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

    • 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...