Loves a drink :-/

I'm averaging 330km a tank.. No matter how I drive it's around this?? Heavy foot, maybe 290? But even if I'm just cruising she chews through it? Is this normal or have I got something special "-__-

 

Oxygen/O2 sensors are your likely culprit.

Have you had consult plugged into your car ?

 

i get that aswell, need a tune

 

N/A..? I get...

In my NA i get about 520, if I push it to 525 I start to get surging and fuel starvation... (ran it out all the way to check lol!)

 

My TT averages about 550 city driving... hwy has been known to get up to nearly 700. New O2's and nistune FTW!

 

Son. I am sceptic.

*sage nod*

MoulaZX

 

Maybe there was a lot of wheelspin involved?

 

lol - give it a shot, some good gear can really pay for themselves! And by highway i mean like, non stop highway. My drive from Melbourne to Canberra only required 1 stop @ the 687km mark

 

The Highway / Freeway one, I can 'almost' swallow, what I can not, is the City Driving figure. Most NAs around here report 500-550 with Highway Driving... then you claim that same mileage... with a TT... in City Driving...?

The only way I see this possible is you have completely overhauled your fuel system with new components including injectors, and have one hell of a lean tune and driving her till shes literally on fumes.

But right now, your figure still means little to nothing. Until you have a few solid recorded xx.xL / 100km figures, the phrase 'I get xxxkm to a tank' means next to nothing when it comes to trying to compare fuel economy. Kinda why manufacturers these days have that figure instead of 'xxxkm to a tank' lol.

Sooo.... I'll say it again:

MoulaZX

 

550 per tank is roughly 13/100k's and while I think it's a "good" figure I certainly don't think its anything special. I live where I work so I only visit the servo once every 1 - 1.5 months and I almost always pull up to the servo with 500k's or more since the last time i visited. With the exception of the odd track day here and there I've always been able to maintain 500/tank~13L/100km.

A few fuel consumption related threads have revealed that to be a fairly standard number amongst zed (TT and NA) owners who have maintained their AFR system well.You are correct on the injectors tho; previous owner replaced em last year/year before last.

Perhaps your zed may need a bit of tending to...:zlove:

PS: My cold start is as rich as the smell of unwashed scrotum - and the car will still happily do an average 13L/100km

 

You're zed isn't the only "special" one

 

I used to have a special zed, then i replaced the 02s and fixed all the boost leaks, now I get the 13L/100 figure in my TT as well

 

Exactly!

You both just illustrated my point even further for me. All this is exactly why the xxxkm per tank figure is very misleading, especially for those new to the 300ZX crowd. ~13L/100Km is totally believable. The best I've seen mine do is 13.2, worst was 17.8 (the day I had her road tuned).

Seems I just don't drive her till shes running on fumes before I refill like some people lol. I typically fill to full when the trip meter hits 380-400.

MoulaZX

 

How is 550km per tank any less believable than 13/100?

 

because 13/100 for 550km equals ALL of 72L. Which no-one can use. So it can only be theorerical unless you devise a way to burn the unusable fuel AND you run it dry.

KM to a tank is a balls way of saying consumption. Do you mean till the light comes on? Do you mean till it shows 'E'? Do you mean till it stops?

 

While I agree that L/KM is a good measure for comparing fuel economy for different models, I reckon km/tank is the best measure of comparing between the same type of car (slightly more meaningful imo). And I'm SURE the phrase km's to a tank has always meant km's to tank capacity (72l in our case)

you dont have to run on fumes to calculate the figure (I never do...), fill the car full (which would have to be very close to 72L) then at the time of next filling fill it up right up to the top again taking note of fuel filled (whether that be 71/50/20 doesnt matter, obviously the further you go the more meaningful the figure is, as it represents a longer time period used to measure economy). Using the bowsers/odometers indication you then extrapolate the figure and get a km/tank.

Getting a L/100km from something like conzult/ecutalk would be somewhat inaccurate imo, i highly doubt a vehicle as old as ours could calculate it more accurately than going for a km/tank figure using a bowser...

End of the day - i guess it doesnt really matter tho lol If we wanted economy would be driving around in Ford Fiesta Econetics and such

 

km per tank is absolutely rubbish. Possibly you can get idea of your own consumption but no way you can compare to anybody else I.

I record consumption on how much I actually put into the tank and on what ecutalk tells me. Difference would be about 1% or less

I get around 14l/100k around Sydney in the TT and down to 10-11 on the freeway. I have records on every L of fuel I have used and none of this k per tank rubbish.

 

same here, Stef ... i religiously record mileage and litre petrol purchases in a log book and have done so for 4-5 years ... only problem is that it will now take me yonks to average out l/100km for that 4-5 years driving !!!

will get to do it one of these days ...

 

So here comes the newbie question.. WTF is an o2 sensor? Where is it located and how luv am I looking at lol and thanks for the diagnose