Jump to content
SAU Community

You Might Wana Park Your Skyline Up For A While :)

BANGN

By BANGN,
in General Automotive Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

R34GTFOUR Mentor

R34GTFOUR

Posted
Posted (edited)

meh, you dont buy a skyline or any "performance" car for that matter for good fuel economy, you do it cause you enjoy driving.

Even though i dont like spending more money on fuel, i still think its relatively cheap. I mean, its my only means of transport and one of my biggest hobbies yet it only cost me 50-60bucks a week to run the thing (beside obvious maintenance), i spend over double that in a night on the piss

Edited by R34GTFOUR
Rekin Grand Master

Rekin

Posted
Posted
barrels are up to a USD$93, strong aussie dollar should buffer that though.

expect no more petroleum in the next couple of decades, we will/should be bone dry.

According to Wheels Car magazine (November issue), we have only extracted just over 50% of oil in the world. In the calculations of the article, we cannot burn all oil in the world as this will create far too much co2 emissions, therefore alternative energy vehicles will be in full force before we will drain all the oil in the world.

R34GTFOUR Mentor

R34GTFOUR

Posted
Posted
when your paying $9.50 a litre for race fuel it all sounds so cheap

hahaha so true, my mate is coughing up over 500bucks to fill his XR6T with race fuel for motorvation, thats gotta hurt the pocket...

N1GTR Grand Master

N1GTR

Posted
Posted
HAHAHA i was thinkin the same thing lol

but fuel prices really do suck, i wish i had a company fuel card and a skyline for a company car :P

Yeah, fuel cards are the bomb

Eug Grand Master

Eug

Posted
Posted
According to Wheels Car magazine (November issue), we have only extracted just over 50% of oil in the world. In the calculations of the article, we cannot burn all oil in the world as this will create far too much co2 emissions, therefore alternative energy vehicles will be in full force before we will drain all the oil in the world.

proven oil reserves dropped by 0.1% from 2005 to 2006

oil consumption up by 0.7% from 2005 to 2006

and in conjunction with what wheels magazine says that we have extracted just over 50% (i'd like to see their source). we are hitting peak oil now, the fact that we are using more than we can find/produce - we'll see a steep decline in availability* and thus an increase in demand and costs.

*think bell shaped curve.

you are correct, alternative energies is the way to go (despite the irony that we are on a forum for cars that basically eat, live and breathe fuel).

i think the earth will suffocate itself long before any of our distant plans come to fruition.

Triptych Proficient

Triptych

Posted
Posted

My friends girl friend is a manager for BP and I will talk to her about all this over the weekend see if she can confirm or deny anything. If I remember correctly I believed she mentioned something a few years ago about BP getting oil from singapore but I could be wrong.

S04R3R Rising Star

S04R3R

Posted
Posted

Fuel prices have never made me drive less. High fuel prices just make me more cranky. I love driving so i guess it is the price I pay. When i had my soarer which cost around 120 or more to fill annoyed me and at some points I was paying 1.55-1.60 then when it got writen off =[ the prices went down to something liek 1.20 :S

I guess if it gets to the point of $5 per litre i might drive less but until then i will keep making that hole in the ozone layer bigger.

bombtrack Experienced

bombtrack

Posted
Posted
Not gonna happen. Not an overnight double in price which is pretty much what you are sayin

Perhaps not double... but it wouldn't be the first time oil prices jump considerably over night.

Doesn't bother me anyway, until they outlaw fossil fuel or bowser prices reach $5+ or my skyline becomes unstreetable, my line stays on the road :)

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kapr
      RB20DE NEO smallbox clutch.

      By Kapr · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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. 
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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...