Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys and girls

I just sold my rx7 because it was a petrol hungry beast, am now looking at a 34 non turbo

anyone know much bout them?

looks nice but is it good on fuel??? ive had enough with the petrol hungry cars looking for something more tame.

any suggestions or tips about the 34?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/203276-r34/
Share on other sites

Hey guys and girls

I just sold my rx7 because it was a petrol hungry beast, am now looking at a 34 non turbo

anyone know much bout them?

looks nice but is it good on fuel??? ive had enough with the petrol hungry cars looking for something more tame.

any suggestions or tips about the 34?

The Term "Petrol hungry cars" can be very wild, so in your standard how much Litre/100kms is too hungry for you mate thats the question.

So if you want a car that need next to nothing to run buy:

"Smart 4 Two" A.K.A Smart-car

Echo

Yaris

Getz

Swift

If you don't want a small or a compact car but yet uses less fuel then:

Camry

Aurion

VE commodore

Accord Euro

New lancer

If you want a car that have a sporting looks or go fast feel but yet retain some sort of fuel economy then:

Mini

FTO

Civic Type-R

Integra Type-R

350Z

Non turbo Version of R34,R33,R32, WRX Rs, Supra

Edited by MRR34
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/203276-r34/#findComment-3605711
Share on other sites

if you can keep your foot out of it and drive sedately it will be MUCH better than a rotor.

I have a wagon that will chew 60lt of 98 octane petrol in 290k if I drive it wild. sedate it will do 550 on the same tank.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/203276-r34/#findComment-3606416
Share on other sites

a 34 NA is no more fuel guzzling than a 6 cyl commodore...and should definately be much better compared to a rotor.

althought my mrs gets 500-600 a full tank fuel using the cheaper ethnol blends.. FYI the NA auto RWD dynoed at 160hp @ rear wheel this is after a major service and tune as well

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/203276-r34/#findComment-3611720
Share on other sites

They are decent for a six cylinder with mine getting about 10liters per 100kms on average, thats better than my 2006 hilux ute which is a 4cylinder. I wouldn't waste your time getting an na (thats wat i have) nice car and all drives great, but is pretty slow and also don't get an auto (extra slow). A manual might be alright, but power wise i raced my old r31 manual with just extractors and exaust against my stock auto 34 and there was nothing between them, over 120km the 34 would flog it. You would probly get a bit better fuel economy out of the manual version as well.

Edited by turtlepower
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/203276-r34/#findComment-3623391
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

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...