Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

you probably have too much 'loud pedal' fun with it or drive it most of the time sitting in traffic jam.

with gentle , nanna style driving to and from work in daily traffic jam, I made 13.1 to 13.3ltr/100km average or around 7.64~7.5 km/ltr

so your figure isn't awfully too bad.

over the quiet Xmas & NY period I made 12.9ltr/100km or around 7.75 km/ltr

So yours 7.8km/ltr that is 12.8 ltr/100km - MUCH BETTER ECONOMY THAN MINE!

what are you complaining about?

How to read original (non-Xanavi translated to english) consumption figure (the Japanese way):

The higher the number, the better the fuel economy. It is in km/ltr. more kms per each litre of petrol = better fuel economy.

how to read Xanavi translated to english consumption figure (the Australian way):

The lower the number, the better the fuel economy. translated software version is now in ltr/100km. less litre used for each 100km travel = better fuel economy.

Just did my first tank of fuel.

Did two trips from Brisbane to Burleigh heads (about 350-400km total) and the rest was regular town driving but that included a fair bit of heavy foot driving seeing what the car has got.

So this arvo at pump I put in 57 litres, and I had done over 550km's since the last time it was filled.

10.3 litres/100km :laugh:

7.8Km/L for urban driving seems average from what I've read in this section...

I get about 8-9km/L around town, though I never drive in any form of 'peak hour traffic'. On the highway it's usually about 11-12km/L, my best was a Christmas day trip last year Syd to Melbourne, I got about 13.5Km/L for the trip and nearly made it to Melb on one tank! (For the first time I can remember I was glad for all the Police presence keeping me to the speed limit... I discovered how much better economy you get sitting on only 100-110kmh, go figure?!).

Oh and I get about 2.8-3.1km/L on the track (assuming the trip computer calculates correctly) and that's giving it as much loud pedal as the circuit allows!

Not sure if MT vs AT is something to consider in this discussion? Mine is MT

Oh and I get about 2.8-3.1km/L on the track (assuming the trip computer calculates correctly) and that's giving it as much loud pedal as the circuit allows!

2.8-3.1 on the track - wowser!

I was getting about 4.1 on Sandown.

post-55164-1263801180_thumb.jpg

This photo was taken after a recent highway trip, just after i filled up, ended up getting 900kms from 75 litres.

regularly get around 10.5km per litre according to the fuel consumption screen, and thats back up at the bowser with 60 litres getting around 600kms.

2.8-3.1 on the track - wowser!

I was getting about 4.1 on Sandown.

Here's a pic from a track day before I got the TopSpeed Pro1 Exhaust fitted... (which seemed to decrease the economy further, or it might have been that I got more confident with the track and was pushing harder in subsequent days?)

post-60966-1263812952_thumb.jpg

I usually get anywhere between 7 km/l to 8.5 km/l depending on traffic. Most of my driving is either short trips in the burbs or the 25km commute to work and back in just (barely) pre-peak hour Melbourne traffic.

Taking the car on a nice long trip this coming weekend so I look forward to seeing how I go with economy. Will finally get to put that cruise control that Chris Rogers did for me to good use use :D

I get around 8.5km/l around town in a 6MT. Almost made it back to Brisbane from Sydney on one tank in 2008 when I first bought the car(900km+). At the other extreme though on my first skid pan day I was almost exclusively in first gear (reving the nuts off it of course) and managed the dubious fuel burn rate of 19 litres for 19km of driving. Could not believe it and now that I am game to tackle it in 2nd gear consumption has improved vastly.

my last Scoresby Fwy trip yields me 9.6ltr/100km with 130-ish km on the odo trip meter and estimated 530+ km still available based on the trip computer's estimation - it is possible to get 600-700km a tank on the 3.5 ltr if I can keep the pace like that (e.g. long trip 6-7 hours non stop)

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

    • @Kapr Haha yeah thats the one. I missed that you had a built up engine, I wouldn't want to run it on there either then. It was good in my situation just to replace the original turbo on a stock engine. @MBS206Yep definitely not a replacement for anything name brand
    • You are selling this? I have never bought something from marketplace...i dont know if i trust that enough. And the price is little bit "too" good...
    • https://www.facebook.com/share/19kSVAc4tc/?mibextid=wwXIfr
    • It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about. Reliability of everything in a 34 drops MASSIVELY above the 300kw mark. Keeping everything going great at beyond that value will cost ten times the $. Clutches become shit, gearboxes (and engines/bottom ends) become consumable, traction becomes crap. The good news is looking legalish/actually being legal is slighly under the 300kw mark. I would make the assumption you want to ditch the stock plenum too and want to go a front facing unit of some description due to the cross flow. Do the bends on a return flow hurt? Not really. A couple of bends do make a difference but not nearly as much in a forced induction situation. Add 1psi of boost to overcome it. Nobody has ever gone and done a track session monitoring IAT then done a different session on a different intercooler and monitored IAT to see the difference here. All of the benefits here are likely in the "My engine is a forged consumable that I drive once a year because it needs a rebuild every year which takes 9 months of the year to complete" territory. It would be well worth deciding where you want to go and what you care about with this car.
    • By "reverse flow", do you mean "return flow"? Being the IC having a return pipe back behind the bumper reo, or similar? If so... I am currently making ~250 rwkW on a Neo at ~17-18 psi. With a return flow. There's nothing to indicate that it is costing me a lot of power at this level, and I would be surprised if I could not push it harder. True, I have not measured pressure drop across it or IAT changes, but the car does not seem upset about it in any way. I won't be bothering to look into it unless it starts giving trouble or doesn't respond to boost increases when I next put it on the dyno. FWIW, it was tuned with the boost controller off, so achieving ~15-16 psi on the wastegate spring alone, and it is noticeably quicker with the boost controller on and yielding a couple of extra pounds. Hence why I think it is doing OK. So, no, I would not arbitrarily say that return flows are restrictive. Yes, they are certainly restrictive if you're aiming for higher power levels. But I also think that the happy place for a street car is <300 rwkW anyway, so I'm not going to be aiming for power levels that would require me to change the inlet pipework. My car looks very stock, even though everything is different. The turbo and inlet pipes all look stock and run in the stock locations, The airbox looks stock (apart from the inlet being opened up). The turbo looks stock, because it's in the stock location, is the stock housings and can't really be seen anyway. It makes enough power to be good to drive, but won't raise eyebrows if I ever f**k up enough for the cops to lift the bonnet.
×
×
  • Create New...