbs, where its very stop start.

If u wanted to conserve fuel, i would suggest that u keep ur car in the 2 - 3000 rpm range and off boost so the engine is not under load, and use 5th gear on highways and freeways

off boost my 300rwkw rb30det does 11.7 litres per hundred (meassured by the RTA at an emissions test) but as soon as i go into boost it will go up to around 20 litres per hundred or more.

But i tuned the power fc myself to get that

Edited by Guilt-Toy

dude, i dont think you can do much better than that

i have exactly the same specs, and i get about 350k/s a tank around town

and about 550 on the highway

doesnt matter whether i baby it off boost the whole tank or not

any money says when you reverse, you can smell fuel also

ive replaced my o2 sensor, had the car retuned by matty spry (he said the original tune wasnt that bad anyway)

made a tiny difference (went from 300ks a tank to 350)

i think r33s are just thirsty cars

oh i have a 80ml throttle body as well on a forward facing plenum

Guys i appreciate the replays...thanks for that.

for the record so you guys know...

i do have a power fc and it was tuned by Tunehouse in marrickville.

i live in marrickville and work in botany with plenty of city driving, so i guess thats not helping at all.

i still would have thought for a 2.5l engine that it would/could have better fuel economy than that even with a tune and some power mods.

i guess my goal would be 400kms per tank around the city and 600kms per tank on the open road...

I agree with Taso84, if you have a heavy foot and always coming on boost etc you'll get shit fuel economy.. i had 300km per full tank when my car was tuned with my safc... but that was cos i was always trying to come on full boost every gear lol when i cruise and change at around 3-4k i get 400km a full tank and my car is running so rich at the moment and i'm really suprised i get 400k's..

Just depends on setup, ecu tune and the way you drive is most important.. besides rb25's are known to drink a bit of fuel aswell... its a 6 cyl turbo after all..

1) check 02 sensor on SENSOR SW / CHECK - see if its working - if not replace it

2) check cruise AFRS (not max load on the dyno, cruise afts) - if they are about right then its ok, if they are rich, lean them out a bit

3) make sure 02 feedback is on

4) drive normally, dont keep going on and off the throttle or boosting up the engine

1) has just been replaced and is working according to sensor check

2) what is rich and how do i lean them out?

3) feedback is on

4) i have a mixed driving habit at this point in time...

I have the same problem in an R34 GTT, I get about 280-330km per tank highway (and I live inner city), and about 480km max ont he highway.

I replaced my o2 sensor with zero improvement. I brought a PFC which is on its way to me (mostly to hopefully improve fuel economy).

I really hope the PFC helps considerably with a good tune. It seems some other people are getting 400-450km's per tank when driving around the city with their RB25DET's.

I have *tried* driving off boost and more carefully which does improve consumption slightly, but the difference is not that great so I would rather just drive it to have more fun ;)

It is obvioulsy running a bit rich as the rear ends up covered in a fine layer of sooty crap, although its not as bad as many of the cars out there (ie I don't really notice black smoke pouring out the back under hard throttle).

I just find it hard to beleive that a car made in 98 (and its the Neo which is supposed to be even more fuel efficient) would use so much fuel for the level of performance it puts out. When compared to some V8's with comparable power mine uses way more!

^ so about 13.5L/100km's Dale? interesting way of quoting economy figures... most people will understand litres per 100km's..

If you're not giving it a lot of stick, 15L/100km is quite high...

Had to go check my spreadsheet. It's actually 7.6km/l which equates to 13.1 l/100km. That is the arithmetic average (mean) rather than the median.

I use km/l which is a measure of consumption, whereas l/100km is a measure of economy. Splitting hairs really because they just represent the same thing differently. FWIW, I also use the same spreadsheet to calculate the cost/km. :angry:

For a 1400kg car with somewhere in excess of 200rwkW, and self tuned light load AFR of a consistent 14.6 - 14.8:1 I'd still consider the figures pretty damn good. We are using a machine with basic mechanical and electronic engineering well over 15 years old. Not good to try and compare with what is currently on the new car market, but interesting. Remember we are driving a car that is a grand tourer, not an economy box; the figures are consistent, and still pretty good. :huh:

Edited by Dale FZ1

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...