Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi i recently got my Ps and started driving my 92 R32 GTS25 by myself and i have filled up twice now and i think im getting really bad fuel economy. Im a pertty big noob when it comes to cars so i couldnt really tell u wat mods i got. Both times i did around 320 km per full 60L tank and i asked a few ppl and their gtrs do better then that so im just wondering if there is anything wrong and if your guys got any suggestions thx

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/106384-r32-fuel-economy/
Share on other sites

Such a large factor with fuel ecconomy is dependant on how the individual drives the vehicle...

e.g. Car: R32 GTS-t

Mods: Lots...

Good week at work, 400kms easily...

Sh*t week at work - girlfriend - momentary fits of rage, 253kms (and own PB)

It really does depend mate... also, mods? Any? It's an RB25, and you might have your lead shoes on...

But around the 330 - 400 mark I think you'll find is pretty stock standard.

Cheers. :unsure:

Do a major service on your car, something sounds wrong on yoursl ...my r32 na does way better than that on a full tank like 400-500+kms., with the occasional flooring it lol.....

some advise, watch your fuel guage when driving normaly, then watch it when you floor it a few times the fuel guage shows how much you really use when doing that.

Edited by NeesaanGTS
auto rb25t with 190rwkws and i get 370 to 450 from 60l champ

thats 15L/100km ! thats hardly good either..

acidkid: if yours is auto that could explain a lot.. seems like economy on the autos is quite a bit worse than the manual.

I get something like 130 - 140 klms per 15 litres for my manual r33 - Though just today i got 120 in about 20 ltrs ( but thats cos I had a full tank, and i was demonstrating the turbo for a couple of my friends).

who cares about fuel economy, you drive a skyline not a toyota echo,

if i want fuel economy i wouldnt be driving a skyline,

enjoy it while petrol is still affordable, theres less and less oil in the world, in 10 years time we'll prob be paying $2- $3 a litre

yeah. at the start of each tank i've been known to say many a time "okay, no hooning it for the whole tank to see how many Ks you can get" ... well, that plan always goes out the window.

i get a bit over 300km to the tank most of the time. i should change these o2 sensors like everyone says! i have trained myself to always just put it in neutral down hills and rolling toward the lights though.

my car is r34 gt4

i got 21 litre per 100 km

i think it's very bad

i already check once by maintenance man. they check exhaust emission. and said no any problem...

i want to know: how to check o2 sensor? and can inject oil to tank fix problem?

i bought this car form japan, nobody driver it in nearly half year, is this reason for fuel problem?

Hi i recently got my Ps and started driving my 92 R32 GTS25 by myself and i have filled up twice now and i think im getting really bad fuel economy. Im a pertty big noob when it comes to cars so i couldnt really tell u wat mods i got. Both times i did around 320 km per full 60L tank and i asked a few ppl and their gtrs do better then that so im just wondering if there is anything wrong and if your guys got any suggestions thx

if your car was turbo i would say that u should be able to get more but NA you should definately be getting more, probably should be closer to 450. Definately get it checked out by an EFI diagnostic center.

Edited by RRR32_GoDzIlLa
yeah. at the start of each tank i've been known to say many a time "okay, no hooning it for the whole tank to see how many Ks you can get" ... well, that plan always goes out the window.

i get a bit over 300km to the tank most of the time. i should change these o2 sensors like everyone says! i have trained myself to always just put it in neutral down hills and rolling toward the lights though.

If you put it in neutral that would use more fuel according to my understanding.

When you put it in neutral the motor has to dump fuel in to stop the car from stalling. If you are rolling down a hill or rolling towards the lights in gear you are using less fuel because your motor is turning itself from the momentum of your wheels. I think most ECUs cut fuel on deacceleration.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

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

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...