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

    • I'm looking for some real world experiences/feed back from anyone who has personally ran a EFR7670 with a 1.05 exhaust housing or a .83 I'm leaning towards the .83 because its a street car used mostly for spirited driving in the canyons roads. I"m not looking for big numbers on paper. I want a responsive powerband that will be very linear to 8000 rpm. I dont mind if power remains somewhat flat but dont want power to drop off on top. The turbo I've purchased is a 1.05, although the mounting flange T3 vs T4 and internal vs external waste gates are different on both housings, I not concern about swapping parts or making fabrication mods to get what I want. Based on some of the research I've done with chat gpt, the 1.05 housing seems to be the way to go with slightly more lag and future proofing for more mods but recommends .83 for best response/street car setup. AI doesn't have the same emotions as real people driving a GTR so I think you guys will be able to give me better feed back 😀   
    • Surely somebody has one in VIC. Have you asked at any shops?  Is this the yearly inspection or did you get a canary?
    • This is where I share pain with you, @Duncan. The move to change so many cooling system pieces to plastic is a killer! Plastic end tanks and a few plastic hose flanges on my car's fail after so little time.  Curious about the need for a bigger rad, is that just for long sessions in the summer or because the car generally needs more cooling?
    • So, that is it! It is a pretty expensive process with the ATF costing 50-100 per 5 litres, and a mechanic will probably charge plenty because they don't want to do it. Still, considering how dirty my fluid was at 120,000klm I think it would be worth doing more like every 80,000 to keep the trans happy, they are very expensive to replace. The job is not that hard if you have the specialist tools so you can save a bit of money and do it yourself!
    • OK, onto filling. So I don't really have any pics, but will describe the process as best I can. The USDM workshop manual also covers it from TM-285 onwards. First, make sure the drain plug (17mm) is snug. Not too tight yet because it is coming off again. Note it does have a copper washer that you could replace or anneal (heat up with a blow torch) to seal nicely. Remove the fill plug, which has an inhex (I think it was 6mm but didn't check). Then, screw in the fill fitting, making sure it has a suitable o-ring (mine came without but I think it is meant to be supplied). It is important that you only screw it in hand tight. I didn't get a good pic of it, but the fill plug leads to a tube about 70mm long inside the transmission. This sets the factory level for fluid in the trans (above the join line for the pan!) and will take about 3l to fill. You then need to connect your fluid pump to the fitting via a hose, and pump in whatever amount of fluid you removed (maybe 3 litres, in my case 7 litres). If you put in more than 3l, it will spill out when you remove the fitting, so do quickly and with a drain pan underneath. Once you have pumped in the required amount of clean ATF, you start the engine and run it for 3 minutes to let the fluid circulate. Don't run it longer and if possible check the fluid temp is under 40oC (Ecutek shows Auto Trans Fluid temp now, or you could use an infrared temp gun on the bottom of the pan). The manual stresses the bit about fluid temperature because it expands when hot an might result in an underfil. So from here, the factory manual says to do the "spill and fill" again, and I did. That is, put an oil pan under the drain plug and undo it with a 17mm spanner, then watch your expensive fluid fall back out again, you should get about 3 litres.  Then, put the drain plug back in, pump 3 litres back in through the fill plug with the fitting and pump, disconnect the fill fitting and replace the fill plug, start the car and run for another 3 minutes (making sure the temp is still under 40oC). The manual then asks for a 3rd "spill and fill" just like above. I also did that and so had put 13l in by now.  This time they want you to keep the engine running and run the transmission through R and D (I hope the wheels are still off the ground!) for a while, and allow the trans temp to get to 40oC, then engine off. Finally, back under the car and undo the fill plug to let the overfill drain out; it will stop running when fluid is at the top of the levelling tube. According to the factory, that is job done! Post that, I reconnected the fill fitting and pumped in an extra 0.5l. AMS says 1.5l overfill is safe, but I started with less to see how it goes, I will add another 1.0 litres later if I'm still not happy with the hot shifts.
×
×
  • Create New...