CRD Fuel consumption

[ra_01]

Hi Guys

I just want your opinion on fuel consumption of 3.0 CRD. On the internet specifically in Aus forums I have been seeing various readings. When I owned one in the past I averaged around 6-7km/l doing 120km/h (ODO) with roof rack, AT tires and towing a small trailer. But the performance was terrible. So I switched to almost new 4.8. However, after a fair amount of travelling, we decided to to get rid of the trailer for the sake of convenience because we want to travel into Africa countries. So my car has been fully kitted with RTT (Previously Ikamper and now Custom leisure tech), 270 bat wing Awning, lots of camping gear at the back with 50 lit water tank and 2 20 lit jerry cans. To compensate the weight I had to install a old man EMU lift kit and 33 maxixs AT tires. Being a 4.8 naturally this affects the consumption. After discussing with Tinus I did a diff ratio conversion and viper exhaust (This was one of the best mods I have done to my vehicle) and now I average 6km/l. I recorded the same consumption during my trip to Zim last week and same for Botswana and Lesotho although for Namibia I averaged 5.9. But I don't exceed more than100km/h GPS speeds, so have to drive like a nanny.

Next year we are planning on travelling to Kenya via Moz and Malawi, so have been researching about CRD for better "fuel economy". For a similar configuration how much one can expect out of 3.0 lt CRD engine, can it exceed 7 km/l? I know 3.0 Di is consistent in fuel consumption and even better than CRD. But I am more interested in CRD.

Many thanks

[Alex Roux]

Hi Rahul

I do not have a CRD and once had a Di. The Di gave me around 8km/l with roof rack, but averaging around 100km/h.

Currently I have a GQ with 4.8 Spitronix conversion and manual box (and 4.375 ratios), fully kitted similar to your 4.8 and at 100km/h I average 6km/l.
If I push is harder, it dose worse, but being fully kitted, I do not think one should.

That is good enough for me though. At 6km/l I have peace of mind with a normally aspirated under-stressed engine.
(no large petrol powered 4x4 will do better, and the LC v8 diesel will not do much better either).

[jakeslouw]

I don't own a CRD, don't even own a Patrol yet, but my experience of common rail diesels is that once you load them up and push the fuel to compensate, they aren't that much better than a petrol engine.
Yes, you MIGHT get 1 or 2km/L more, but....

- The cost of the vehicle will exceed this saving for YEARS: I doubt you could swop your 4.8 for a CRD without a cash adjustment
- the EGT will need to be closely monitored as you know
- you won't gain any performance unless you start playing with injectors, boost, intercoolers, exhausts, turbos etc (see the second point above)

[ra_01]

Hi Rahul

I do not have a CRD and once had a Di. The Di gave me around 8km/l with roof rack, but averaging around 100km/h.

Currently I have a GQ with 4.8 Spitronix conversion and manual box (and 4.375 ratios), fully kitted similar to your 4.8 and at 100km/h I average 6km/l.
If I push is harder, it dose worse, but being fully kitted, I do not think one should.

That is good enough for me though. At 6km/l I have peace of mind with a normally aspirated under-stressed engine.
(no large petrol powered 4x4 will do better, and the LC v8 diesel will not do much better either).

Hi Alex, that's an interesting conversion, never heard of that before. I will not dare drive more than 100km/h on my vehicle too. Mainly because I don't have enough confidence that I can stop in time when I am in a situation and also speed does increase the consumption as you said.

A Cruiser will be the last vehicle I will consider It's pricey and no better than what I get currently

[ra_01]

I don't own a CRD, don't even own a Patrol yet, but my experience of common rail diesels is that once you load them up and push the fuel to compensate, they aren't that much better than a petrol engine.
Yes, you MIGHT get 1 or 2km/L more, but....

- The cost of the vehicle will exceed this saving for YEARS: I doubt you could swop your 4.8 for a CRD without a cash adjustment
- the EGT will need to be closely monitored as you know
- you won't gain any performance unless you start playing with injectors, boost, intercoolers, exhausts, turbos etc (see the second point above)

Hi Jakes

Not so much interested in performance gain. Once we cross RSA border, speed limit reduces from 120 to 80 due to road conditions anyway. If the consumption of a CRD is no better than 7km/l then I am better off with 4.8 as I currently get 6km/l and the ride comfort is good.

[Steele]

Hi Rahul,

My experience with the CRD seems similar to your previous Di. I have a 2" lift, 33" tyres and roofrack. It also has a viper free flow and is tuned by SAC (a mild tune geared towards low down torque for towing). Unfortunately most of my open road travel is towing our 1.6T offroad camper. Towing at 105km/h gps I get between 6.2 to 6.6 km/l. Towing at 80-90km/h it improves to about 7.3km/l.

Closest experience I have to your planned usage is from river trip last year. Loaded with camping gear and a few bits on the roofrack, the open road consumption was about 8km/l. Unfortunately I didn't refuel fully on exiting the river so not sure on the thick sand consumption.

[ra_01]

Hi Steel

Thanks for confirming. My previous vehicle was CRD. I got similar readings when towing a trailer.

I did drive to Durban without a trailer once but with 5 people in car, lots of lugguage and got less than 7km/l however I was doing 120 km/h speeds.

If driven in a reasonable speeds I think I could have achieved 7km/l

[Dewald]

Good day gents.

This is very interesting to me.
I always thought that the Crd Di would have slightly better feul consumption than the Di and then the improved reliability of coarse.
In fact i have been waiting for the right Crd to come along so i can change to a Crd but this makes me seriously rethink that having seen the actual figures from you guys.

I have a series 3 DI (2004) and on a round trip of 1144Km fully loaded towing a car trailer with a 850Kg racing car, feul and spare tires etc. I got 8,5km/l that is traveling at 100-110 and even 120 when the roads alowed.

On another round trip of 1660 km to Santa Maria in Mozambique also fully loaded but without a trailer i got the same consumption but this was traveling at 120km/h as much as the roads alowed and it also included a section n of "twee spoor" thick sand road of 180km through the elephant sanctuary to Santa Maria where i had to drive in low range quite a bit as it did not have enough power in 1st and 2nd high range going slow, it would bog down and stall. The refuel including that sand section consumption dropped to 6km/l if i recal correct.

Normal driving without a load or towing i have managed high 9's at times.

This makes me think a 4.8 might be the better option if comparing to a Crd. Taking into acount the power, reliability, and the price difrence between the Crd and a 4.8. As of late should a Crd come into the market it also has huge price tag.

[Alex Roux]

This makes me think a 4.8 might be the better option if comparing to a Crd. Taking into acount the power, reliability, and the price difrence between the Crd and a 4.8. As of late should a Crd come into the market it also has huge price tag.

To me it seems people put a huge price tag on consumption. Too much so.
It is not only the difference in price, but also the maintenance costs thereafter that is cheaper with petrol.

[Dewald]

Yes i agree with that.