Jump to content
SAU Community

R35 Fuel Consumption

70RTY

By 70RTY,
in R35 GTR

 Share

Recommended Posts

70RTY Enthusiast

70RTY

Posted
Posted

I have been asked a few times how much fuel the GTR uses, so I am going to post the fuel consumption figures for my 2008 JDM GTR every so often.

Since my last fill up I have concentrated on conserving fuel and driving fairly efficiently and therefore left the car in auto mode most of the time. The driving consisted mainly of inner city bumper to bumper traffic and some suburban driving. However, I did have some self restraint issues and floored it a few times.

Over 380km the car used 49.09L of V power. i.e. 12.9L/100km.

I think this could easily be improved in less dense traffic and more highway driving, however drivng in a fuel efficient fashion is not the way to gain the most enjoyment from this car.

I am installing a midpipe this Friday so it will be interesting to see how that effects fuel consumption (if at all).

It would be great to see what fuel consumption others are achieving - don't be shy, post up your stats!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LSX-438 Mentor

LSX-438

Posted
Posted

I am getting about 18l/100km around town (50:50 stop start / cruising) and down to about 10l/100km on the open freeway.

On the track, the thing drinks fuel like there is no tomorrow! I have to take jerry cans.

It drinks more fuel then my 438cube V8 Monaro did (not that i really care) :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gibbo_R35 Community Regular

Gibbo_R35

Posted
Posted

Open road I get about 11L per 100km. City and random driving I get 17.8 or thereabouts.

Track days I have done on average 2.3km per Litre. The worst fuel consumption I have measured was 1.95km per litre over 1/2 a tank.

From 60 litres I get about 130km on the track, plus enough to get me to the nearest servo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sammy-qld Enthusiast

Sammy-qld

Posted
Posted

Not sure about per tank, I remember on my drive back from Melb my fuel consuption screen said I was getting about 9.5 km's per Litre. With normal highway driving.

Thats with a Cobb access port installed, boosting hp by 50-60hp though that sure won't help fuel consumption LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Martin Donnon Mentor

Martin Donnon

Posted
Posted

We are looking at developing 'in flight' re-fuelling for the GTR....they are very thirsty, however a custom AP Tune can tone down their thirst at the track. Commanded lambda at WOT ranges around 0.72 which is around 10.6:1 AFR in the old money. Cleaning them up when we tune them sees several extra laps before pouring another $100 of 98 down its thirsty little filler neck :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
npr35 Rookie

npr35

Posted
Posted

A friend also owns an ADM R35. 3 weeks ago we set out to compare fuel consumption on highway driving in M mode. For the same 40km, I could only manage 7.3km/L and he amazed me to achieve 9.3km/L.

Anyway, my last refuel was 56.74L for 400km of V power, that was about 7.05km/L or 14.2L/100km of mainly highway driving. My worst fuel consumption was 5.9km/L during break-in schedule at the first 2000km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LSX-438 Mentor

LSX-438

Posted
Posted
We are looking at developing 'in flight' re-fuelling for the GTR....they are very thirsty, however a custom AP Tune can tone down their thirst at the track. Commanded lambda at WOT ranges around 0.72 which is around 10.6:1 AFR in the old money. Cleaning them up when we tune them sees several extra laps before pouring another $100 of 98 down its thirsty little filler neck :)

"In flight?" re-fueling?

That wouldnt be related to the 12 hr would it? Some CAMS people tell me the $$ rules are about the change which should see some GTR's return to the mountain. Speaking of which, you might sell a truckload of coolers Martin! (or another truckload)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Max_ST-R Collaborator

Max_ST-R

Posted
Posted

It would be interesting to compare fuel consumption with GT-R's supercar competitors, ie Gallardo LP560-4, Murcielago LP640, Porsche 911 GT2, 911 Turbo, Aston Martin DBS, Ferrari F430, 599GTB etc. In that company it may not be that bad at all! In city traffic my mate was averaging 16l/100km in his VZ Clubsport, so 17l/100km around town is high, but not sooo bad for a sub 4 second 0-100km/h 300km/h+ AWD supercar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
70RTY Enthusiast

70RTY

Posted
  • Author
Posted

For the performance levels this car achieves, I think the fuel consumption is quite good. Sure, it uses heaps of petrol when you are pushing hard but that is the case with any fast car. We are lucky that if you choose to drive conservatively, reasonable fuel consumption can be gained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Godcla Community Regular

Godcla

Posted
Posted
For the performance levels this car achieves, I think the fuel consumption is quite good. Sure, it uses heaps of petrol when you are pushing hard but that is the case with any fast car. We are lucky that if you choose to drive conservatively, reasonable fuel consumption can be gained.

Drive to the Beach most w/ends on back roads......have done this with many Cars and the R35

can be good on juice even when still going very quick....one just has to be smooth on the Pedal.

Cayman S would use only a little less going similar speeds...(requires more Pedal... :D )

Exige SuperCharged can also use a fair bit of juice.........(when using the PEDAL..more Pedal required to be as quick..)

I am happy with it's fuel Consumption........ :thumbsup: ........but I don't get much traffic/start-stop here.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gibbo_R35 Community Regular

Gibbo_R35

Posted
Posted

The GTR for me uses less fuel than an RX-8 I had a couple of years back. On the track the RX-8 got about 3km/l and was nowhere near as fast, on the road the RX-8 was a bit worse.

That being said, if you need to worry about the cost of fuel then you should not be buying the GTR....or any car over about $60k.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fungoolie Community Regular

fungoolie

Posted
Posted

Normal outer suburban driving (40% 70kph+ roads, 2 km typical traffic light separation) averages between 12.0 and 13.0 l/100km with approx a full throttle blast to 100kph every 10 km.

Inner city stop start traffic gets me about 15 l/100km.

Open road at 110 kph is around 11 l/100km.

Taking a mate for a blast around suburban streets showing him what it can do in that environment......20+ l/100 km.

Oh and my fuel consumption readout reads between 0.5 and 0.9 l/100 km better than what the consumption really is. Can this be recalibrated using any aftermarket device or perhaps would Nissan be able to do it? Just needs a tweak of around 7%.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Munro Experienced

Munro

Posted
Posted

I am getting around 23L/100km with my modified R33 GTR so last couple of tanks around 17L/100km in the R35 seems alright to me (considering I love my midpipe so much & love to hear its tune!)

Will check it out now I have new Cobb tune & see if average changes. The Cobb tune feels much more linear & definately feels stronger. Will put it on 4WD dyno before do any other mods to see where it is at. I am looking at dump pipes & forge actuators next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beer Baron Grand Master

Beer Baron

Posted
Posted
"In flight?" re-fueling?

That wouldnt be related to the 12 hr would it? Some CAMS people tell me the $$ rules are about the change which should see some GTR's return to the mountain. Speaking of which, you might sell a truckload of coolers Martin! (or another truckload)....

lol, I'm fairly sure the inflight refuelling was a joke. :P

they are thirsty, but as pointed out my 32 GTR would get as bad as 23L/100km when being pushed around on the street a bit.. ;) on the track... nuts. hell even my old V8 lexus was a thirsty beast, in city driving it was up near 18L/100km. nasty. so given the power it makes, and the fact that most of us can't resist the odd jab on the pedal I think they are doing pretty well.

Note: I'm too scared to even measure the consumption of the RX7, but at a guess I'd say 25L/100+ :D:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LSX-438 Mentor

LSX-438

Posted
Posted
lol, I'm fairly sure the inflight refuelling was a joke. :P

they are thirsty, but as pointed out my 32 GTR would get as bad as 23L/100km when being pushed around on the street a bit.. ;) on the track... nuts. hell even my old V8 lexus was a thirsty beast, in city driving it was up near 18L/100km. nasty. so given the power it makes, and the fact that most of us can't resist the odd jab on the pedal I think they are doing pretty well.

Note: I'm too scared to even measure the consumption of the RX7, but at a guess I'd say 25L/100+ :D:)

Ahh ok, i thought Mr Tuna was perhaps installing a new/bigger tank. I do wonder how the R35's will go around the mountain, three laps, then in for a refuel! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • MBS206
      Skid pans in/around Sydney?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Maybe SAUNSW could see howany members would do a motorkhana day if Schofield's is still available for a reasonable price...
    • MBS206
      Skid pans in/around Sydney?

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Skip the concrete, we just need to smooth a field. Mark knows how to drive a grader Duncan   I reckon 100x100 flat area for skid pan style, and then some sort tracks for rally... Duncan's already got a rally car on the premises to...
    • GTSBoy
      PRP RB26 cast block + head prototype running

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Well, yeah, the RB26 is definitely that far off the mark. From a pure technology point of view it is closer to the engines of the 60s than it is to the engines of the last 10 years. There is absolutely nothing special about an RB26 that wasn't present in engines going all the way back to the 60s, except probably the four valve head. The bottom end is just bog standard Japanese stuff. The head is nothing special. Celicas in the 70s were the same thing, in 4cyl 2 valve form. The ITBs are nothing special when you consider that the same Celicas had twin Solexes on them, and so had throttle plates in the exact same place. There's no variable valve timing, no variable inlet manifold, which even other RBs had either before the 26 came out or shortly afterward. The ECU is pretty rude and crude. The only things it has going for it are that the physical structure was pretty bloody tough for a mass produced engine, the twin-turbos and ITBs made for a bit of uniqueness against the competition (and even Toyota were ahead on the twin turbs thing, weren't they?) and the electronic controls and measuring devices (ie, AFMs, CAS, etc) were good enough to make it run well. Oh, and it sounds better than almost anything else, ever. The VR38 is absolutely halfway between the RB generation and the current generation, so it definitely has a massive increase in the sophistication of the electronics, allowing for a lot more dynamic optimisation of mapping. Then there's things like metal treatments and other coatings on things, adoption of variable cam stuff, and a bunch of other little improvements that mean it has to be a better thing than the RB26. But I otherwise agree with you that it is approximately the same thing as a 26. But, skip forward another 10 years from that engine and then the things that I mentioned in previous post come out to play. High compression, massively sophisticated computers, direct injection, clever measuring sensors, etc etc. They are the real difference between trying to make big power with a 26 and trying to make big power with a S/B50/54 (or whatever the preferred BMW engine of the week is).
    • V35_Paul
      Thinking of getting a Q50 300hp and just tuning it instead of getting the Q50 Red or 400R

      By V35_Paul · Posted

    • joshuaho96
      PRP RB26 cast block + head prototype running

      By joshuaho96 · Posted

      Is the RB26 actually that far off the mark? Honestly from where I'm sitting a VR38DETT is not actually that much more advanced than the RB26. Yes, there is a scavenge pump on the VR38, it's smarter in a number of ways but it's not actually jumping out to me as alien technology. Something like a B58 or V35A-FTS on the other hand has so many surprising little design features that add up to be something that just isn't comparable. 
×
×
  • Create New...