Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

If you were to state your vehicle, then using "per tank" is fine as its consistent.

actually its not fine, fuel gauges are not very accurate and i would hope you don't run it dry so you are really just having a wild guess. You might still have 150km of fuel left in the tank when you fill up..

best bet to record your odo and litres needed to fill up over a period of time and work it out from that.

Without getting pedantic, the easiest way to collect data is to knock up an Excel spreadsheet.

Enter litres and K's at every fill.

Doesn't matter if it's 15 litres or 50 litres, same for the k's, just keep entering the data.

Your average will get tighter the more data you input.

But it's a Skyline, you know from your wallet if it's chewing juice excessively.

  • Like 1

km to a tank is a horse shit method.

Working our your fuel consumption is so easy:

1) Grow a brain

2) Fill up

3) Look at how many litres you put in

4) Look at how many km on the trip meter

5) Consumption = Litres divided by kilometers multiplied by 100.

6) Reset trip meter and keep on driving, satisfied that finally you understand what the f**k is going on

Eg 55L and trip meter shows 415km. 55 / 415 * 100 = 13.25L/100km

My last tank was 12.7L/100km city cycle.

96-98 RON, 300rwkw GT3076 with WMI kit blah blah, I went to the GC and back [round trip of from memory 1700km] with mainly highway driving but also had a day in Sydney and a few drives around the GC and I averaged just under 9.8l/100km.

But your motor is a lazy straight 6 until you boost it. At 110km/hr it is just in the brink of boosting and hard drinking - good actually, I know when I speed because the turbo starts whistling at me!!!!

And I kept a notebook for it, just so I could check, haven't really done it since - my burning curiosity was sated.

OP your fuel figures are crap, get a proper tune.

380km to "a tank" - filling up early and putting 50L in it = 13.15L/100km

compared with 380km to "a tank" and putting 58L in it (almost dry) = 15.2L/100km

15% difference, we're a long way from NASA

P.S. My car does 55 LOLs per WOW. +/- 30% :cheers:

  • Like 1

You'll get more economy if you lean more on the timing around cruise and take the AFR past stoich.

I managed to get mine doing about 9L/100km going up to Forster.

What you need to remember though if you go past stoich you'll decrease power and torque, richer mixers produce more torque.

Ideally you want to tune where pedal effort is minimum for a certain rpm and you're doing the same speed.

380km to "a tank" - filling up early and putting 50L in it = 13.15L/100km

compared with 380km to "a tank" and putting 58L in it (almost dry) = 15.2L/100km

15% difference, we're a long way from NASA

But that argument only holds true if you are not using multiple fills like on a longer road trip.

Im with the fuel Nazi on this one. Kms "to a tank" is useless and lazy. If you want to make any claims or conclusions based off your consumption you need accurate data in the first place. Ive heard some pretty wild numbers over the years like 150 or 250km "to a tank", putting you in the 20-30L/100km range

  • Like 1

There are too many variables to fuel economy.

Someone who drives 20ks to work in a non congested 60-90kph will get far better fuel economy than someone who drives 20kmph in a congested 60kmph section.

Someone who starts their car and drives straight into 90kmph will get worse fuel economy than someone who can get their car up to temp and out of enrichment at a leisurely pace.

Temperature plays a huge role too.

Comparing fuel economy to someone who drives different roads than you is pointless.

I moved from the coast where I was getting 12l/100 to the act where I was getting 14l/100 because of the location and roads.

I get about 220km to a tank.

Tank being 50L. Driving being a mix of highway and day to day traffic.

My AFR on cruise is about 16:1.

Your guess is as good as mine lol.

I get about 220km to a tank.

Tank being 50L. Driving being a mix of highway and day to day traffic.

My AFR on cruise is about 16:1.

Your guess is as good as mine lol.

How many lols per wow is that? I mean l/100km?

I get about 220km to a tank.

Tank being 50L. Driving being a mix of highway and day to day traffic.

My AFR on cruise is about 16:1.

Your guess is as good as mine lol.

You better start buying bp shares[emoji12]

I get about 220km to a tank.

Tank being 50L. Driving being a mix of highway and day to day traffic.

My AFR on cruise is about 16:1.

Your guess is as good as mine lol.

A lean AFR may not mean its actually using a small amount of fuel. Unburnt fuel in the exhaust would still read as a lean condition. So that could mean poor injector timing, poor fuel atomisation etc..

Otherwise the timing is just way too retarded for that AFR.

I get about 220km to a tank.

Tank being 50L. Driving being a mix of highway and day to day traffic.

My AFR on cruise is about 16:1.

Your guess is as good as mine lol.

It's because his foot doesn't understand anything but throttle 0% or throttle 100%

The last car i tuned managed to double the factory power output at the wheels and went from stock ecu with 13psi 260km to 280km around town 330km highway. Made 153 wkw

To 22psi 450km to 460km around town to 550km to 580km was my absolute best driving to Melbourne!

street tuned but amlost maxed out the Z32 afm est 250 to 260wkw

was so excited about the 580km i almost came unstuck on the Monaro Highway in The National Park.

best way to test your fuel economy is to run out of fuel completely I guess.

Those bends tho[emoji3]

On twice the power output.

Tune was safe as and could be bashed on no matter how hot it was outside.

Edited by mr skidz

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...