Author Topic: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency  (Read 45146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Budgie

  • Dr. B Udgie - AWD FTW
  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 9411
  • Karma: +131/-33
  • Gender: Male
  • U12-U13
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #60 on: Oct 26, 2005, 02:53PM »
Hehe, i've switched down to premium (95 octane) instead of 98 octane optimax or synergy 8000.

Fuel economy seems to have improved!  Almost 200km from still over half a tank... which is damn good for my car around town!  I used shell premium.
dont piss me off with your pillarless shit captain snappy wrist

Offline wicked

  • antrx.com senior member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • Karma: +7/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • U13
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #61 on: Oct 27, 2005, 09:31AM »
Hehe, i've switched down to premium (95 octane) instead of 98 octane optimax or synergy 8000.

Fuel economy seems to have improved!  Almost 200km from still over half a tank... which is damn good for my car around town!  I used shell premium.

I have swapped to Mobil PULP (RON95). Seems like a good compromise between fuel price & power( n smooth idling).
Here's some calculation:
$25 - 20.9 litres 95 RON PULP (Mobil $1.195/l )
$25 - 21.8 litres unleaded (Mobil $1.145/l)
$25 - 20.08 litres 98 RON PULP (Assuming shell $1.245/l)

Assuming fuel economy of about 9.5l/100km and comparing both PULP against ULP,
An extra mileage of 9.47km would be required to cover the cost of RON 95 PULP.
An extra mileage of 18.1km would be required to cover the cost of RON 98 PLUP.

Tell me what u guys think about the calculations? ;D

Offline timstar

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • When only the best will do.... timstar!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #62 on: Oct 28, 2005, 09:18PM »
Ok, I've done my test... and the results are in...

Car: 93 Bluebird LX
Engine: KA24DE
KMs: 244000 (This motor about 60,000)
Last Service: 240,000
Mods: Drift Pod Filter on WAI, Hi-Tech Hedders, Ground Wire Kit
Extra Weight: 12inch Kicker Sub in box
Tyre pressure: 39psi all round
Tyres: 205/45 R16s

Last fuel test reading:

375.2kms - 28.95lts = 7.1ltrs per 100kms

I'm pretty happy with that.. and I think I owe it to my ground wire kit... the last test I did, (before the Service, WAI and Ground Wire Kit) I was using approx 9.5-10ltrs per 100kms

I believe... that should put me on top of the leader board :)

Tim.
I'm not scared of dying I just don't want to

 If I stopped lying, I'd just disappoint you!!!!!



Offline Ka-Bluey

  • antrx.com's
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2104
  • Karma: +64/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • The MtData Guy
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #63 on: Oct 28, 2005, 11:26PM »
Shit thats really good tim.

If the ground wire kit really does improve things that much think i might do it myself one day.

My car is not doing to good at the moment. I think last reading i got was

$30 of Caltex Vortex (96) gave me around 24.08L and i got around 220-240km. Not sure on the exact milage. Always forget to check. But tomorrow am doing new sparkies, fuel filter and cleaning the POD so that might improve things.
 

Offline Alister

  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
  • Karma: +27/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • 5.7L LS1 oooh yeah baby!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #64 on: Oct 29, 2005, 01:49AM »
Nice result tim, it's actually 7.71L/100km though :)
I think I'd better try this ground mod too.

Offline timstar

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • When only the best will do.... timstar!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #65 on: Oct 29, 2005, 10:14AM »
Oops... excuse my typo :P

And I left out that, that messure was done on about 75% freeway - 25% city


Well yeh.. I'm assuming the Ground wiring kit was the real helper, cause I can't imagine a pod filter on a WAI would help fuel economy.
I'm not scared of dying I just don't want to

 If I stopped lying, I'd just disappoint you!!!!!



Offline wicked

  • antrx.com senior member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • Karma: +7/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • U13
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #66 on: Oct 31, 2005, 12:58PM »

Last fuel test reading:

375.2kms - 28.95lts = 7.1ltrs per 100kms

Tim.

That's a great results. I never thought that 7 plus litres/100km would be possible in the bluebird. I guess that a key factor in this result could be the reduced drag with 39PSI on the tyres.  ;D

Offline timstar

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 198
  • Karma: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • When only the best will do.... timstar!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #67 on: Oct 31, 2005, 03:19PM »
39psi is the recommended pressure for my r16 tyres... Max is like 55psi I think.
I'm not scared of dying I just don't want to

 If I stopped lying, I'd just disappoint you!!!!!



Offline wicked

  • antrx.com senior member
  • ****
  • Posts: 480
  • Karma: +7/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • U13
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #68 on: Oct 31, 2005, 04:08PM »
I c, I c, my bad.  ;D

Offline Alister

  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
  • Karma: +27/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • 5.7L LS1 oooh yeah baby!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #69 on: Oct 31, 2005, 05:27PM »
39psi is the recommended pressure for my r16 tyres... Max is like 55psi I think.

I run mine at 40psi now, better handling and fuel consumption at higher pressures.

Offline Craazy

  • Resident Attesa Driver
  • antrx cruise monkey
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Karma: +29/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Lovin it long time
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #70 on: Oct 31, 2005, 05:37PM »
i would be interested in finding out the fuel consumption now in my bluebird with the larger fuel pump, but since i only drive it on weekends now i dont see it as being an overly good ratio...... i would say my fuel consumption would be a high 13l per 100k's.....

of course i could go through 40l's per 100k's without a problem, i have done this already and it is alot of fun although not recommended  ;)


The Time Has Come To Battle It Out To The Death... SR24 vs KA24

The bluey must be revived to Life!!

Offline Milford

  • resident clown
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2106
  • Karma: +21/-35
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #71 on: Oct 31, 2005, 06:35PM »
you werent SPEEDING were you?

Offline bungs

  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2401
  • Karma: +53/-25
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #72 on: Feb 14, 2006, 02:01AM »
Just reviving this thread..

On the weekend I went on a fishing trip, did a 320km trip there and back, and used roughtly just a touch over half a tank - i'd guess 32 litres.

10L/100 on the highway, pretty much the same as when it was non-boosted :) That was with 3 people in the car and the car chocablock full of supplies, and the occasional stomp on the go pedal.

Offline bigpud2012

  • "I drive a pissweak auto"
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 1390
  • Karma: +17/-21
  • Gender: Male
    • RSI - Adelade Sports Imagery - Clipsal 500 Classic Adelaide etc
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #73 on: Feb 14, 2006, 09:30PM »
WTF 320km from jsut over half a tank.

shit bungs ild like to be in your situation :)

Offline Kranzy

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Karma: +66/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • U12 - SR20DET
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #74 on: Feb 14, 2006, 10:53PM »
I get that on a regular basis...although mines not boosted so it is a good effort by bungs.

Then after half way it drops pretty quick...id say i get between 550-600km per tank.
Quote from: noss
learnt something new just then, dont eat baked bean sandwhiches while changing the paper in the copier


"Noss is GOD"

Offline Rake

  • vrrrmm sssssh pstch
  • antrx cruise monkey
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Karma: +60/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • quack
    • http://www.tldr.com.au
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #75 on: Feb 14, 2006, 11:46PM »
Well when your driving off-boost (Right up to equal atmospheric pressure, 0psi I would imagine), your not burning any more fuel than a N/A equilivant. So logically, why would fuel usage greatly differ?

Offline SSS

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 8279
  • Karma: +5020/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #76 on: Feb 15, 2006, 10:40AM »
my fuel economy is dismal at best; travelling in peak hour traffic 5 days a week (no freeway driving at all) works out to be around 14L/100k's.

Offline emuisme

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
  • Karma: +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Slack kid on the block
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #77 on: Feb 25, 2006, 09:39AM »
before I go of in a useless rant about what I use to get, What's a ground wire kit?
edit: scratch the ground wire - found it! (this must be my month of the 'tard attacks!)

I haven't actually done the experiment yet (pinny's off the road - dam money!)

back when I was driving it full time I use to get about 550 K/tank (approx 50 L) on standard unleaded (back when it was about 79 c/L long time I know!)  it was about 90-95% open road, the rest was city driving, I had to do about 3 K of dirt track first and last thing (the joys of living on a farm).  about 50 K/tank was a direct gain from the cruse control. I use to run my Tires at around 30 psi.

The main thing I remember was I could get about 300-350 k on half a tank, then it use to drink the last bit.

of course these figures are based on me behaving the entire time, the worst I ever got was a touch over 380 on just under 50 L.

once I get the old girl back on the road (new drivers seat, fix panel damage, service, I think she needs new rings sometime soon, oh and I'd better fix that oil leak!)

PS if anyone thinks this rant isn't at all relevant let me know and I'll delete it back to the original question.
« Last Edit: Feb 26, 2006, 09:46PM by emuisme »
I spent my money on sothern comfort and speeding fines, the rest I wasted.

Born to drive, forced to work!

Offline Jono

  • The Wise Man
  • Global Moderator
  • post whore
  • ****
  • Posts: 5748
  • Karma: +159/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • memory boy!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #78 on: Feb 25, 2006, 01:43PM »
Well at last I have a benchmark to go by, my average is 400-450km before the tank runs dry :-\

Mind you that's purely city driving.
#1 Post Wh0re
pringles was here!

Offline noss

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 13882
  • Karma: +278/-50
  • Gender: Male
  • great scott!
    • antrx
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #79 on: Mar 8, 2006, 12:07PM »
well, here i my info.. i have bought this thread back up because i was very dissapointed with my fuel consumption last night, until i actually calculated everything and then read this thread.

Vehicle: 1990 pintara 4 manual
Kms: ~245,000
Last serviced: oil - 500km ago, plugs ~4000km ago
Extra weight: sub box, amps
mods: cai, r4 cam
Fuel: mobil ulp
Driving type: 80% hwy, 20% city
Driving style: normal driving with the occasional squirt at the lights
Tyre pressure: 36-38psi
Aircon/window usage: air con doesnt work. occasionally had the drivers side window down a touch
Cruise control: n/a
Current average fuel consumption: just got 545km from 43 litres of fuel which is a very respectable 7.89 litres/100km

i'm still running the stock ecu, which is a lot richer than my stage 3 chips.. when i get my ass into gear i'll chip the t and hopefully be able to squeeze a bit more efficiency out of the old girl

http://polyfedelicio.us/imgs/ - free image hosting for whatever you like

Offline Jono

  • The Wise Man
  • Global Moderator
  • post whore
  • ****
  • Posts: 5748
  • Karma: +159/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • memory boy!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #80 on: Mar 8, 2006, 08:13PM »
#1 Post Wh0re
pringles was here!

Offline Alister

  • antrx.com junkie
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
  • Karma: +27/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • 5.7L LS1 oooh yeah baby!
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #81 on: Mar 8, 2006, 11:11PM »
That's a great result noss, I wonder how the Stage 3 KA24DE chips would do mate ;)
What did you get with your Stage 3 chip was in the TRX?

A guy came into work last night in a white U12 TRX so we had a chat for quite awhile about it and he reckoned that the KA24DE is quite a bit more efficient than the KA24E.
His TRX had over 330 000km on its original engine  :o

Offline noss

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 13882
  • Karma: +278/-50
  • Gender: Male
  • great scott!
    • antrx
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #82 on: Mar 9, 2006, 09:23AM »
Yeh that result is pretty bloody good. I was originally disappointed because I was expecting to hit at least 600km by the time the fuel light came on, but the fuel light was well and truly on at 500km.. it seems though that my light comes on quite early (around 15-18 litres left in the tank)

I had decided to see how far I get on different brands of fuel, currently living in the outer northern suburbs and working on the gold coast (~110km each way) gives a lot of opportunity to do so.

So far the mobil is on a winner, I’m running on shell at the moment and so far I’ve gotten 340km and my needle is showing half a tank.. but I’ll get more accurate figures once I fill up.

In the trx i did a fuel efficiency test between Melbourne and Brisbane and back. I got around 10.2 litres per 100km on the way up, that was with stock ecu, 2.5” exhaust and the r4 cam, on the way down with the rb25 air flow meter and stage 3 chip installed, I was getting a solid 8.7 litres per 100km..

Keep in mind that the t has a rebuilt engine and a stock exhaust which may be why the figures are so good.

http://polyfedelicio.us/imgs/ - free image hosting for whatever you like

Offline SSS

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 8279
  • Karma: +5020/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #83 on: Mar 9, 2006, 12:08PM »
The DE would be more efficient in terms of fuel usage as it has a higher compression ratio, a central spark plug which would promote a good flame front and a better fuel burn. An extra exhaust valve and better flowing ports help also.

Offline noss

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 13882
  • Karma: +278/-50
  • Gender: Male
  • great scott!
    • antrx
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #84 on: Mar 10, 2006, 08:53AM »
ok, on shell ulp i've just done 556km on 46.1 litres of fuel which equates to 8.29 litres per 100km.. so it appears that the shell isnt as good as the mobil.

i've just filled up with caltex to give it a run.

http://polyfedelicio.us/imgs/ - free image hosting for whatever you like

Offline SSS

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 8279
  • Karma: +5020/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #85 on: Mar 10, 2006, 09:00AM »
my fuel economy is dismal at best; travelling in peak hour traffic 5 days a week (no freeway driving at all) works out to be around 14L/100k's.

this has since improved to approx 12L/100km's, same driving.

Offline RichTRX

  • sth. oz local moderator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 3798
  • Karma: +38/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • May the 4's be with you.
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #86 on: Mar 10, 2006, 09:46AM »
Mine averages 8.9. Does not move within .5L from there either way. 80% city, 20% hwy. Driver's window nearly always down. 32psi all round. 80-100% highway driving yields quite significant results. I got 400 from a 1/2 tank with 95% highway driving with 2 people and a full boot with heavy suitcases, etc. then went driving in the city so only got 300 out of the rest of the tank. Still, pretty good effort.

Fuel light nearly always comes on between 540 and 560km/h. I repeatedly get over 600km/h from a tank. I usually chicken out on the fuel light at about 610-620, depending on whether it's still going on and off. I don't usually drive lead-footed but I do give it the occasional redline run.
His: 2001 Audi S4 biturbo quattro 6sp, Nogaro Blue/black leather recaros, microsilver trim, bose 10sp, SSAC 2.5" twin turboback, RS4 rear sway, 25% tint

Hers: MY99.5 Audi A4 1.8T Quattro GP Edition AVANT 5-sp, phantom black, black leather buckets/walnut/sunroof, 2.5" D&T Turboback, K04-015, N75J, 710N DV

Bro driving: 1990 Nissan Pintara TRX 5sp Red, 16" Rozzis, Lukey 4-2-1 ext, 2.5" full exhaust, hi-flow cat, cone cai, stg 3 chip,  low Kings, GT Gas shocks, Urethane bushings, slotted front rotors, 398000k and still going strong; 0-100 in around 7.2-7.4 seconds

Offline SSS

  • Administrator
  • post whore
  • *****
  • Posts: 8279
  • Karma: +5020/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #87 on: Mar 10, 2006, 10:09AM »
yeah, i have fuel consumption problems :(

Offline Taiwan Corsair

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma: +3/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re:Fuel Efficiency and premium fuels
« Reply #88 on: Mar 10, 2006, 10:21AM »
IMO, the difference in price between unleaded and hi-octane (mobil 8000) is easily justified by the extra klms you get out of the hi-octane, making the klm/$ about equal for the two.


Offline Taiwan Corsair

  • antrx.com full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Karma: +3/-6
  • Gender: Male
Re: Experiment - Fuel Efficiency
« Reply #89 on: Mar 10, 2006, 10:23AM »
The RACV did some pretty carefull testing on this and they showed that the best fuel efficiency came from 95 RON fuel, which out performend both 98 and 91 RON. This is because if you have too much of the heavier hydrocarbons (ie octane) the benefits will be offset by the fact that some lighter hydrocarbons burn more readily than octane. They also found that the 98 RON fuel produced more polution than 95.

They suggested that running 95 RON fuel can be 3-5% more fuel efficient, which still means you are loseing money compared with the cheaper 91 RON, because its often more than 5%cheaper. However, there may be benefits such as engine cleaning, which would have to be measured over a much longer time (the life of your engine) that probably make it worthwhile. You'll also be makeing less pollution.

Older cars are generally not engineered to take advantage of the extra octane and therefore don't gain significantly in terms of fuel efficiency, though on cars designed to run on leaded petrol there is often a benefit.

If anyone else has read that (RACV magazine) then please correct me if I'm misquiting them off the top of my head...