Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey, i have a 93' R33 and first of all i would like to say that this car bloody ROCKS!!

However, I'm a little concered about the petrol usage.....i know that they use a lot of gas relative to other (naturally aspirated) cars but at the moment I'm getting just under 300K's for a full tank when driving it fairly quietly....is this normal??

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/40115-r33-high-petrol-usage/
Share on other sites

From your post comparing yours to other NA cars, I'm assuming yours is a NA? That does sound a little odd...

I can imagine a turbo with some mods (and not much tuning) getting the figure down to this, but not a NA. My GTS-T (stock) currently runs around 400-420km/tank city driving, 620-650km country. (220km lead foot.)

So I'm sure with some tuning you can get your economy back up.

From your 1st post seems that you have just recently acquire your R33 and still "enjoying" the newfound pleasure trip to power zone.... which means you're likely to drive your R33 with a heavier right foot, right? It happened to me too and yes, fuel consumption can be high. It all depends how heavy your right foot is. Try to stay off boost most of the time and you'll see that RB25DET fuel consumption is similar to most other NA 6-cyl cars.

For a comparison freeway consumption should be around 10L/100km, while city consumption (depends on traffic) can be around 12-13L/100km. May jump to 15-16L/100km if you drive it "enthusiastly". If it's modified (higher than stock boost, aftermarket ecu, etc) then it can get higher.

dont worry, its normal!

as a guide, over one weekend i did lots of open road driving, (not all freeway, mostly high speed twisty roads) and calculated 9.5L/100kms

in reasonably heavy city driving, most of the time consumption was between 16-18L/100kms.

btw, dont take the fuel gauge as a guide to when it is empty, u can only accurately measure consumption by filling up, resetting the trip meter, then next time u fill up see how much goes in and work it out with the distance travelled.

you could always try resetting the ECU.

disconnect the battery (in the boot under the parcel shelf), and either put your foot on the brake or leave the car overnight (to drain power stored around the car).

Reconnect the battery and drive 'Granny Style'. for the first 1-2 tanks of fuel.

The ECU starts on a base map, but then adapts to your driving style - the lighter you are on the gas, the better the fuel consumption will be!

NOTE: You'll have to reset your clock and radio settings, but my R33 GTSt gets about 400-450km daily driven (city and highway) out of a tank. My only Mod is a cat back exhaust (for now).

lol i get about 200k's per tank, but ppl tell me i drive it 100% on boost, :confused: dunno what they are talking about... /me runs

100% on boost? oooooo I would like to see it.. ;) Could it be that these ppl is saying that you hit boost all the time? :)

Hrmm... dang.. From memory. I get close to 300ks per tank and tats hammering it every now and then (well. .often). Tho mine is a R34 GTT tho and even this car is costing me a fortune to run.... Hell fun tho and the wastegate noise is awesome. :P

100% on boost? oooooo I would like to see it.. ;)  Could it be that these ppl is saying that you hit boost all the time? :)

Hrmm... dang.. From memory. I get close to 300ks per tank and tats hammering it every now and then (well. .often).  Tho mine is a R34 GTT tho and even this car is costing me a fortune to run.... Hell fun tho and the wastegate noise is awesome. :P

LOL, well u know what i mean, perhaps 100% throttle was a better thing to say :evil:

So far my car is at 1/4 tank left and 320 kms(haven't had it long)...roughly 15L/100Kms and there has been some "spirited" driving and a lot of city driving as well. Not too bad I guess.

I just did 360km/55 litres which includes a full on 50-60km road tune and I hammer it quite often with a single way trip of 12km. Not the best for economy.

I think 400km is doable with some care. My motor also runs lowish compression (8.5:1 maybe).

T.

I usually get around 350-400km out of 55L, and that's with city driving, a PowerFC still on the base map (so sub 10.0:1 AFR's when booted), a button clutch (so more revs and a heavier throttle on takeoff) and a T3/4 turbo.

When the car was stock minus pod, exhaust and 10psi, I'd regularly see 550km from 55L. On one trip (Ipswich to Rainbow Beach and back, plus a bit of driving in between, stock minus a quiet 3" exhaust) I managed over 900km on 54L of premium, or less than 6L/100km :rant: I made it to Rainbow Beach on less than 1/3 of a tank. I sat on 110km/h pretty much the whole way, and being NYE of 2000, I drove with a very light foot. My car is MUCH more efficient at 110 than at 100, IMHO it would've done at least 70 or 80km less on that tank at 100km/h.

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

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...