Self explanatory, i am looking at buying an NA, and have constantly been told to watch out for the petrol money I will put into it. So tell me, what sort of L/100km do you get? Post in this formula: Engine Type: Kilometers to tank: L/100km: Mod of Interest: Thanks guys, appreciate it. Jimmy.
I wouldn't worry too much about specifics Jimmy, it has a lot to do with your driving style as much as any mods people have. I noticed a big difference going from my old car to the NA, but my old car was a ford telstar that I could get from geelong to melbourne and back on the reserve tank. going from that to the NA I was putting 20's into the tank like they were Zimbabwaen currency. I'm doing about the same in the TT as i was in the na, and on highway cruising ecutalk was showing up 10L/100 fairly evenly. It's not ideal but I used to run my na around barely filling over the reserve mark. I was told when you hit reserve you still have 100km's in the tank if you drive conservatively. and I think that might be half accurate. your economy isnt going to be as bad as the Ford Territory (14+L/100) but for a well used 25 year old sports car 10L/100 isn't a bad figure. for the slightly extra fuel money over any other v6 you will have a lot of fun in the Zx, especially the na. they pull pretty well off the line (doing things like that is what will see you go through fuel like crazy). but if you are driving normally as a daily, then the difference between most other v6's on the market would be marginal. Waynoz
petrol money is just that, burn money. It going whichever way you look at it. I was getting 8 to 9s on the highway coming back from sydney on a stock TT with new air filters, clean injectors, and new O2s.
Jimmy as Wayne & Madcow have alluded too, it is how you drive the car. Even all the brand new cars with all their fancy new computers and space/aero dynamic design etc are still only getting a couple of l/100 better than out 20 something year old cars. And even then if you drive a new car in a " spirited " way it throws the manufacturers figures out the door. Yes you might save a few $'s here and there by doing a few tweaks and removing heavy items from the car, but at the end of the day how heavy is your right foot going to be.
Hey Jimmy, I have a 95 NA 2+2. Completely stock everything. It is used as a daily. I drive the car pretty conservatively. I have very cheap, nasty tires on atm with 18 inch wheels running 42psi. I average 500-550km a tank. Suburb driving mostly, no city, rarely highway, occasional spirited driving through Mt Dandenong. About 13-14L/100km average.
Had a 2.0 seater auto slick top. The engine was in very good condition & no mods. Fuel consumption - Best: 8.12 l/100km Worst: 17.07 l/100km Average over 5,104km: 11.3 l/100km Tyre pressures: 33 PSI.
Best i ever had was all highway driving, from full to the brim to getting lean pops and stuttering was 714km.
714lkm / 70 Litre tank equals 10.14L / 100klm (you cant get much more up the pipe ) I can get 5L / 100 Klm in a JDM TT Auto on the Sydney - Melbourne freeway at the speed limit, but I average 7/9L - 100k Highway. Put my foot down and the economy is over It depends on so many factors that even the factory economical figure mean squat in reality Besides driving style, speed and car condition, it has a lot to do with the road surface and weather conditions as well. A smooth concrete road makes a huge difference in economy than to a rugged tar road. Its very hard to estimate the economy of any car at any time, given the variables involved.
A couple of points to consider. The rated capacity of a Z32 fuel tank is 72 litres, not 70. Given the length & diameter of the fuel tank filler tube, it would be feasible to gain an additional 1 to 2 litres, therefore SRB2NV's fuel consumption rate would have to be higher. Not much point in comparing the fuel consumption of a TT to an NA as they have different diff ratios. There is no way you'll ever travel 100km on 5 litres of fuel in a TT.
It's funny you say that. I was originally running 34psi, because that's what I thought was right, and felt right. Gripped much better, and a bit easier to turn at low speeds. When I dropped my car into my (now former) mechanic, he told me the psi I am running was waaaay too low, and should be running 42 psi. The tires are rated up to 50psi, but still I thought 42 was far too high. He went on about how "unless I intend on using my zed for offroading, I don't need anything that low". Running this, I feel like I have lost a bit of grip, especially in the wet. Thank you for confirming what I thought dude.
Another thing to remember as well, when you pump up the tyre with cold temp ie: 34psi when it they warm up the psi actually increases to 40+ psi, so at 42psi cold / hot will be 50+psi so blowout is a higher risk. If your mainly doing around town short drives ie down to picnic grounds or beach etc like 100k's away 34psi is fine, if your doing a long haul then yes ramp up to 40-42 because your traveling longer distances and at a higher speed for longer so the expanded air cools down, lessening the risk of a blowout, BUT they still can happen.
His average was what I was calculating but even so 74L / 714klm (9.6L / 100klm) is close enough. I realise he was not after a TT but what I was getting at, was there is not much point comparing even other NA's given the huge amount of variables involved. You only have to look at figures quoted off different NA's to see the huge differences between economy figures even though the car might have the same configuration. I admit 5L sounds too good to be true at the best of times, but you can actually get the 5L-6L / 100 klm on the Melbourne - Sydney Freeway. There's no stops and the road is smooth concrete unlike normal other highways. Next time your travelling on it, calculate your fuel usage and you will be surprised how much more economical a smooth concrete road is over a tar road. It has to be the most economical piece of road in the country...... and the quietest. I could imagine that some of the smaller more economical cars must be able to get even under 4L on those concrete sections of the freeway. I have found myself through my own testing/ calculations that the road surface can change the economy significantly to the point it can easily double the fuel usage (on a rougher tar road compared to smooth concrete) So I had probably 74L on board when testing -lol :zlove:
to get 5 litres per hundred in a TT would be keeping it at under 4% injector duty cycle the whole way. which i dont think is possible. would be double that amount at 100kays an hour
Tire pressures go out the window with aftermarket wheels. We regularly get 700+km to and from zedfests in both Cara's and my TT's.
Mine's always been 16/100 around town and ~10.5/100 highway. Originally had topsecret chiptune, stock turbos and vacuum leaks then had GT2554r turbos, torque focussed dyno tune and fewer leaks. Always had low compression. Agree with Mike and 'Thriller etc. on tyre pressure, low profile soft tyres aren't very protective from potholes at 30psi, Work recommends >40psi or something. Mine even still wear the edges more than the centre due to the width and physics and stuff.
I was using 20L/100km driving down from cairns several years ago in my NA. It was poor fuel consumption but very time efficient
Something to think about Just for comparison my Subaru 2.0l na averages about 9l/100km. My tt zed 11 if driving miss daisy 20 if leaving rubber everywhere. As it's been said its all in the right foot. Don't let the thought of increased petrol costs turn you off owning a zed, I'd be more worried about the maintenance on a 20 year old sports car or lack there of by previous owners.
HTML: that would be fine for oem tyres. However running aftermarket rim and Tyre sets one has to rely on the Tyre manufacturers specs which should be on the Tyre wall as mentioned above
