Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I got 465km or 13.97lt/100kms from a full tank in my R32 GTR but reckon I would get close to 500kms if I didn't gas it towards the end.

This was mostly from easy driving and a couple of spirited ones, my usual style. I find that driving from a full tank gets me better economy than 1/2 or 1/4.

Comparatively speaking with stock GTRs, would the R34 do better?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/303293-whats-your-fuel-consumption-like/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i have a BNR34: all the standard mods 280rwkw

i get a monthly petrol consumption report every month as i have a company petrol card it shows that i use around $60.00 (full tank) every 2 to 3 days and everytime i fill up i have to give'em the km's and i'm getting on average 300km per tank.

i have a BNR34: all the standard mods 280rwkw

i get a monthly petrol consumption report every month as i have a company petrol card it shows that i use around $60.00 (full tank) every 2 to 3 days and everytime i fill up i have to give'em the km's and i'm getting on average 300km per tank.

any idea when you got it stock?

96 33 GTS-T - performance mods are only pod filter, exhaust.

Was getting 350klm per fill up (about 50 ltrs) - did a full service, sensors cleaned etc - now it does on average 10.5 ltrs per 100kms

96 33 GTS-T - performance mods are only pod filter, exhaust.

Was getting 350klm per fill up (about 50 ltrs) - did a full service, sensors cleaned etc - now it does on average 10.5 ltrs per 100kms

Got the major service coming up sometime this year. Hopefully mine will be like yours too!

Maybe everyone should post up L/100km or km/L instead of full tank. Better way of comparison.

Maybe everyone should post up L/100km or km/L instead of full tank. Better way of comparison.

I think going by full tank might be a better representative of the car's overall fuel economy since it will weigh differently when full,1/2 or 1/4 empty.

I am much happier with the consumption I'm getting considering its a GTR though I do miss 500-600km that I got from NA cars.

if a car is a daily there are a number of things that change

at my old house i lived further from work and the car would get more cruising than stop start...

now, its the other way around...

the difference is nearl 100km per tank (i also now live 4 mins from work and the thing is not even up to temp a lot of the time)

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

    • @Haggerty this is your red flag. In MAP based ECU's the Manifold pressure X RPM calculation is how the engine knows it is actually...running/going through ANY load. You are confusing the term 'base map' with your base VE/Fuel table. When most people say 'base map' they mean the stock entire tune shipped with the ECU, hopefully aimed at a specific car/setup to use as a base for beginning to tune your specific car. Haltech has a lot of documentation (or at least they used to, I expect it to be better now). Read it voraciously.
    • I saw you mention this earlier and it raised a red flag, but I couldn't believe it was real. Yes, the vacuum signal should vary. It is the one and only load signal from the engine to the ECU, and it MUST vary. It is either not connected or is badly f**ked up in some way.
    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
×
×
  • Create New...