Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

or you could go the 2.6L twin turbo option - though I dare say that would do SFA for the fuel econ debate haha

I've been giving this fuel economy issue a lot of thought since I bought the car....

I'm starting to think that the poor 2.5ltr RB25 just isn't enough motor to pull the S1+2 Stagea's around. Sure when the foots down they go quite well considering its a 2.5 6cyl pulling around that much weight but in normal light to medium throttle it just feels almost laggy until it builds up pace almost forcing you to use more throttle to get it going then easing off which is why the economy is so shit. The thing is I still love Stageas and I still think they are a really great package for a wagon. I mean with the right kit, wheels and suspension setup they look sexy and handle very well too but IMO as far as the powerplant goes it might just be an old school case of more cubes is better.....

Why didn't Nissan come up with the VQ series motors 10 years ago :)

Speaking in theory I wonder about the difficulties of fitting a 2JZ or even a VH45DE (if I got it right) or the soarer's V8 would go. Forgetting straight away about keeping the AWD or about being a patriot to Nissan just find a cost effective way to get more cubes (and still preferably being turbocharged) into the stagea and maybe ditching some weight along the way. May end up with a lighter car, with more power and HOPEFULLY more economy. And maybe an easier manual conversion too! This is just one of many ideas i've had floating around in my head and is a bit on the extreem side but I haven't ruled it out!

^^^^Wasn't actually serious about going ahead with such a conversion. Just pointing out that I think the stagea needed something with more CC's. But you could recoupe some of the cost by selling the gear that comes out of the car. To tell the truth I would probably still do it even if fuel economy didn't improve as I just think that the extra capacity could make it a better car to drive. But I guess you could just build a RB25/30 or RB26/30 combo too for that matter which would probably be a better option. But I just wanna hear a stagea V8 lol >_<

Well yeah if you wanted to keep the AWD then your only option for more capacity is to build an RB25/30. Would be the easiest way too I guess. But seeing as this thread is about fuel economy I would like to know wether having the extra low down power and off boost torque would save you on fuel as you shouldn't have to use as much throttle to get the car going. And I'm not talking about hanging huge turbo's off the side with massive injectors and fuel systems etc etc.

Maybe just a similar set up to what a lot of already got. Say full exhaust, highflowed turbo or something sensible (internal gated, bolt on job), fmic, fuel reg, pump, either piggy back or (if you went for a manual conversion at the same time) stand alone ecu and filter. With a good tune and moderate boost. Obviously there is still going to be some difference between those that keep the auto and those that don't.

This would only be worthwhile if you were planning to keep the car for some time (which I am) or if you have a future scope for big mods. As I would imagine building the engine would cost a bit, although if you just built it stock maybe not. Personally I don't plan on the car making that much power to justify internals being done. But I've heard that the adaptor plates for the sump etc are expensive and that apparently its easier to use a RB26 head (again expensive). Don't know how accuate either of those are. And is a 500cc difference going to make that big a difference. I've never driven a RB25 or 26 /30 combo before so I don't know. A 4.5ltr V8 would definately make a difference but don't know about fuel economy :D

hey if you want cost effective cubes you can't beat a gen3 v8

I'm gonna show some of my bias here, but I disagree with this...

I know the factory "claimed" fuel economy figures are like 11L/100km or something ridiculous but most of the car mags that have done "real world" testing have achieved figures like 15-18L/100km or even more in some instances.

Add to that the fact that one of these engines would not perform as well in a stagea and the fact that a mildly modified stagea will be able to keep up with a stock SS commo...and in my case, although my performance wouldn't match a gen3, my fuel economy figures walk all over it. I get 11.5L/100km most weeks, driving to and from work, and remembering the stagea is ~100+kg heavier than gen3-powered cars.

Dont get me wrong, the gen3 and later v8's (and ford v8's) are great engines. I'm only talking about their fuel economy vs performance.

And speaking of cost effective, a modified RB25/26 would probably still be cheaper than a stock gen3 - yes?

In terms of which gives _better_ performance, well that is a debate all on its own. There is no doubt these v8's would be more reliable (and last longer) than our RB's as the power is increased.

I have to be honest, I only read a few posts, so I aplogose if this has been said. The answer is:

GRID TS DANCER

The torque split controller. They are about $600. Turn it on, you get a 0.5 / 99.5 split front to back. You do not need the 4wd all the time (yes, I know it is variable anyway). The GRID one enables you to turn the 4wd on and off whilest driving. You do not have to stop.

I use 16.7 litres / 100km TS off.

11.7 TS on.

You also get better acceleration etc as you lose less power due to friction when only the rears are working.

Dont get me wrong, the gen3 and later v8's (and ford v8's) are great engines. I'm only talking about their fuel economy vs performance.

And speaking of cost effective, a modified RB25/26 would probably still be cheaper than a stock gen3 - yes?

Im going to disagree here, Stock LS1 commodore auto i got a little over 500km to a tank, these tanks are around 5L more than a stagea tank.

Now add a bunch of performance parts to turn it into an 11 second daily street car and i got 400-450km to a tank... so for fuel economy vs performance... gen3 wins hands down IMO

I have to be honest, I only read a few posts, so I aplogose if this has been said. The answer is:

GRID TS DANCER

The torque split controller. They are about $600. Turn it on, you get a 0.5 / 99.5 split front to back. You do not need the 4wd all the time (yes, I know it is variable anyway). The GRID one enables you to turn the 4wd on and off whilest driving. You do not have to stop.

I use 16.7 litres / 100km TS off.

11.7 TS on.

You also get better acceleration etc as you lose less power due to friction when only the rears are working.

i thought you werent able to use TS on standard s1 and s2 stageas . is this true?

just a thought after reading the posts stating that a tune didnt solve the fuel economy problem. Most tuners usually tune for high end HP so they can give you a pretty dyno chart saying look at that HP gain! I've read that it is possible to tune your car to be fuel economy focused but you run into issues when your decide to drag someone and trash the car. Maybe the solution could be piggy back ECU's that have dual tunings (street and race) like a gready emanage, where you can switch it from save-fuel-hug-a-tree mode to burn-baby-burn-mode when you want to push it. This is just focusing on the tune part, and assuming everything else is running well (coil packs, plugs, etc).

Edited by Scratch

can someone please confirm if e_methamphetamachine meant that when he had it on 100RWD he got better fuel econ? cause i just read that website for the TS dancer and it lead me to beleive that it was the other way

ok I read that the other way. as in 99.5 went to the front wheels - I thought - damned I dont want no FWD again !

can anyone else back this up? it seems that discussions on here have not shown the RWD only model to be much cheaper on fuel

He stated that with the TS controller on, set to run 99.5% torque to the rears, he got better fuel economy.

If you get a GRID TS Dancer you MUST get the R33 gtr one. R32 one different. When you put it on the 0 / 100 split (RWD) you still get a slight amopunt to the front as you can not turn off the front on the33 setup. You lose 10% due to friction etc thru the front, so by dropping it out the engine requires less power to achieve the same at the rears as it does in 4WD. I drive with RWD all the time unless at the track.

Easiest way to look at it:

Lets say for a given rate of acceleration or maintaining of a certain speed eg 100km/h, the vehicle needs a driving force / power of 100kW @ wheels.

In 4WD mode 100kw @ 4 wheels = 136HP @ wheels = 173HP at fly

In RWD mode 100kW @ 2 wheels = 136HP @ wheels = 156HP at fly

Power is the result of energy discipated.

Energy is the result of combustion of fuel.

The efficiency of the engine is the same for an engine regardess of whether it is running 2wd or 4wd as this has no effect on the engine itself.

173 / 156 ==> 10% less fuel.

Acceleration requires overcoming inertia. As you have friction, wind resistance etc, maintaining speed requires overcoming forces too. The less forces you need to overcome the easier it is, the less energy required at any point in time, and especially over a period of time ie less fuel. So although there is a 10% immediate saving, the total saving increaes in RWD mode as there is far less work the engine has to do at any point in time to overcome additional forces.

I know of a few people who have now bought TS Dancers for this reason after seeing the savings I got. They got them too.

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

    • Hey Dave, welcome aboard! Good to see another soon-to-be Stagea owner here. The wagons are awesome — plenty of space, still got that Skyline DNA, and loads of potential if you’re into mods. Definitely post up pics when you get it, everyone here loves seeing new builds. What model/year are you looking at?
    • See if you can thermal epoxy a heatsink or two onto it?
    • The other problem was one of those "oh shit we are going to die moments". Basically the high spec Q50s have a full electric steering rack, and the povo ones had a regular hydraulic rack with an electric pump.  So couple of laps into session 5 as I came into turn 2 (big run off now, happily), the dash turned into a christmas tree and the steering became super heavy and I went well off. I assumed it was a tyre failure so limped to the pits, but everything was OK. But....the master warning light was still on so I checked the DTCs and saw – C13E6 “Heat Protection”. Yes, that bloody steering rack computer sitting where the oil cooler should be has its own sensors and error logic, and decided I was using the steering wheel too much. I really appreciated the helpful information in the manual (my bold) POSSIBLE CAUSE • Continuing the overloading steering (Sports driving in the circuit etc,) “DATA MONITOR” >> “C/M TEMPERATURE”. The rise of steering force motor internal temperature caused the protection function to operate. This is not a system malfunction. INSPECTION END So, basically the electric motor in the steering rack got to 150c, and it decided to shut down without warning for my safety. Didn't feel safe. Short term I'll see if I can duct some air to that motor (the engine bay is sealed pretty tight). Long term, depending on how often this happens, I'll look into swapping the povo spec electric/hydraulic rack in. While the rack should be fine the power supply to the pump will be a pain and might be best to deal with it when I add a PDM.
    • And finally, 2 problems I really need to sort.  Firstly as Matt said the auto trans is not happy as it gets hot - I couldn't log the temps but the gauge showed 90o. On the first day I took it out back in Feb, because the coolant was getting hot I never got to any auto trans issues; but on this day by late session 3 and then really clearly in 4 and 5 as it got hotter it just would not shift up. You can hear the issue really clearly at 12:55 and 16:20 on the vid. So the good news is, literally this week Ecutek finally released tuning for the jatco 7 speed. I'll have a chat to Racebox and see what they can do electrically to keep it cooler and to get the gears, if anything. That will likely take some R&D and can only really happen on track as it never gets even warm with road use. I've also picked up some eye wateringly expensive Redline D6 ATF to try, it had the highest viscosity I could find at 100o so we will see if that helps (just waiting for some oil pan gaskets so I can change it properly). If neither of those work I need to remove the coolant/trans interwarmer and the radiator cooler and go to an external cooler....somewhere.....(goodbye washer reservoir?), and if that fails give up on this mad idea and wait for Nissan to release the manual 400R
    • So, what else.... Power. I don't know what it is making because I haven't done a post tune dyno run yet; I will when I get a chance. It was 240rwkw dead stock. Conclusion from the day....it does not need a single kw more until I sort some other stuff. It comes on so hard that I could hear the twin N1 turbos on the R32 crying, and I just can't use what it has around a tight track with the current setup. Brakes. They are perfect. Hit them hard all day and they never felt like having an issue; you can see in the video we were making ground on much lighter cars on better tyres under brakes. They are standard (red sport) calipers, standard size discs in DBA5000 2 piece, Winmax pads and Motul RBF600 fluid, all from Matty at Racebrakes Sydney. Keeping in mind the car is more powerful than my R32 and weighs 1780, he clearly knows his shit. Suspension. This is one of the first areas I need to change. It has electronically controlled dampers from factory, but everything is just way too soft for track work even on the hardest setting (it is nice when hustling on country roads though). In particular it rolls into oversteer mid corner and pitches too much under hard braking so it becomes unstable eg in the turn 1 kink I need to brake early, turn through the kink then brake again so I don't pirouette like an AE86. I need to get some decent shocks with matched springs and sway bars ASAP, even if it is just a v1 setup until I work out a proper race/rally setup later. Tyres. I am running Yoko A052 in 235/45/18 all round, because that was what I could get in approximately the right height on wheels I had in the shed (Rays/Nismo 18x8 off the old Leaf actually!). As track tyres they are pretty poor; I note GTSBoy recently posted a porker comparo video including them where they were about the same as AD09.....that is nothing like a top line track tyre. I'll start getting that sorted but realistically I should get proper sized wheels first (likely 9.5 +38 front and 11 +55 at the rear, so a custom order, and I can't rotate them like the R32), then work out what the best tyre option is. BTW on that, Targa Tas had gone to road tyres instead of semi slicks now so that is a whole other world of choices to sort. Diff. This is the other thing that urgently needs to be addressed. It left massive 1s out of the fish hook all day, even when I was trying not too (you can also hear it reving on the video, and see the RPM rising too fast compared to speed in the data). It has an open diff that Infiniti optimistically called a B-LSD for "Brake Limited Slip Diff". It does good straight line standing start 11s but it is woeful on the track. Nismo seem to make a 2 way for it.
×
×
  • Create New...