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

    • @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.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
×
×
  • Create New...