Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

or you could go the 2.6L twin turbo option - though I dare say that would do SFA for the fuel econ debate haha

I've been giving this fuel economy issue a lot of thought since I bought the car....

I'm starting to think that the poor 2.5ltr RB25 just isn't enough motor to pull the S1+2 Stagea's around. Sure when the foots down they go quite well considering its a 2.5 6cyl pulling around that much weight but in normal light to medium throttle it just feels almost laggy until it builds up pace almost forcing you to use more throttle to get it going then easing off which is why the economy is so shit. The thing is I still love Stageas and I still think they are a really great package for a wagon. I mean with the right kit, wheels and suspension setup they look sexy and handle very well too but IMO as far as the powerplant goes it might just be an old school case of more cubes is better.....

Why didn't Nissan come up with the VQ series motors 10 years ago :)

Speaking in theory I wonder about the difficulties of fitting a 2JZ or even a VH45DE (if I got it right) or the soarer's V8 would go. Forgetting straight away about keeping the AWD or about being a patriot to Nissan just find a cost effective way to get more cubes (and still preferably being turbocharged) into the stagea and maybe ditching some weight along the way. May end up with a lighter car, with more power and HOPEFULLY more economy. And maybe an easier manual conversion too! This is just one of many ideas i've had floating around in my head and is a bit on the extreem side but I haven't ruled it out!

^^^^Wasn't actually serious about going ahead with such a conversion. Just pointing out that I think the stagea needed something with more CC's. But you could recoupe some of the cost by selling the gear that comes out of the car. To tell the truth I would probably still do it even if fuel economy didn't improve as I just think that the extra capacity could make it a better car to drive. But I guess you could just build a RB25/30 or RB26/30 combo too for that matter which would probably be a better option. But I just wanna hear a stagea V8 lol >_<

Well yeah if you wanted to keep the AWD then your only option for more capacity is to build an RB25/30. Would be the easiest way too I guess. But seeing as this thread is about fuel economy I would like to know wether having the extra low down power and off boost torque would save you on fuel as you shouldn't have to use as much throttle to get the car going. And I'm not talking about hanging huge turbo's off the side with massive injectors and fuel systems etc etc.

Maybe just a similar set up to what a lot of already got. Say full exhaust, highflowed turbo or something sensible (internal gated, bolt on job), fmic, fuel reg, pump, either piggy back or (if you went for a manual conversion at the same time) stand alone ecu and filter. With a good tune and moderate boost. Obviously there is still going to be some difference between those that keep the auto and those that don't.

This would only be worthwhile if you were planning to keep the car for some time (which I am) or if you have a future scope for big mods. As I would imagine building the engine would cost a bit, although if you just built it stock maybe not. Personally I don't plan on the car making that much power to justify internals being done. But I've heard that the adaptor plates for the sump etc are expensive and that apparently its easier to use a RB26 head (again expensive). Don't know how accuate either of those are. And is a 500cc difference going to make that big a difference. I've never driven a RB25 or 26 /30 combo before so I don't know. A 4.5ltr V8 would definately make a difference but don't know about fuel economy :D

hey if you want cost effective cubes you can't beat a gen3 v8

I'm gonna show some of my bias here, but I disagree with this...

I know the factory "claimed" fuel economy figures are like 11L/100km or something ridiculous but most of the car mags that have done "real world" testing have achieved figures like 15-18L/100km or even more in some instances.

Add to that the fact that one of these engines would not perform as well in a stagea and the fact that a mildly modified stagea will be able to keep up with a stock SS commo...and in my case, although my performance wouldn't match a gen3, my fuel economy figures walk all over it. I get 11.5L/100km most weeks, driving to and from work, and remembering the stagea is ~100+kg heavier than gen3-powered cars.

Dont get me wrong, the gen3 and later v8's (and ford v8's) are great engines. I'm only talking about their fuel economy vs performance.

And speaking of cost effective, a modified RB25/26 would probably still be cheaper than a stock gen3 - yes?

In terms of which gives _better_ performance, well that is a debate all on its own. There is no doubt these v8's would be more reliable (and last longer) than our RB's as the power is increased.

I have to be honest, I only read a few posts, so I aplogose if this has been said. The answer is:

GRID TS DANCER

The torque split controller. They are about $600. Turn it on, you get a 0.5 / 99.5 split front to back. You do not need the 4wd all the time (yes, I know it is variable anyway). The GRID one enables you to turn the 4wd on and off whilest driving. You do not have to stop.

I use 16.7 litres / 100km TS off.

11.7 TS on.

You also get better acceleration etc as you lose less power due to friction when only the rears are working.

Dont get me wrong, the gen3 and later v8's (and ford v8's) are great engines. I'm only talking about their fuel economy vs performance.

And speaking of cost effective, a modified RB25/26 would probably still be cheaper than a stock gen3 - yes?

Im going to disagree here, Stock LS1 commodore auto i got a little over 500km to a tank, these tanks are around 5L more than a stagea tank.

Now add a bunch of performance parts to turn it into an 11 second daily street car and i got 400-450km to a tank... so for fuel economy vs performance... gen3 wins hands down IMO

I have to be honest, I only read a few posts, so I aplogose if this has been said. The answer is:

GRID TS DANCER

The torque split controller. They are about $600. Turn it on, you get a 0.5 / 99.5 split front to back. You do not need the 4wd all the time (yes, I know it is variable anyway). The GRID one enables you to turn the 4wd on and off whilest driving. You do not have to stop.

I use 16.7 litres / 100km TS off.

11.7 TS on.

You also get better acceleration etc as you lose less power due to friction when only the rears are working.

i thought you werent able to use TS on standard s1 and s2 stageas . is this true?

just a thought after reading the posts stating that a tune didnt solve the fuel economy problem. Most tuners usually tune for high end HP so they can give you a pretty dyno chart saying look at that HP gain! I've read that it is possible to tune your car to be fuel economy focused but you run into issues when your decide to drag someone and trash the car. Maybe the solution could be piggy back ECU's that have dual tunings (street and race) like a gready emanage, where you can switch it from save-fuel-hug-a-tree mode to burn-baby-burn-mode when you want to push it. This is just focusing on the tune part, and assuming everything else is running well (coil packs, plugs, etc).

Edited by Scratch

can someone please confirm if e_methamphetamachine meant that when he had it on 100RWD he got better fuel econ? cause i just read that website for the TS dancer and it lead me to beleive that it was the other way

ok I read that the other way. as in 99.5 went to the front wheels - I thought - damned I dont want no FWD again !

can anyone else back this up? it seems that discussions on here have not shown the RWD only model to be much cheaper on fuel

He stated that with the TS controller on, set to run 99.5% torque to the rears, he got better fuel economy.

If you get a GRID TS Dancer you MUST get the R33 gtr one. R32 one different. When you put it on the 0 / 100 split (RWD) you still get a slight amopunt to the front as you can not turn off the front on the33 setup. You lose 10% due to friction etc thru the front, so by dropping it out the engine requires less power to achieve the same at the rears as it does in 4WD. I drive with RWD all the time unless at the track.

Easiest way to look at it:

Lets say for a given rate of acceleration or maintaining of a certain speed eg 100km/h, the vehicle needs a driving force / power of 100kW @ wheels.

In 4WD mode 100kw @ 4 wheels = 136HP @ wheels = 173HP at fly

In RWD mode 100kW @ 2 wheels = 136HP @ wheels = 156HP at fly

Power is the result of energy discipated.

Energy is the result of combustion of fuel.

The efficiency of the engine is the same for an engine regardess of whether it is running 2wd or 4wd as this has no effect on the engine itself.

173 / 156 ==> 10% less fuel.

Acceleration requires overcoming inertia. As you have friction, wind resistance etc, maintaining speed requires overcoming forces too. The less forces you need to overcome the easier it is, the less energy required at any point in time, and especially over a period of time ie less fuel. So although there is a 10% immediate saving, the total saving increaes in RWD mode as there is far less work the engine has to do at any point in time to overcome additional forces.

I know of a few people who have now bought TS Dancers for this reason after seeing the savings I got. They got them too.

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

    • No worries at all 🫡 I think the most satisfying things to make are the little bits that are just impossible to find or they're no longer manufactured. Generally I always try to replace parts with OEM wherever possible. This little project is also great because it'll never see the light of day, but strengthen these brackets so it's not just relying on the little standard screws in the headlight plastic. As soon as I saw the standard brackets and screws I thought, "well I'm not going to install with just the screws, the plastic tabs will just snap off". It's crazy how expensive everything has become yeah. But I suppose that's supply and demand; granted it's a lot easier to get brand new genuine parts these days which is fantastic 😊, I don't have to get totally reamed at the local Nissan dealer ha ha We sure are lucky we have all these manufacturers making parts these days, a few really great Australian companies too like Platinum Racing Products and Fit Mint Automotive, what a time to be alive ❤️ . I've got my eye on the RB26 head by PRP as mine has a very fine hairline crack, so that'll need to be addressed some time in the future. If you have any requests or odd things to make feel free to let me know and I can have a crack at making replacement parts ✌️
    • Thanks for sharing this, and BTW if your headlights are in good condition they are worth thousands....you might want to consider replacing them with brand new LED ones like this (https://www.nengun.com/78works/full-led-headlights-r32-skyline) and making enough profit to buy a house in Sydney
    • I'm not sure what sort of shops are nearby, but I'd expect any reasonable exhaust shop could put a cat in it that will not restrict the power that engine makes. Otherwise, if you want to remove it, short lengths that replace the cat are readily available online, search for "de-cat pipes" or "test pipes"  
    • Howdy friends, So another weird one today, I was looking into replacing some broken clips holding the front grille for the R32 GTR (part number 01553-03831), and noticed the brackets which are supposed to hold the grille in place were also missing 😑. I do recall seeing this issue many years ago, but didn't fix it at the time. A quick look on eBay and I was able to find the genuine brackets, along with all the screws which suited the headlights (part numbers 26042-08U05,26092-08U05). Happy days!....  Once they arrived however there was an extra nut in the packaging which implied that there should also be a bolt or a stud, and sure enough, after a bit of searching I found this thread from 2013, and @Ants clearly shows a stud should be present. Reading around a bit more, it's possible the headlights on my car are the "povo pack" headlights as mentioned by @funkymonkey in this thread way back in 2008. This could explain why the studs are missing on my set of headlights. Looking at the headlight diagram I wasn't able to see a suitable part number for the stud itself. The headlight did indeed have a recess that looked like it would accept a stud, but interestingly no thread or anything obvious how the stud would be affixed to the headlight, I suspect it may have been glued in, press fit, or melted into the plastic at the factory. Another member may be able to clarify if they happen to have a genuine set of N1 headlamps. The only thing we have to work with within the recess is a keyway which likely is there to prevent the stud from rotating within the recess. In any case, back to 3D printing, I put together a model which acts like a pug with a friction fit inside this recess, making use of the keyway so it doesn't rotate while tightening a bolt. Printing in TPU will allow it to slightly swell making a nice snug fit without cracking the part. I've designed the adaptor it to accept an 20 mm M6 bolt (stainless with a cap head in my case), as opposed to the standard M5 stud and I made use of the standard galvanised split washer that came with the genuine brackets from Nissan. Once the bolt and screws were all in place, giving the bracket a gentle shake gave the classic "shaking the car" feeling, very solid, which gives me confidence this is going to be able to hold on much better than the janky solution which seems to have been here for the past decade or so. Overall I'm really pleased with how this turned out and maybe there are more people out there running these headlights without a centre stud at all! Link to the freely available model on Printables: Click here Regards, Sean  
    • Hey everyone, This is my first post apart of the introduction. I tried searching a bit on the forum but couldn't really get a straight answer. I got the car to my mechanic as I felt it being weak. It seems that it was missing on two cylinders due to the injectors. I had all my injectors clean and the car runs much better. The mechanic also confirmed my suspicions that the cat is clogged and needs to be tackled asap. The cat rattles a bit and the hot exhaust warning frequently lights up when driving after getting the injectors clean. In my introduction I was asked about what modification I might be interested in and mentioned a cat delete. From what I was told, this is not really beneficial on the RB20DE and there are more cons than pros.  Could perhaps anyone give some suggestions on what the best course of action would be since the current cat is toast and needs to be removed/replaced anyway? I can also sometimes smell a strong smell of fuel, but I'm not sure if this is related.
×
×
  • Create New...