Fuel consumption data

[Diatosta]

Hello, after searching for some info on how much fuel each car consumes and finding almost none, I have taken the past few days to compile the fuel consumption of most cars in GT7 (the ones missing I don't have yet, will be added when I manage to get them).
I'm not sure what the best way to present this data is, so I'll leave the link to the spreadsheet here: Spreadsheet

It is divided by multiple categories for easier lookup. Can't actually say which cars are better because it always depends on the race's fuel consumption rate, pit stop speed, and even tire degradation!

Some quick data if you don't want to sift through the data (top 5 cars that consume the less fuel):
Gr.1:

BoP	No BoP
Porsche 919 Hybrid '16 (27,13 L/100km)	Mazda 787B '91 (24,27 L/100km)
Toyota TS030 Hybrid '12 (29,98 L/100km)	Toyota TS030 Hybrid '12 (25,7 L/100km)
McLaren VGT (Gr.1) (29,98 L/100km)	Nissan R92CP '92 (27,13 L/100km)
Audi R18 '16 (31,41 L/100km)	Porsche 919 Hybrid '16 (27,13 L/100km)
Mazda 787B '91 (32,84 L/100km)	Toyota TS050 - Hybrid '16 (28,56 L/100km)

Gr.2:

BoP	No BoP
Nissan GT-R Nismo GT500 '16 (34,27 L/100km)	Lexus SC430 GT500 '08 (28,56 L/100km)
NSX Concept-GT '16 (34,27 L/100km)	Honda NSX GT500 '08 (29,98 L/100km)
Lexus RC F GT500 '16 (34,27 L/100km)	Nissan GT-R GT500 '08 (31,41 L/100km)
Nissan GT-R GT500 '08 (35,69 L/100km)	Lexus RC F GT500 '16 (32,84 L/100km)
AMG CLK-LM '98 (38,55 L/100km)	Nissan GT-R Nismo GT500 '16 (32,84 L/100km)

Gr.3:

BoP	No BoP
Jaguar F-type Gr.3 (41,4 L/100km)	Porsche 911 RSR (991) '17 (35,69 L/100km)
Nissan GT-R Nismo GT3 '13 (41,4 L/100km)	Renault R.S.01 GT3 '16 (37,12 L/100km)
Chevrolet Corvette C7 Gr.3 (42,83 L/100km)	Hyundai Genesis Gr.3 (37,12 L/100km)
Toyota GR Supra Racing Concept '18 (42,83 L/100km)	Alfa Romeo 4C Gr.3 (38,55 L/100km)
Subaru BRZ GT300 '21 (42,83 L/100km)	Aston Martin DBR9 GT1 '10 (38,55 L/100km)

Gr.4:

BoP	No BoP
Audi TT Cup '16 (32,84 L/100km)	Mazda Atenza Gr.4 (29,98 L/100km)
Honda NSX Gr.4 (32,84 L/100km)	Alfa Romeo 4C Gr.4 (31,41 L/100km)
Toyota GR Supra Race Car '19 (34,27 L/100km)	Audi TT Cup '16 (31,41 L/100km)
Suzuki Swift Sport Gr.4 (34,27 L/100km)	Peugeot RCZ Gr.4 (31,41 L/100km)
Toyota 86 Gr.4 (35,69 L/100km)	Renault Mégane Trophy '11 (32,84 L/100km)

Gr.B:

1. Ford Focus Gr.B Rally Car (45,69 L/100km)
2. Ford Mustang Gr.B Rally Car (45,69 L/100km)
3. Hyundai Genesis Gr.B Rally Car (45,69 L/100km)
4. Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Gr.B Rally Car (45,69 L/100km)
5. Nissan GT-R Gr.B Rally Car (47,12 L/100km)

Theres also data divided by PP in multiple ranges in the spreadsheet.

Some cars have the same fuel consumption, as I can't get any more precise with the info the game presents (percentage, and no decimals).

For the tests I tried to always follow the same conditions, which are as follow:

• Spa Normal Layout
• 1 AI car, easy difficulty
• Fuel consumption 10x
• Tires consumption 0x
• Rolling start
• Comfort Soft Tires
• Equal conditions ON

For the BoP tests, cars had Racing Soft Tires equipped, and cars were shifted on their optimal shifting points according to this website (thanks @LeGeNd-1 for the tip!)
Cars that weren't mapped on that site were driven as I thought best.

The values for ICE cars was recorded at the end of one lap, where all the cars are driven to the full range of RPMs (in the game HUD at least), without using the slipstream of the opponent if for some reason overtaken.

For non ICE cars (EVs and the Chaparral 2X), as the current percentage is not available, the fuel consumption was set to 5x, and driven until the fuel ran out, and the distance travelled along with it's first lap time was recorded.

Finally, a set of engine modes was tried out on a Toyota Crown Athlete G '13, where the car was run it's engine stock, fully restricted, fully upgraded, in mode 6, and all the combinations in between. (This can be seen on the last tab)
Running the car on engine mode 6 sees a reduction in 38% of fuel used per lap, and time increased in 4 seconds.
A fully upgraded engine consumes 35% more fuel per lap, but is also 8 seconds faster.
Finally, a fully choked engine consumes 55% less fuel per lap, but is 19 seconds slower, so the tradeoff doesn't look worthwhile.

Currently there are 437/439 cars mapped out.

 

[engrmariano]

wow, you did all these testing by your self?

 

[Live25]

Impressive, did you happend to chart values for specific upgrades or aero settings? I’ve been tinkering with it, but I don’t have your level of dedication clearly!

 

[Autobahn GTO]

Very impressive indeed 👍

This sort of thing was something I was looking for and thought about asking before. For example, say if I want to simulate my own 24-hour race at Le Mans, Nürburgring, or Daytona (or Daytona 500), what would be the right fuel consumption and tire wear for each car category so that they more or less simulate real-world consumption/wear at those races?

 

[Boxster]

Great work m8, and very useful!

 

[ebadevil]

This is amazing

 

[05XR8]

How does the data fare with detuned engines? I tried this a couple months ago in the Custom Race thread

Hmmm. Are the fuel rates the same regarding fuel maps? If I keep it at Fuel 1 with the road car, it burns much faster than a Gr.4 car at fuel 1. Or is that just because of the aforementioned fuel tank size?

Just as an example. The C6 ZR1 was at 2.2Laps at the start. Dropped to 1.7 with me nailing it down the first straight. I dialled it back to F4 after the first chicane. Dialled it to F6 for the remainder of the lap and it stayed steady at 2.2 until dropping to 2.1 at the end of Lap 1.
In the Alfa, I feather the throttle and immediately see a gaine of an extra lap of fuel to the tune of 3.4 Laps and I can stretch it to 4 laps before the end of lap 1. No fuel map adjustment. Plus, the Alfa has a higher rpm range, lighter weight and much more downforce. Same with the GT300 Supra and Skyline. Those I can stretch to 4 laps without map adjustment.

Ill do a quick race right now and see how much the C6 can hold, by backing off for the first lap.

Edit: Okay. I just start the race, don’t touch the throttle, select 6th gear and coast to a halt.

C6 got the furthest with bad engine braking.
View attachment 1152364

Alfa didn’t make it up the hill.
View attachment 1152365

Skyline had a high of 8.9 Laps and dropped to 8.8 and then 8.7! right after the first Dunlop tyre.
View attachment 1152366

I know members do extensive testing with fuel numbers, fuel tanks, economy, etc. I’ve not looked into all that, but it is odd to see these results by backing off right at the start. If the race cars have bigger fuel tanks, how can the road car hold more fuel? That’s why I asked about the fuel delivery. A road car should be more frugal. Yes?

 

[snowgt]

So, changing the engine mapping between 1 and 6 only had an effect of 1.3%? That sounds wrong, but of course I didn't try with that car under those circumstances.

Whenever I change to mapping 6, my experience is that you're easily saving 30% fuel or more. (That's an estimate - I never made statistics)

 

[Diatosta]

So, changing the engine mapping between 1 and 6 only had an effect of 1.3%? That sounds wrong, but of course I didn't try with that car under those circumstances.

Whenever I change to mapping 6, my experience is that you're easily saving 30% fuel or more. (That's an estimate - I never made statistics)

It saves 1.3 liters per lap, which by the end of 10 laps is 13 liters, which is a lot.

Impressive, did you happend to chart values for specific upgrades or aero settings? I’ve been tinkering with it, but I don’t have your level of dedication clearly!

No, all the cars were stock except for them all have Comfort Soft tires, to serve as a baseline.

How does the data fare with detuned engines? I tried this a couple months ago in the Custom Race thread

I'm sorry I don't really understand, you mean lowering the engine power? I did some experiments with a car, which are at the end of the first post, if that's what you meant.

 

[Sunzi]

Exceptional work buddy. Nice one!

Edit: it did feel like the Genesis Gr.3 had exceptional fuel economy, comparatively - this, along with a YT video I posted some time back firm up the belief. It's a great car.

Edit again: this is actually incredible. Wow.

 

[snowgt]

It saves 1.3 liters per lap, which by the end of 10 laps is 13 liters, which is a lot.

If you meant it saves 1.3l/lap, why did you write 1.3%/lap? That means something completely different.

The interesting thing is, how much the percentage actually is that you can be saving with the engine mappings and I can see from your spreadsheet that you're not calculating it correctly. If the raw numbers in "Fuel after 1 lap" are correct, then using mapping 6 results in a 38% reduction in fuel consumption (21 instead of 34), and not 13% like it says in your spreadsheet.

 

[br1x]

Good job, but should still be taken with a grain of salt.

The AI drives the cars different than a real player, different throttle inputs will result in different consumption. Also cars like the Gr. 3 Corvette, Viper or Supra should shift at 50-70% RPM for best performance and will consume less fuel by that alone while still having maximum performance.

Also the cars here were probably not BoPed, which means different results for Sport mode alltogether.

 

[BangsMcCoy]

Questions:
Were you using any amount of TCS during these tests?
Why did you choose Spa over the Special Stage Route X to perform these tests? SSRX seems like it would provide a more consistent baseline by eliminating a lot more of the inconsistencies of user input in regards to turns/corners that must be maneuvered at Spa.
Why were CS tires chosen instead of something like SH? Not many people race with Comfort tires whereas Sports tires are widely used (especially SH) except in Gr.X cars where Racing tires would be used. The tire choice would have a direct impact on results on a course such as Spa with many types of turns to navigate at different speeds.

Also, I’m going to call that claim of only saving 1.3% on FM6 flat out wrong If I’m correct in assuming that’s what you meant by “engine mode 6”? It is SIGNIFICANTLY more than that in every Gr.4, Gr.3, Gr.2 and Gr.1 car I’ve ever driven in actual races, Spa included. 1.3% isn’t even close in road cars that I’ve run in events where fuel consumption is a factor. Is the Crown Athlete bugged in this regard?

 

[Diatosta]

If you meant it saves 1.3l/lap, why did you write 1.3%/lap? That means something completely different.

The interesting thing is, how much the percentage actually is that you can be saving with the engine mappings and I can see from your spreadsheet that you're not calculating it correctly. If the raw numbers in "Fuel after 1 lap" are correct, then using mapping 6 results in a 38% reduction in fuel consumption (21 instead of 34), and not 13% like it says in your spreadsheet.

I'm sorry you are correct, it is 13 liters saved. The difference in normal engine and Map 6 is from 34 liters consumed to 21 liters in one lap. This was on consumption 10x, so the actual values would be from 3.4 liters to 2.1 liters.
The values in the spreadsheet are incorrect, as it misrepresented absolute liters as a percentage. This has been fixed in the spreadsheet to an actual percentage.

Good job, but should still be taken with a grain of salt.

The AI drives the cars different than a real player, different throttle inputs will result in different consumption. Also cars like the Gr. 3 Corvette, Viper or Supra should shift at 50-70% RPM for best performance and will consume less fuel by that alone while still having maximum performance.

Also the cars here were probably not BoPed, which means different results for Sport mode alltogether.

None of the cars tested were driven by AI, they were all driven by me, to ensure similar testing conditions.
While it is true that short shifting has better efficiency, I used the whole RPM range so all cars are pushed to their max and as such are driven under similar conditions.
Attention that I didn't hit the rev limit in any car, just shifted when the rev bar reached it's full.
And no, the cars were not BoPed, they were all stock with only having the same tires as a baseline.

Questions:
Were you using any amount of TCS during these tests?
Why did you choose Spa over the Special Stage Route X to perform these tests? SSRX seems like it would provide a more consistent baseline by eliminating a lot more of the inconsistencies of user input in regards to turns/corners that must be maneuvered at Spa.
Why were CS tires chosen instead of something like SH? Not many people race with Comfort tires whereas Sports tires are widely used (especially SH) except in Gr.X cars where Racing tires would be used. The tire choice would have a direct impact on results on a course such as Spa with many types of turns to navigate at different speeds.

Also, I’m going to call that claim of only saving 1.3% on FM6 flat out wrong If I’m correct in assuming that’s what you meant by “engine mode 6”? It is SIGNIFICANTLY more than that in every Gr.4, Gr.3, Gr.2 and Gr.1 car I’ve ever driven in actual races, Spa included. 1.3% isn’t even close in road cars that I’ve run in events where fuel consumption is a factor. Is the Crown Athlete bugged in this regard?

I used TCS on 1, and chose Spa instead of SSRX because Spa actually depicts a more realistic race day fuel consumption, with it's inclines and braking points, instead of just a long straight that would always just drain higher RPM cars faster.
The Comfort Soft tires were chosen because some lower PP cars just couldn't handle better tires, were they either would flip instantly at the first corner, have it's PP not be able to be calculated, or both. All cars were able to race Comfort Softs though, so I went with them.
As for the last point you're right, as I replied above, I mistyped percentages when it actually was absolute values. The actual fuel save is in the 38% range.

 

[05XR8]

It saves 1.3 liters per lap, which by the end of 10 laps is 13 liters, which is a lot.

No, all the cars were stock except for them all have Comfort Soft tires, to serve as a baseline.

I'm sorry I don't really understand, you mean lowering the engine power? I did some experiments with a car, which are at the end of the first post, if that's what you meant.

You used all stock cars. In terms of detuning a powerful a car to meet a lower class regulation. It’s a bit specific, as players can have varying tuning and modification set ups.

As an example, players are using tuned road cars to do certain WTC races. The fuel economy for road cars are bad. With the data you provided, the road cars should still have better fuel economy. However, in race trim, the road cars worse than the race cars. Maybe due to default aero set up(default, low drag, high downforce). I believe as you posted about simulating all parameters.

CS on all the race cars. Maybe too much wheel spin or less grip than the standard RH and RM some race cars default with. Your data should be good as a baseline for those interested. Lots of testing.

 

[br1x]

While it is true that short shifting has better efficiency, I used the whole RPM range so all cars are pushed to their max and as such are driven under similar conditions.
Attention that I didn't hit the rev limit in any car, just shifted when the rev bar reached it's full.

I am not talking about short shifting in that sense, it is how these cars are driven for maximum performance due to their powerband. The Gr.3 Viper, Corvette and Supra (and probably others) have the best performance when you shift before the rev bar is full, which is means they will have better fuel consumption AND performance than how you tested it, which is naturally how everyone who knows about it is going to drive these cars.

 

[snowgt]

Questions:

Why did you choose Spa over the Special Stage Route X to perform these tests? SSRX seems like it would provide a more consistent baseline by eliminating a lot more of the inconsistencies of user input in regards to turns/corners that must be maneuvered at Spa.

Actually, SSRX would be producing misleading data, because it would only apply to specific rpm's of any given car at top speed, and in reality you spend very little time at those specific revs. Therefore that could be wildly misleading, if a car uses significantly less fuel at lower revs.

Best test tracks are generally medium speed with a variety of slow, medium & fast corners, and if possible, one where you make few mistakes to take out the human error. (although small mistakes in this case will not influence the fuel consumption that much)

 

[Gomario JSP]

can I get a aahhyeeaahhh for this dude?!, sure it raises some questions by some because of circumstances, tuning/detuning and all that, but this man has put some work ik in!
@Diatosta impressive!, thanks!

 

[Meythia]

And no, the cars were not BoPed, they were all stock with only having the same tires as a baseline.

BoP is also the same baseline and would be more accurate as cars with BoP option are usually used with BoP enabled.
Though the changes between both shouldnt be too big, thumbs up for all the effort already invested.

 

[Diatosta]

As mentioned by @MisterKG here, the Porsche 917 Living Legend has indeed had it's fuel consumption decreased.
Previously it arrived at the end of the lap with 35% remaining (a consumption of 92,8 L/100km), and now it has arrived with 66% remaining (48,54 L/100km) in basically the same time (about 2 seconds faster).
It's fuel consumption has been basically lowered by half, making it much more capable in endurance racing.
The data in the sheet has been updated, if you notice any other car changes please say so!

Also, data for Group 2 Bopped has been added, other groups will come soon™️

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Great work @Diatosta, I've been waiting for someone to redo this for GT7. You can still do a few more experiments like adding ballast, drafting, different tyres and also top speed for each car (inspired by GT Sport thread here).

I agree with @br1x though. This would be much more useful if the Gr cars are BOP'd and shifted at their optimum RPM. PD intentionally adjusted the base fuel consumption so cars that needs to be short shifted have similar fuel usage as others that doesn't need short shifting. If you rev everything to the max, some cars will look thirstier than they actually are (Gr.1 R18 '11, Gr.3 Corvette/Supra/VW GTI, Gr.4 McLaren/BMW are obvious ones - they're all near the bottom of your list but actually a lot better than that).

You can use gt-engine to find out the optimal shift points for the Gr cars: https://gt-engine.com/gtsport/cars/gr3/gr3_upshift.html

 

[johnson_57]

@Diatosta This is very informative, thank you. Kudos for your time and effort

 

[Diatosta]

I agree with @br1x though. This would be much more useful if the Gr cars are BOP'd and shifted at their optimum RPM. PD intentionally adjusted the base fuel consumption so cars that needs to be short shifted have similar fuel usage as others that doesn't need short shifting. If you rev everything to the max, some cars will look thirstier than they actually are (Gr.1 R18 '11, Gr.3 Corvette/Supra/VW GTI, Gr.4 McLaren/BMW are obvious ones - they're all near the bottom of your list but actually a lot better than that).

You can use gt-engine to find out the optimal shift points for the Gr cars: https://gt-engine.com/gtsport/cars/gr3/gr3_upshift.html

Very well, I'll try to use the optimum shift points for the BoP testing then 👍

Edit: So tried using the optimal shifting points the Gr.2 Bopped cars, and some positions have indeed changed.
The CLK and F1 weren't still mapped in that site, so I used their previous values.

Edit 2: Gr.1 cars were mapped as well

Edit 3: Gr.4 was mapped as well, only Gr.3 remaining now.

 

[Diatosta]

All cars from Gr.1 to Gr.4 have been BoP tested!

 

[OldandSlow]

Outstanding work! Thank you.

 

[eran0004]

For racing it makes more sense to report fuel consumption per unit of time than per unit of distance, because the consumption per distance varies a lot depending on how fast the track is while the consumption per unit of time should remain pretty much the same.

 

[Basafillwt]

It works on difficulty you play on

 

[LeGeNd-1]

@Diatosta if you're still doing this, Suzuki VGT Gr.3 needs to be shifted at around 10,500 rpm for best speed. That'll help move it up the fuel rankings a bit.

 

[Diatosta]

@Diatosta if you're still doing this, Suzuki VGT Gr.3 needs to be shifted at around 10,500 rpm for best speed. That'll help move it up the fuel rankings a bit.

Sorry, but I sold my PS5, as I just wasn't playing the game all that much, and it was the only reason for the console, so this spreadsheet won't be updated in the foreseeable future.
Maybe in the future I'll pick it up again, but I've been having a blast in GT4 in the meanwhile, which says a bit about GT7 🙄

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Sorry, but I sold my PS5, as I just wasn't playing the game all that much, and it was the only reason for the console, so this spreadsheet won't be updated in the foreseeable future.
Maybe in the future I'll pick it up again, but I've been having a blast in GT4 in the meanwhile, which says a bit about GT7 🙄

Understandable. No worries mate, hopefully we will see you again around here in the future. You've done so much work already as it is so good job 👍