Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Dont get a sports car if you more worried about fuel.. simple

Look at your budget, see which car suits it. Then think of what you would like to do to it.. Which one looks better to your eyes, and then make a decision about which car to purchase.

Perhaps the s14 would be a bit more fuel efficent with the smaller engine..

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well my small bit of imput. I get 100kms/10L every week, week in week out, in my cefiro (rb20det). So its a bit heavier, I drive with my headlights on a lot of the time, in traffic. A/C on part of the time too. I drive it fairly responsibly, but I dont stay off boost all the time. Can even do a bit of a light mountain drive and I will still get about those figures. Mods are just filter, exaust, 12psi, R34 sidemount, and a Dr Drift chip.

That said, if I head out to the track, it dissappears VERY quickly.

Chassis wise, the S14 and R32 are quite similar, with the R32 being slightly more favorable due to it's front suspension setup. (R33 is more of a GT car however...) So it basically comes down to which engine you prefer.

The SR20 will be more fuel efficient (my S14 gets around 500km to the tank while making 200rwkw), and will make more peak torque mod for mod than either the RB20 or RB25.

The RBs on the other hand, will make less peak torque, but hold their torque higher into the rev range and go on to make similar (RB20) or higher (RB25) power mod for mod.

When you drive cars hard, do you prefer to sit around 4000rpm through twisties? Or do you love revving it out around long sweepers/track?

If revving is your thing, RB. If drifting or mid range is your thing, SR.

I always tell my mates who have RB20s and 25s that I'd love to have their engines, purely because I love engines which keep making torque up to like 8000rpm. Then they tell me to shut up and look at their fuel bills. :(

Edited by Equinox

my r33 isnt great on fuel, say 300km to a tank but i dont exactly drive with fuel consumption in mind... price u gotta pay with these cars.

as for lpg... i have a mate with a turbod celica that runs on lpg... fasted car ive been in.

it was the fastest car in QLD in recent year i believe for its size

but personally i would stick to petrol and just use good fuel like BP Ultimate (dont use cheap unleaded)

to the guys ranting on about which car is quicker, it all really depends on the driver at the end of the day. power is power but if you don't know how to use it then you'll lose against slower cars.

back to the thread, wtf lpg? i wouldn't even bother. if you're considering buying a jap car but not spending the money pit that comes with it, then i wouldn't consider one at all. expect to be paying top dollar for fuel for a long time, with a car that knows how to drink it well.

For Example.

GTiR, FMIC, Custom 3" pipework and Blitz BOV, Power FC, Pod, CAI, Exhaust, = 165-175awkw (give or take) @ 16psi Weighting in about 1250kgs. This one on question had 165awkw. possibly low reading dyno?

R33 Gtst, Zaust, Pod, Cai, FMIC, everything else stock. = 180rwkw > 195rwkw (some examples have gotten more just a rought example) Mine actually turned out 194rwkw. @ 11psi Weighing in about 1360kgs.

GTiR -> floggs the GTST off the line, every time, By about 80km's, GTST Passes the GTiR, to win to 160 by about 4 car lengths. Every time.

Tests were done on Private closed controlled Conditions of course :ninja:. You seem to believe they are faster than they actually are.

your "private road tests" mean about as much as dyno results.

get the 2 cars to a drag strip and get your timeslips.

The mods you mentioned above for the GTiR is what was required for a 12.9 @ WSID on my mates car.

I already mentoined that the GTST would probably pass it once it is able to stretch its legs.

But on an official drag strip of 400m, they can't.

nor will they on any retard traffic light grand prix

i think at the end of the day all this talk of XXXRWKW is a load of crap - I have seen a variation of 30rwkw over the various dynos my car has been on without a change in mods at all, car felt the same at all said power levels - dont get too caught up in the numbers seat of the pants is where its at

Good tune and driver ability pwns all!

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...