Jump to content
SAU Community

Supra Vs Gtr On Fuel Economy

Shidan

By Shidan,
in R Series (R30, R31, R32, R33, R34)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Shidan Explorer

Shidan

Posted
Posted

Hi everyone,

I'm a supra owner but also a GTR fan.

For the far future i want to get r34 GTR, however, i've heard GTR's are bad on fuel.

I get 520kms on a full tank which is about 70litres. I was talking to a guy who had a r33 gts-t who said he only gets about 250 to 300kms on a full tank. If that's true i'm guessing GTR gets even worst milage.

I'm not sure if everyone is aware but because supra had a 3 litre engine some government co-opration (don't know what it was) in japan gave it trouble, so they had to make more autos and so forth, so because of that maybe supra put a lot of attention on making their car with better fuel economy. From my understanding GTRs and Gts-t's didn't get any trouble.

If a few GTR owners (especially r34) could tell me what milage they get and how happy they are with it, it would be great.

Thanks guys.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/243525-supra-vs-gtr-on-fuel-economy/
Share on other sites
GTR-N1 Grand Master

GTR-N1

Posted
Posted

Just did the Putty Rd Cruise with SAU + 2 runs down and then up Hawkesbury Hts to home.

After filling up before and after, the GTR fuel economy stood at "11.93l/100Km" !!!

Standard injectors and turbos but HKS ECU, HKS Induction, HKS 3" Exhaust, Blitz DSBC.

Hope this helps.

Talk to Benro_2 about his JZ

Tez

Shidan Explorer

Shidan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Skyline + fuel economy = Shit

Skyline + my right foot + fuel economy = need a second job lol :cheers:

Haha really? you've got a r34 GTT? Sounds like GTR's are getting better fuel economy?:S

Apparentely TT supra's get better milage than NA supras. Good turbos help the fuel burn better.

Mayuri Krab Grand Master

Mayuri Krab

Posted
Posted (edited)

My auto R33 gets ~450km per tank & I would assume that manuals should only be getting better millage.

EDIT:

Apparentely TT supra's get better milage than NA supras. Good turbos help the fuel burn better.

Really? My parents were always under the impression that the main use of a turbo was to increase a cars fuel millage, now thats obviously not true, but maybe its not as complete of nonsense as I thought it would be with that info...

Edited by Mayuri Krab
Shidan Explorer

Shidan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I did a bit of research, r34 GTR has a slightly bigger fuel tank.

According to this site it's got a 72 liter tank (http://nissanskyline.6te.net/GTR34_spec.htm)

According to this site supras got 70 liter tank (http://www.toyota-supra.info/models/1995_5/4519/)

So supra's still got better fuel economy. But Gtr's are faster.

GTR-32U Mentor

GTR-32U

Posted
Posted

I fail to see how a turbo car of the same model can have better fuel economy. NA is always better on Fuel. Turbo cars run lower compression than NA equivalent...The only instance i can think of where a turbo car would be better on fuel would be if it were a diesel....high compression engines will always have better fuel economy than Turbo unfortunately

WYTSKY Veteran

WYTSKY

Posted
Posted

my car is proof that turbos are better Depending on how you drive them, from n/a..

n/a used a lot of fuel to get up hills etc.. turbo just cruises...

used to get about 350-380 out of n/a

when I turboed with stock parts got 500km!

now, with bigger fuel pump/afm/injectors/turbo get about 400-450.

N1GTR Grand Master

N1GTR

Posted
Posted

Ive got one of each. They both chew through petrol like its the 1990's. If you're hard up for cash dont bother with either :)

If you're concerned about fuel economy get a shitbox as a runaround and keep the import for the weekend :blink:

Shidan Explorer

Shidan

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Ive got one of each. They both chew through petrol like its the 1990's. If you're hard up for cash dont bother with either :D

If you're concerned about fuel economy get a shitbox as a runaround and keep the import for the weekend :cheers:

You've got a Supra and a skyline?

Which one do you enjoy driving more?

I'm pretty happy with my Supra's fuel consumption though. It better than my old car which was a 1.8 litre eunos 30x.

I'm selling her though and me and my brothers are going to start investing in houses:P and when i get the money i'll probably ither buy a r34 gtr or a really good TT supra. I'm very young right now though i'll be okay with a crappy car.

I'm probably going to get a Daewoo Matiz so i can drive it as much as i want and not worry about Km's and fuel.

Some of you may laugh now, but i'm sure no one on this whole forum would want to mess with one of these bad boys:Pmatiz_gallery2.jpg

So i guess then its safe to assume that both supras and Skylines in NA dont run relatively high compression ratios 10.5:1 or anything like that then...?

Yeah probably, not too sure. I didn't know skylines came in NA.

Edited by Shidan
Bumblebee Experienced

Bumblebee

Posted
Posted

ROFL thats a bad boy alrite

i had one come into work and he wanted his head to be port n polished and a cam made up.. he also had his own CAI intake system that he made from PVC piping outta his gutters and a caved in K&N filter

very amusing.. u guys gotta see the insides of those motors... adorable :cheers:

from memory, the piston is like the size of the CAS on the rb motors hahah

RyleyMA61 Enthusiast

RyleyMA61

Posted
Posted (edited)

I also have both and the supra is better on fuel and more powerful- i attribute that to the supra being lighter (1300kg) and tuned better (has apexi gizmo). (only an ma61 supra- i can testify (weighbridge) a TT 6 speed supra JZA80 weighs 1480kg.)

the GTR has a mines ecu and therefore runs rich as f**k. they both have a similar compression ratio (8.5:1 ish)

as for the turbos are more/less economical debate, they are both.

what determines how much petrol is used is how much work (ie LOAD) is required for the engine to move the car and overcome restrictions (ie mass of the car, aerodynamics et al)

a turbo with more TORQUE (remember torque is what moves the car, and power is simply torque x rpm) than the equivalent n/a will use less fuel under cruise and light load because it requires less torque(and therefore fuel- remember an engine is *really* just an air pump, and will be under less load) to move the mass than the n/a equivalent. modern turbo engines tend to run higher compression and less boost because of this.

under heavy throttle though, turbos will drink more because of the power!

have a look of a typical ECU's fuel maps against manifold pressure- the results speak for themselves!

Edited by RyleyMA61
Shidan Explorer

Shidan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I also have both and the supra is better on fuel and more powerful- i attribute that to the supra being lighter (1300kg) and tuned better (has apexi gizmo). (only an ma61 supra- i can testify (weighbridge) a TT 6 speed supra JZA80 weighs 1480kg.)

the GTR has a mines ecu and therefore runs rich as f**k. they both have a similar compression ratio (8.5:1 ish)

as for the turbos are more/less economical debate, they are both.

what determines how much petrol is used is how much work (ie LOAD) is required for the engine to move the car and overcome restrictions (ie mass of the car, aerodynamics et al)

a turbo with more TORQUE (remember torque is what moves the car, and power is simply torque x rpm) than the equivalent n/a will use less fuel under cruise and light load because it requires less torque(and therefore fuel- remember an engine is *really* just an air pump, and will be under less load) to move the mass than the n/a equivalent. modern turbo engines tend to run higher compression and less boost because of this.

under heavy throttle though, turbos will drink more because of the power!

have a look of a typical ECU's fuel maps against manifold pressure- the results speak for themselves!

Great explanation!

That what i imagined, turbo's would use less fuel under cruise cause they have more torque.

Which supra do you have?

I thought supra's would be more heavey than gtr's, well mk4 anyways.

RyleyMA61 Enthusiast

RyleyMA61

Posted
Posted
Great explanation!

That what i imagined, turbo's would use less fuel under cruise cause they have more torque.

Which supra do you have?

I thought supra's would be more heavey than gtr's, well mk4 anyways.

hey buddy i've got an ma61 supra (mk II) with a 7mgte turbo. good fun! just blew a headgasket so gotta fix that.

turns out the ma70/jza70/ga70 (mk III) are the heavy bastards. nearly pushing 1700kg some of them. i know they went to ridiculous lengths with the jza80 (mk 4) to save weight- hollow carpets and crazy stuff like that. they do look heavy, and everyone seems to think they weigh a lot but really they aren't too bad!

;)

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

    • oHBoy.
      Starter motor replacment teeth count.

      By oHBoy. · Posted

      I had 3 counts over the last couple of weeks once where i got stranded at a jdm paint yard booking in some work. 2nd time was moving the car into the drive way for the inspection and the 3rd was during the inspection for the co2 leak test. Fix: 1st, car off for a hour and half disconnected battery 10mins 4th try car started 2nd, 5th try started 3rd, countless time starting disconnected battery dude was under the hood listening to the starting sequence fuel pump ect.   
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      This. As for your options - I suggest remote mounting the Nissan sensor further away on a length of steel tube. That tube to have a loop in it to handle vibration, etc etc. You will need to either put a tee and a bleed fitting near the sensor, or crack the fitting at the sensor to bleed it full of oil when you first set it up, otherwise you won't get the line filled. But this is a small problem. Just needs enough access to get it done.
    • suko
      J50 clock date suddenly reset to January 1

      By suko · Posted

      The time is always correct. Only the date is wrong. It currently thinks it is January 19. Tomorrow it will say it is January 20. The date and time are ( should be ! ) retrieved from the GPS navigation system.
    • MBS206
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Buy yourself a set of easy outs. See if they will get a good bite in and unthread it.   Very very lucky the whole sender didn't let go while on the track and cost you a motor!
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      Well GTSBoy, prepare yourself further. I did a track day with 1/2 a day prep on Friday, inpromptu. The good news is that I got home, and didn't drive the car into a wall. Everything seemed mostly okay. The car was even a little faster than it was last time. I also got to get some good datalog data too. I also noticed a tiny bit of knock which was (luckily?) recorded. All I know is the knock sensors got recalibrated.... and are notorious for false knock. So I don't know if they are too sensitive, not sensitive enough... or some other third option. But I reduced timing anyway. It wasn't every pull through the session either. Think along the lines of -1 degree of timing for say, three instances while at the top of 4th in a 20 minute all-hot-lap session. Unfortunately at the end of session 2... I noticed a little oil. I borrowed some jack stands and a jack and took a look under there, but as is often the case, messing around with it kinda half cleaned it up, it was not conclusive where it was coming from. I decided to give it another go and see how it was. The amount of oil was maybe one/two small drops. I did another 20 minute session and car went well, and I was just starting to get into it and not be terrified of driving on track. I pulled over and checked in the pits and saw this: This is where I called it, packed up and went home as I live ~20 min from the track with a VERY VERY CLOSE EYE on Oil Pressure on the way home. The volume wasn't much but you never know. I checked it today when I had my own space/tools/time to find out what was going on, wanted to clean it up, run the car and see if any of the fittings from around the oil filter were causing it. I have like.. 5 fittings there, so I suspected one was (hopefully?) the culprit. It became immediately apparent as soon as I looked around more closely. 795d266d-a034-4b8c-89c9-d83860f5d00a.mp4       This is the R34 GTT oil sender connected via an adapter to an oil cooler block I have installed which runs AN lines to my cooler (and back). There's also an oil temp sensor on top.  Just after that video, I attempted to unthread the sensor to see if it's loose/worn and it disintegrated in my hand. So yes. I am glad I noticed that oil because it would appear that complete and utter catastrophic engine failure was about 1 second of engine runtime away. I did try to drill the fitting out, and only succeeded in drilling the middle hole much larger and now there's a... smooth hole in there with what looks like a damn sleeve still incredibly tight in there. Not really sure how to proceed from here. My options: 1) Find someone who can remove the stuck fitting, and use a steel adapter so it won't fatigue? (Female BSPT for the R34 sender to 1/8NPT male - HARD to find). IF it isn't possible to remove - Buy a new block ($320) and have someone tap a new 1/8NPT in the top of it ($????) and hope the steel adapter works better. 2) Buy a new block and give up on the OEM pressure sender for the dash entirely, and use the supplied 1/8 NPT for the oil temp sender. Having the oil pressure read 0 in the dash with the warning lamp will give me a lot of anxiety driving around. I do have the actual GM sensor/sender working, but it needs OBD2 as a gauge. If I'm datalogging I don't actually have a readout of what the gauge is currently displaying. 3) Other? Find a new location for the OEM sender? Though I don't know of anywhere that will work. I also don't know if a steel adapter is actually functionally smart here. It's clearly leveraged itself through vibration of the motor and snapped in half. This doesn't seem like a setup a smart person would replicate given the weight of the OEM sender. Still pretty happy being lucky for once and seeing this at the absolute last moment before bye bye motor in a big way, even if an adapter is apparently 6 weeks+ delivery and I have no way to free the current stuck/potentially destroyed threads in the current oil block.
×
×
  • Create New...