Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

double demeirits, who cares, I drove 3000km in NSW in the last week and didnt see one cop...

sorry I lie, I got breathtested by one on xmas eve in some bushwhacker town in bumf**k Idaho...

Aside from that every speed camera has a 3 huge signs telling you its there so if you do get busted you really deserve it..

move to Vic then start complaining..

btw congrats on the great fuel economy :thumbsup:

Double points is so frustrating, I end up doing 522km to a tank in suburban driving (57L, 10.9L/100km). How am I supposed to complain about poor fuel consumption when I can't even hit boost for fear of losing my licence?

:P

u sure it wasnt 422km? 522 imo is bs for city/suburban driving..

sorry for hijacking the thread - but if it is true you get that much in city driving, what have u done to your car?

Edited by defari

yeah it's a myth in QLD (one the cops aren't exactly going out of their way to dispell the myth though). only time you get double points in QLD is if you are booked for the same sort of offence twice within (i think) a 12 month period

  • 2 weeks later...

u sure it wasnt 422km? 522 imo is bs for city/suburban driving..

sorry for hijacking the thread - but if it is true you get that much in city driving, what have u done to your car?

no BS, and no freeway driving. I was amazed, as ~450km was my previous best.

My best on the freeway is 9.3L/100km, sitting on the speed limit.

Car just has a JJR bellmouth dump, fujitsubo exhaust (very quiet, full size centre muffler but flows well) and a 3" high flow catco metal cat. oh an r34 SMIC. Running 10psi boost.

depends on what sort of city driving it was. if it was cruising on motorways, etc, and there wasn't much start/stop traffic then you will get decent economy. that is the thing with 'city' driving. everyone has a different interpretation of what it is. in a lot of cases what people class as city driving is probably more accurately defined as a mix of both city and highway driving. if you are cruising through the middle of the city on a bypass doing 80kmh or more then that is more highway driving than city driving. it is just a highway through the city.

  • 2 weeks later...

pfft to 500km+ per tank in an RB Nissan :) Best I've been able to do thus far closed-loop is 14L/100km (2630+).

Of course, the PFC is fairly venerable tech these days and I'm fairly sure I've never managed to avoid the dreaded right foot at least once per trip.

Still, beggars can't be choosers. It might be dragged from my Cold, Dead Hands but you can never be sure...

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...