R34

[polak_32]

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?

[Spook's_Skyline]

dont like paying for petrol?

dont buy a skyline

[HackerX]

That pretty much covers it. Obviously the non turbo is going to be a bit more friendly (though I get pretty decent k's in my turbo), but the R34's are still pretty heavy.

[Nismo_Boy]

dont like paying for petrol?

dont buy a skyline

+1

----------------------------

polak_32

Turbo is spelt with an "o" not a "z". Turbo See it's easy

[MRR34]

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 January 26, 2008 by MRR34

[n15m0]

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

[Devils_Advocate21]

All i can say is no car is fuel friendly when traffic lights are involved that said the n/a skyline should be alright on fuel, dependant on how you drive it

[jase-r34]

Im running 10psi in my R34, only other mod is the exhaust....425km, only took 47L to fill it. Not too bad i dont think.

[Chris Rogers]

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.

[53XYN]

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

[turtlepower]

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 February 4, 2008 by turtlepower

[SKY-LINER34]

using the E10 on the car is it ok for the engine?