Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I still seem to be the anomaly here.

Driving to Canberra and back the lowest tank for me was 8L/100km.

Maybe it's because I don't usually use the aircon?

Awesome figures Jase! The only time I had better economy was with the Fcon in and a long trip up the Hume Hwy.

No chance I could get that with just the standard ecu. Are you running a remapped ecu and rwd with very skinny tyres at insane psi or something?

Screw you all!!! According to the stats I've been gathering, I'm averaging 14.87l/100kms. :(

I've got a full exhaust, FMIC, PowerFC and a GReddy EBC - must be the short trips and heavy right foot. I don't speed anywhere, but I love the feeling of acceleration, so that's killing my fuel economy.

Awesome figures Jase! The only time I had better economy was with the Fcon in and a long trip up the Hume Hwy.

No chance I could get that with just the standard ecu. Are you running a remapped ecu and rwd with very skinny tyres at insane psi or something?

That was on Potenzas. They were pumped up at the time but nothing ridiculous.

Only mod that I believe may have made a difference to fuel economy is the runner spacer. Ever since I chucked that in it seems more than happy to sit in 5th/overdrive from about 70kmh and up. Actually seems to have a lot more torque from say 70kmh to 90kmh than before.

Is there any way I can tell if this needs doing? I'd rather not drop $250 "just to see".

Disconnect it & use up a tankfull, see if any change?

______________

Here's stats from 3 fill ups on my C34 S1- stock everything except no cat. 'Z' 95 fuel.

05/03/12: 10.72/100km

08/03/12: 9.96/100km... first time ever getting into 9's

13/03/12: 10.6/100km... this one is the most common result

  • 1 month later...

My 34 S1 RS Four stock everything except no cat, burns about 20-23 L/ 100 km in city, and about 15-16 L / 100 km on highway. 95 fuel. I drive not faster than 110 km/h, but I like to speed up by pressing the gas pedal to the floor. Our fuel is terrible, so If I tucked your petrol, consumption would be less.

Edited by muratti

I still have the same o2 sensor in from when i bought the car. Still get 600k's before fuel light comes on. Still give it beans most days. Car is now @ 308,232klms.

NEVER buy Matilda fuel. It was PULP but found performance was down and only got 450klms to a full tank. Shell 98 all the time, everytime for me.

Edit: I totally forgot to say - At 180,000 k's I did pull the o2 sensor out. I put it in a small tub of fuel and used a new paint brush to clean the sensor tip, in through the little slits too.

Edited by Jezboosted

Is there any way I can tell if this needs doing? I'd rather not drop $250 "just to see".

EDIT: Wait, you have a VQ. You could be right on the price.

Edited by Cowboy1600
  • 3 weeks later...

I got 12.47l/100km on my very first tank with quite a bit of spirited driving, was testing the car out when i just got it.

Then 11.3l/100km on my second tank, these are with 85% suburban driving. :rolleyes:

Only mod is a cat-back but on a manual hence the low figures?

Just filled my S1 manual RB30/25. I have been driving normally - changing up at 2 -2500 revs, the odd boost on the motorway and it took 62.65 L for 448km so about 14L per 100km (mostly short trips less than 10km - four or five about twice that).

71 litres for 570 odd km's. Getting on for 150,00 km's mileage now. Have cat fuel filter fitted but seems to make little difference. Upwards of 200 km's on first quarter tank, open highway, promised much but failed to follow through in city driving. I expected better combined based on past performance.

BTW: MY rank should be VQ25DET, to whom that matters.

Edited by STAG250

I'm monitoring my fuel consumption following the road tune. It seems quite reasonalble concidering the changes I have made. Its hard to measure properly, because the Mrs trips are not long, but I'll have a crack.

Staqg250 - your Rank is based upon your post count. You start as a RB20e then progress ir RB20de, det, RB25de, det etc etc up to RB26dett with something like 10,000 posts.

A few of us smart cookies just changed it to something more suitable for M35 owners.... :P

Ok finally had a gentle driving week in my car and I've come back with 13.4l/100km, all highway. Alot higher then it used to be before the tune but with low level mods it's probably about right.

  • 2 weeks later...

I've gone back to Shell 98 octane and I am getting far better fuel economy now than when I was running Caltex Vortex 98. Last time I let the tank get down to near empty I had done 500km, and it took 61L to fill the tank. Now after a few tanks of the Shell fuel, I was on 275km at a half tank of fuel before I filled up this morning. I mostly drive country roads/highway going to and from work here in Canberra, all the while in the midst of the daily tradie grand prix.

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

    • Means something is not set up right, tune/calibration related.  
    • Finally replaced the previous temporary mesh indicator surrounds (temporary was the last 10+ years 😂) with a 3D printed GTR style version for the front indicators. I think it looks a lot nicer than the old setup and at least the indicators now point in the correct direction rather than angled off. Needed a little bit of tweaking to deal with the intercooler piping but got there in the end. Old and new photos below. 
    • It's weird to me that you say this because I'm pretty sure locals with relatively standard standalone tunes (boost/barometric compensated alpha-N) still have driveability issues when they pop intercooler hoses. Maybe with enough data I can just train some kind of model that spits out an expected grams/cyl given every sensor input except MAF like what FCA did with their Pentastar 3.6 ECU logic. Basically stock everything. The main motivation honestly is to have a sensor that can be a decent baseline source of truth. In scenarios you're describing obviously it won't work every time but it seems to me the number of corner cases that exist in MAF load is maybe not as severe and difficult to manage vs ITB alpha-N with some MAP/barometric compensation.
    • What are your plans for your blow off valves? Purely plumb back? How soft will the spring in them be? AFM can be tricky to get super smooth and nice, especially depending on the rest of the system, and then can be very easily upset if something slightly changes. IE, even if you run recirc blow off valves, you could still see issues getting it to behave at certain load points as turbos might start to spool, but you release the throttle but it's not enough pressure to crack the bov open to recirc, and you can end up with reversion which can cause double metering, and hence dumping of fuel into the system, and stalling the engine.   If you're going to run a map sensor for closed loop boost control from the ECU, what makes you want to keep the AFM?    
    • It's not bad, it's just not flexible. And say if you have any leaks between the MAF and plenum, well then your load axis goes out the window. Here's a real world scenario, I blew off an intercooler hose last track day, as the clamp decided to Bluetooth itself somewhere. Still continued to do 2 laps and drive it to the pub for a couple of beers then home. Good luck doing that with a MAF setup 
×
×
  • Create New...