Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Just wondering if you guys use the overdrive off button very much if at all on your S1 Stags. I had a play with it for the first time today on the drive to work(I live in eastern suburbs and work at mt barker).

So i drive up the freeway each day and my EBC gives me the boost pressure read out (usually have it set on low for this drive). Anyway more to the point. Going up the freeway from adelaide to mt barked is pretty much a slight uphill the entire time. So if i let the car use the overdrive (4th gear) it pretty much sits on a bit of boost somewhere between 2 and 3 psi for most of the trip and at about 2.5/3000 rmp.

If i click the od off button it sits at higher rev range but use's alot less boost if any at all. My SAFC only starts to bend the fuel ratios about 3000rpm so im wondering which would be better to cruise on on my way to work with overdrive on or off.

Hope that makes sene :S? PS ive had a search and none of the previous threads really suit my quesiton.

The overdrive button is a throwback to the eighties when jap autos used to have three speed + overdrive instead of a proper 4 or 5 speed auto. I would be interested in the basis for people's assertion that they use less fuel by driving around in third gear. The whole point of higher gearing is to save engine wear and fuel. It is true that some underpowered and overgeared cars may use more fuel because you have to have the foot flat all the time to make progress but I don't find that with my Stagea. Normally the most economical driving style is to accelerate briskly to your desired cruising speed and then maintain that with the minimum throttle opening at which point your Air/fuel ratios should be at their most economical (around 14 to1).

Having said that it is possible that under unusual circumstances, such as the continuous uphill referred to above, third gear might be more economical but I would try a week in third and a week in 4th accurately measuring the fuel consumption each week to get a true comparison.

if its a hill where i know i need to accelerate quickly ill put it into overdrive, but leaving it top gear should be more efficient if youre not in a hurry. more revs means more energy lost through heat.

the point about it being "on" boost isnt really the proper way to think about it. the rate at which the engine uses fuel is proportional to the rate at which the mass of air is going into the intake.

x revs at y psi of boost will draw the same mass of air if you increase the revs and lower the intake pressure. not to mention pressure also is affected by heat as well as mass in a volume.

the difference is that lower revs and forcing more air into the cylinders should increase thermal efficiency...same mass of air as a larger NA engine would normally draw in, with less cylinder surface area to lose heat

freeway speeds.....definitely let it go into top gear.

if its a hill where i know i need to accelerate quickly ill put it into overdrive [i guess you mean you'll push the "overdrive off" button, thus putting it into third gear], but leaving it in top gear [i guess you mean "overdrive" or 4th gear] should be more efficient if youre not in a hurry. more revs means more energy lost through heat.

the point about it being "on" boost isnt really the proper way to think about it. the rate at which the engine uses fuel is proportional to the rate at which the mass of air is going into the intake.

x revs at y psi of boost will draw the same mass of air if you increase the revs and lower the intake pressure. not to mention pressure also is affected by heat as well as mass in a volume.

the difference is that lower revs and forcing more air into the cylinders should increase thermal efficiency...same mass of air as a larger NA engine would normally draw in, with less cylinder surface area to lose heat

freeway speeds.....definitely let it go into top [4th or " overdrive" ] gear.

It would be simpler if they had just put in a 4 speed auto. When I bought my car the only manuals were the RS260 at about 4 times the price of a RS4T but now there are quite a few "S" (manuals) for sale at about twice the price of an RS and if I were buying today I would definitely buy a manual.

i have a bad habit of saying "putting it into overdrive" when i mean "out" of overdrive.

although an auto trans bugs me from a performance standpoint it does make it easier to drive around town given the size of the car that it is.

probably better in snow too as the torque delivery is smoother than a manual in its operation, but im yet to back that up by taking the stagea out to the snow :)

It would be simpler if they had just put in a 4 speed auto.

It is a 4 speed auto, the button simply stops it from shifting into 4th. It also stops, rather it delays (for a long time), the torque converter lock up, so you get slip.

You also have the option of only using 1st and 2nd via the selector.

Plus by selecting snow mode you eliminate 1st and it starts in 2nd.

Overall a very useful auto gearbox, especially when coupled with the best 4wd system.

As for using less fuel in 3rd gear, not based on what I have seen in the injector duty cycle. Which after all is a far more accurate method of determining fuel economy than looking at a boost guage.

Cheers

Gary

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 came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...