Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

This is a continuation thread from here – I posted the original in the wrong section:

Hi all, I did a quick search but couldn't find much on fuel economy so I thought I'd post this up.

I've got an R34 GTT auto with a recently installed Hypergear ATR43SS2 and supporting mods (full list here), currently running 257rwkw.

I always keep track of my fuel expenses and I measure consumpsion by filling up fully every time and noting down the odo reading. Here's an overview:

  • Completely stock 150rwkw, overall average of 12.2 litres/100km over 8,000 kms
  • Stock turbo with upped boost and Nistune with supporting mods 199rwkw, overall average of 11.9 litres/100km over 18,000kms
I've only filled up the car the three times since having the Hypergear installed, however the average consumption is currently sitting at 16.4 litres/100km. Granted it's been a lot of city driving but it's still a pretty silly figure.

What kind of economy (litres/100km) are you guys getting out of your 250rwkw+ setups?

Less than a month later, here's my fuel economy figures (l/100km) from the three most recent refills (all freeway and country driving):

  • 11.9
  • 10.8
  • 10.3

Not too bad at all.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/436926-fuel-economy-for-250rwkw/
Share on other sites

hmm your complaining about 16L/100km? I had a modded RS liberty turbo (full tune, STI turbo, full exhaust, 190kw) and I was getting close to the 25L/100km around town. Now THATS bad. Whats worse is the small tank in Subaru's (RS liberty's had around a 55 litre tank, small for a fairly large sedan).

But with the new figures your getting I would be very happy. My 32 GTR is on about 18-20L/100km depending on my driving and its pretty much stock.

hmm your complaining about 16L/100km? I had a modded RS liberty turbo (full tune, STI turbo, full exhaust, 190kw) and I was getting close to the 25L/100km around town. Now THATS bad. Whats worse is the small tank in Subaru's (RS liberty's had around a 55 litre tank, small for a fairly large sedan).

But with the new figures your getting I would be very happy. My 32 GTR is on about 18-20L/100km depending on my driving and its pretty much stock.

Yeah well, I was :) Definitely much happier now that it's not permanently in the high teens!

My previous 290rwkw N/A V8 was in the mid 20's around town so the Skyline fuel efficiency is certainly a lot more civilised than that.

Wow you thrash your cars. My GT-R gets 12-13L in traffic.

So wait, your telling me you get 840 kms to a tank around town? I dont even get close to that at all even with freeway driving.

So wait, your telling me you get 840 kms to a tank around town? I dont even get close to that at all even with freeway driving.

How did you come up with that figure lol.

Off a 60 lt tank, it would end up more like 500Km's a tank around town.

How did you come up with that figure lol.

Off a 60 lt tank, it would end up more like 500Km's a tank around town.

70x12 is 840. I dont know what size tank your car has but r32 GTRs have a 72L fuel tank.

  • Like 1

Thanks guys.

I've never found 'kms to a tank' a particularly accurate way to measure/compare economy as fuel tank sizes vary and nobody lets drives tank completely dry. Without a fancy trip computer the next best thing I know of is to fill the car up fully every time and note down the odo reading, then subtract from previous reading and calculate that way.

My fuel gauge has always been temperamental and I can fill about 40 litres when it shows close to empty. However, I just read somewhere that the GTT tank is 65 litres (can someone confirm?) so there should be plenty of juice left...

I was doing about 12L/100km when I first got my car tuned at 250rwkw

It started to get worse over the next 2 years, but was still getting about 14L/100km around town before I pulled the engine out. Found out the other day the engine that came out was a little (not to bad) unhealthy so might have had something to do with the drop in economy

I live in a smaller city, Theres not too much start stop traffic, but still a little.

I think 20L/100km is a bit crazy. Tune might need a bit of work in the cruise cells, or your driving style might need a change

Can't comment too much on E85, I know they use more fuel then 98 but not sure how much

Edited by 89CAL

70x12 is 840. I dont know what size tank your car has but r32 GTRs have a 72L fuel tank.

I've never filled up more than 65L, I don't run my cars that low on fuel.

Generally I get 450-500km to 60L combined, that's with minimal boosties of course. Lately I've struggling to get to 400km (for 60L), too much thrashing.

Yeh ive never filled over 65L either but thats not my point. On a theoretical level, with a 72L tank which our cars have, you will get 840+ kms to a tank, and I just get no where near that. I drove up to coffs a couple of weeks ago and with only freeway driving I was pushing 600 kms to the tank. Somethings wrong with my car :(

New 02 sensors should help it, if you haven't replaced them recently. Apart from that, it's usually AFMs crapping out. I once got 10.5L/100km driving up to Newcastle and back to Sydney. That was when the AFMs were still good. Big fluke as it never dropped below 12L.

Mildly modded 96 Gts-t series 2 around 320hp on 15 psi.

500km open road driving

350-400 city peak hour driving with the occasional kick in the guts to overtake retards.

Half a tank for 12 laps of barbagello... haha

Edited by intercpt

70x12 is 840. I dont know what size tank your car has but r32 GTRs have a 72L fuel tank.

um no, 10L/100km from 70ltrs is 700km so how is 12L/100km from 70ltrs 840km

since your trying to find units per hundred it's 70/12x100 which gives 583 from 70ltrs

to proof it,

you are working per 100km so you need to change the distance to number of hundreds, so 583/100=5.83 that's 5.83 hundreds

now how many hundreds per tank or 70ltrs for this equation 70/5.83=12.006, that's 70ltrs divided by 5.83 hundreds gives 12.006 liters per hundred

my R32 GTR has 261rwkw for daily duties, I filled up at the Shell servo around the corner from my house a St Marys then drove to Orange and back then around my area for a few days and got 673km from the tank and put 62 liters in which filled it back up

673/100= 6.73 62/6.73=9.21L/100km

um no, 10L/100km from 70ltrs is 700km so how is 12L/100km from 70ltrs 840km

since your trying to find units per hundred it's 70/12x100 which gives 583 from 70ltrs

to proof it,

you are working per 100km so you need to change the distance to number of hundreds, so 583/100=5.83 that's 5.83 hundreds

now how many hundreds per tank or 70ltrs for this equation 70/5.83=12.006, that's 70ltrs divided by 5.83 hundreds gives 12.006 liters per hundred

my R32 GTR has 261rwkw for daily duties, I filled up at the Shell servo around the corner from my house a St Marys then drove to Orange and back then around my area for a few days and got 673km from the tank and put 62 liters in which filled it back up

673/100= 6.73 62/6.73=9.21L/100km

Sorry it was a typo I was meant to write 72L not 70 cause a r32 gtr has a 72L tank.

I think I stuff it all up and its around 600km or something for 72L tank

Edited by seventhirteen

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...