EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed (https://ecomodder.com/forum/hypermiling-ecodrivers-ed.html)
-   -   A thousand questions from a newbee (driving a diesel Land Rover) (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/thousand-questions-newbee-driving-diesel-land-rover-20718.html)

yostumpy 02-27-2012 08:07 AM

A thousand questions from a newbee (driving a diesel Land Rover)
 
Evenin' chaps. Not quite a thousand, but a fair few, not all at once tho'
(oops cant post a pic yet sorry folks, you'll have to guess)

This is Wallace, 1998 land rover defender, 300tdi turbo deisel.
last tank 26.4mpg imp, before finding this forum, so hope to improve on that.
Found the site on sat, went for a drive on Sunday in our MY2000 998cc Toyota yaris. I'm quite a careful driver (I thought) and I usually eek 50mpg from yaris on shortist runs, but reading this and the tips section, I pumped up the tyres, and on a 30 mile return trip got a whopping 60.5mpg imp on the inboard pooter. I was quite impressed.


yes the land rover!
Q1) I know I cant fit a vacum guage to a deisel, but can I fit it into the vacum take off for the (removed)egr, the pipe comes out of the air filter housing, or is it still a nono.

Q2) whats the best way to drive a 2.5ltr turbo deisel, 4x4. its got no electro gizmos, and a purely mechanincal Bosch inj pump. Do I

A) drive with a heavy foot up to speed then ease off

b) drive with med right foot looking for 'no smoke ' using the torque of the motor, but not the revs

c) drive like there is a VG fitted, ie light load, higher rev, trying not to use the turbo, if you know what I mean.

I under stand that its a different technique from a petrol engine, and for the last month I tried to be as gentle as poss, but only managed 26.5mpg imp. But then I discovered you lot!!!!!!!! I've been reading so much my eyes hurt and my legs ache. I think I was doing all wrong, as my trip in the Yaris proves.
Wallace has a full safari type roof rack fitted which I do use some times, and I'm thinking of cutting off the side upstands 75mm so that its flat, and then cutting it into 3 parts, with the 3 legs at the rear staying on, the middle section thrown away, and the front 3 leg section easily removable, and place where its needed. but as I use the truck for work. Do you think the partial removal will improve matters? I know its not the best testing ground in the world, as my driving is rarely a repetative commute. :thumbup:

yostumpy 02-27-2012 08:21 AM

another question. There is a video clip of a chap who fitted a kill switch, (germany I think) and he accelerates up to ,and over speed, then kills the motor and coasts, BUT he keeps it in gear? surely the drag of the engine would slow him down very quickly. Presumably its a petol motor, because if you killed the fuel the pump solonid at 80km/h the and left it in gear, the pupmp, being mechanical, is still pumping, but running dry, so would therefore damage it?? Or am I barking up the wrong trousers??:confused:

jakobnev 02-27-2012 09:12 AM

The best way to accelerate with a TD is by simply flooring it and using the revs where it develops the most torque.

When not accelerating, neutral coasting can be used with good results when the engine is not needed.

MetroMPG 02-27-2012 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yostumpy (Post 289542)
Wallace has a full safari type roof rack fitted which I do use some times, and I'm thinking of cutting off the side upstands 75mm so that its flat, and then cutting it into 3 parts, with the 3 legs at the rear staying on, the middle section thrown away, and the front 3 leg section easily removable, and place where its needed. but as I use the truck for work. Do you think the partial removal will improve matters? I know its not the best testing ground in the world, as my driving is rarely a repetative commute. :thumbup:

A photo is worth some words. (Google image search for your rack style might help us understand what you're suggesting.) It's worth taking off a roof rack when not needed. You will decrease both frontal area and drag coefficient of the truck.

Savings will vary. EG: you can see a ~3% change here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...-6-a-6069.html

People can be funny about roof racks -- "removal-phobic". (Not saying that you are.)

I once recommended to a friend that he remove the rack from his new-to-him small hatchback car. (Keep in mind this friend is the type of person who is perpetually in debt and always complaining that he needs to find ways to economise.) I even did the math for him, pointing out how much gas and therefore money he'd save in a year (I think it was around $60). But he wouldn't take it off. Why? "Just in case" he needed to use it, it would have been a fussy job to re-install. I don't believe he ever has used it. That was about 3 years back, so $180 worth of fuel burned for nothing!

Anyway - welcome to the forum. Good luck with your efficiency efforts.

yostumpy 02-27-2012 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakobnev (Post 289547)
The best way to accelerate with a TD is by simply flooring it and using the revs where it develops the most torque.

When not accelerating, neutral coasting can be used with good results when the engine is not needed.

so mid range power then! ie no benifit to creeping up to speed gently with little throttle? I'm still abit blonde with regards to the workings of a turbo deisel. presumably when you hoof it (not too much) then your not overfueling it like a petrol then, ie all fuel is used. But do you actually mean 'floor it', as that kind of goes against my thinking.

yostumpy 02-27-2012 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 289559)
A photo is worth some words. (Google image search for your rack style might help us understand what you're suggesting.) It's worth taking off a roof rack when not needed. You will decrease both frontal area and drag coefficient of the truck.



People can be funny about roof racks -- "removal-phobic". (Not saying that you are.)

I once recommended to a friend that he remove the rack from his new-to-him small hatchback car. (Keep in mind this friend is the type of person who is perpetually in debt and always complaining that he needs to find ways to economise.) I even did the math for him, pointing out how much gas and therefore money he'd save in a year (I think it was around $60). But he wouldn't take it off. Why? "Just in case" he needed to use it, it would have been a fussy job to re-install. I don't believe he ever has used it. That was about 3 years back, so $180 worth of fuel burned for nothing!

Anyway - welcome to the forum. Good luck with your efficiency efforts.

cant post a pic till 've gone past 5, so should be able to now.

yostumpy 02-27-2012 10:21 AM

now i'll try

http://i884.photobucket.com/albums/a...Picture364.jpg

MetroMPG 02-27-2012 10:38 AM

Ah, OK.

So, to answer your question. Full removal is obviously best. Your plans for lowering & partial removal will help. How much, nobody can say for sure. So now you have to answer the question: how much work are you willing to put in for an unknown, but likely small percentage improvement?

If it were mine, I would do the work. But I'm well down the "efficiency is fun" rabbit hole.

johnunit 02-27-2012 01:35 PM

I'm not very well versed in diesel... but in petrol applications EGR is almost universally of benefit to mileage.

jakobnev 02-27-2012 01:52 PM

Quote:

But do you actually mean 'floor it', as that kind of goes against my thinking.
Yes, just mash the pedal, and this sort of shows you why:

http://pics.tdiclub.com/members/tdim...engine_map.jpg

yostumpy 02-27-2012 03:24 PM

thanks for the graph:confused:, can't pretend to understand it tho', what are the small numbers on the graph ie 197 & 210. the left side is that turbo pressure? ie at full chat it uses 197 thinggies, and at .5 bar it uses 230 of them all at about 1500-1800 rpm? also what are the dotted orange lines, pleaese explain to an idiot:(

jakobnev 03-01-2012 08:51 AM

Well, BMEP, the vertical axis basically corresponds to torque, and the numbers are how much fuel is needed to produce a certain amount of physical work. (Lower is better)

mort 03-01-2012 03:32 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by yostumpy (Post 289625)
thanks for the graph:confused:, can't pretend to understand it tho', what are the small numbers on the graph ie 197 & 210. the left side is that turbo pressure? ie at full chat it uses 197 thinggies, and at .5 bar it uses 230 of them all at about 1500-1800 rpm? also what are the dotted orange lines, pleaese explain to an idiot:(

Hi yostumpy,
To expand on what jakobnev said. I've annotated the graph.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1330633082
This isn't your engine, obviously, but your Rover's graph might look about the same.
The orange arcs are approximately constant power curves. The top curve is about 30 kW.
The left scale - bmep, stands for brake mean effective pressure - is the pressure in the cylinder pushing on the piston that can be used to move the car. 1 Bar is 100 kPa.
The little numbers are the efficiency given in grams of Diesel fuel per kW hr. Lower numbers = less fuel is better. The curvy lines that go through the numbers are the points with that efficiency.

-mort

yostumpy 03-01-2012 05:45 PM

Ok, thanks Mort. So , to recap, the 'correct' way to accelerate a turbo deisel, is the total opposite to that of a petrol engine with a vacuum gauge fitted. ie, short hard burst up to 1800rpm, as opposed to gentle , low vacuum throttle opening. I've been trying it for a couple of days now , but it does feel totally 'against the grain' to 'mash the peddle'. still been doing a fair bit of coasting, but the permanant 4x4 system on the land rover, takes a lot out energy out of the free ride. Getting a more used to it tho' and i'm using the kill switch I fitted at the weekend, a lights junctions etc..
As an aside, note to mods from a newby, as deisel and petrol are so very different, how about a seperate section as a 'one stop shop' for the dino boys,as some of the methods cant apply to deisels. You see i'm having difficulty in understanding exactly how a turbo deisel works. I've searched the forum and gone back 5 pages already. I keep thinking that when I plant my foot hard on the peddle,i'm pumping in loads of extra fuel thats going to flood the engine, but i begining to realise thats not true. i've always been quite easy on the peddle. If my mpg plummets this time, then its wrong for my truck, and I'll return to my old way. if its the same, I'll still return to the old way as I feel I'm being easier on my truck. if you know what I mean.
Cant wait for my first fill up, hope i'm not in 'negative equity':eek:

pete c 03-01-2012 06:24 PM

have been told by truck drivers that the proper way to drive a TD is to be light on the fuel feed. he was adamant about not calling it as throttle seeing as it was not a throttle.

of course this was for driving large semi trucks where power to weight ratios are rather horrible. he said that flooring it meant using lots more fuel for barely measurable increases in acceleration rates. perhaps with a smaller vehicle the gain in acceleration is worth the increase in fuel feed rate.

btw, i was under the impression that modern FI gassers did better with a heavy foot and short shifting. the reason being that fuel/air ratios remain constant even under heavy throttle.

slowmover 03-02-2012 08:49 AM

I accelerate my 3300-kg, 5.9L turbodiesel truck quite easily. Shift at 1,500-rpm or a touch lower (peak torque at 1,400-rpm, IIRC). Even with a trailer weighing somewhat more I don't find that harder acceleration is beneficial. On big trucks (lorrys) we don't ever give it more throttle than necessary to get to the next gear. "Rhythm" is what matters. Consistency. On those 10 thru 18 speed transmissions one would look up and learn (then practice) progressive shifting. Think of it as learning to waltz.

As a general rule-of-thumb, the highest gear at the lowest rpm is the best choice. So long as the truck does not "lug" one has made the best choice (especially on grades: don't downshift too soon).

So, "it" isn't about the throttle, but about the transmission gear. The single importance of the throttle is that it moves me between gears. And the gear choice is everything. I barely "use" the throttle, IOW.

The truck really needs nothing from you but strict attention to the road to determine shift points. The truck is "better" than you in the matter of greatest mpg is another way of viewing this. We work for the truck rather than the other way round. You might consider adding an Exhaust Gas Temperature gauge, and a Manifold Pressure gauge to be able to better listen to what you're being told. Low numbers of 600-F and 6-psi are good numbers for FE on my truck, for example.

Also, I'd analyze the times/distances your truck spends at highway speeds. While aerodynamic concerns are valid at lower speeds, the loss of utility may yet be present and cancel removal of the roof rack . . after all, a truck not used as a truck might be better replaced with another vehicle. To this end I recommend being able to calculate average kmh at the end of a tank-full (and on a calendar basis).

You might also contact the editor of CommercialMotor.com - Big Lorry Blog and ask if he knows of a link or a source to your stated interest. He's a very wide range of readers and contacts across the Commonwealth.

Now, I can't say comparing my truck to your has great equivalence, but if it is of help, then:

* With six forward speeds, and First being extra-low (a granny gear) I use it almost exclusively to get the truck in motion and am out of it almost instantly (unless crossing a roadway, etc). Getting all the mass in motion is my thinking (debate-able, according to other owners), but I prefer to set up that rhythm mentioned above. After all, the engine rise between gears is only a few hundred rpm.

* As Overdrive is the top gear -- and with the short axle gears of this truck -- most cruising in town is in Fourth or in Direct. As the goal of shifting is to arrive in the chosen "top" gear quickly, the "place" to shift (that point ahead on the roadway) must be amenable to such. Loss of momentum hurts, IOW. The weight of the vehicle, the mass, favor an even slower acceleration if a blind spot is ahead, traffic slowing, a turn is coming up, etc.

* Planning the trip I am making is beneficial. Delivery services here in the States use routing software to eliminate turns across traffic and to travel as many miles as possible at a steady speed. So a few miles out-of-route on longer trips is beneficial to this, and even in travel around town is an extra half-mile a good thing if it avoids several full stops or traffic lights. (I may think I "know" the best route, but have been proven wrong by consulting this form of GPS aid prior to travel).

* Most of all, note military or other convoys that are heavily loaded. They take no account of other traffic as their weight and gearing preclude the rapid acceleration to which we civilians are accustomed. A steady pace that emphasizes longest life (drivetrain ease) is therefore beneficial. Etc.

I see that my fuel consumption is about an average 10.6L/100-km. Look forward to what yours can do and how you've improved it in percentage terms.

.

MetroMPG 03-02-2012 11:14 AM

I feel it's a mistake to focus on acceleration techniques when getting in to eco-driving/hypermiling. Why? Because it's an "it depends" scenario. Saying high load acceleration is always best is wrong. "It depends", for example, on what happens immediately after the high load acceleration.

If you have to brake for any reason following high-load accel, you've thrown more fuel away than someone who does light load accel and avoids having to brake.

Keeping cruising speed down, using the highest gear you can without lugging, and minimizing use of the brakes (or engine braking) will yield much more.

yostumpy 03-02-2012 12:45 PM

Lots of conflicting advice from you guys.I guess i'm trying to run before i can walk:rolleyes:. 'Mashing the peddle' does feel wrong, and i only do it when I can see its of benifit, ie opening road. I know that ' jakobnev' must use this method, but i'll think i'll just go easy, with lots of coasting and kill switches, and go from there. (tank to tank) After all, Rome wasn't burnt in a day:confused:.
'Slowmover' thanks for a compehensive reply.:thumbup:

skyking 03-07-2012 11:04 AM

I tend to get on up to speed when it looks like I get to stay there. If it is questionable, then I go all "light foot" on it. The 6 banger makes so much torque in the 1200~1500 RPM range, I feel it does pay off to get it over with.

ecoxantia 03-09-2012 07:57 AM

To mash or not to mash?
 
First off, I think you'll have difficulty measuring the effects of your driving until you can get real-time mpg feedback. I tried all sorts on my last car which didn't have any instrumentation - current car has a mpg readout as standard and there's really no substitute for it.

I don't have a land rover- but I can offer what I've found out on my 1.4 TDI vw engine. And that is a light touch on the accelerator, drive as slowly as you dare and keep to a constant speed. It can help to let the car slow going uphill, then take advantage of gravity going down the other side. I keep revs 1500-2000rpm.

I've tried the pulse and glide and it did not help on a TDI! It also happens to be impractical IMO here in the UK. Traffic is too dense and most other drivers expect you to go as fast as possible. Don't know where they get their cheap fuel:)

uksoundz 03-11-2012 07:03 PM

I have a TDCi, and doubt P&G would work too well, having a DPF just makes things worse.

Engine off and coast downhill I assume is fine ?

yostumpy 03-12-2012 05:27 PM

yeah. Just pumped up my tyres, 44 rear, 38 front, taken off mudflaps (x4) and this makes a big difference to the rolling/coasting. Doudtless the roofrack is hold me back, but those mudflaps whoa, 144sq inches each x 4. blowing in the wind.

trooper Tdiesel 03-19-2012 05:07 AM

my diesel SUV is much older 1986 and has a much different power band from a modern diesel.

so this may or may not apply to your auto?????

for me rpms, gearing and load is a major facter in what speeds and loads get good or bad mpg, im 60hp at 3,000 rpms max hp is 80 at 4,200rpms and 125 torque at 2,200rpms in a 4,300lb auto. so yea im slower then dirt :thumbup:
other then that i have more limits being a older auto, i have next to no boost under 2,200rpms. so at times, down shifting to get rpms just above 2,200 and backing out of the throttle will get better mpg then trying to use the next higher gear at WOT with no boost, on a up grade.
where other times using high gear on a flat road at a steady speed way under the 2,200 mark gets better mpg.


also, ive found with the trailer in tow, i have no idea if you pull any trailer.
driving 100% as a 4speed trans can net better mpg for as long as i keep my rpms reasonable.

yostumpy 03-19-2012 02:50 PM

I had another landrover a while back, bought it in 2001, but it got stolen in 2006. But in 2005 I splashed out and had a s/h Isuzu trooper engine fitted into it. It was the 2.8 td 4JB1 engine. This was a luverly unit, quiet, powerful,started like a sewing maching, and gave very good mpg, usually on a bit of run, regularly got 33+mpg. I find the landrover 300tdi engine rather agricultural in comparison.:turtle:
just read your bit underneath, about wanting to import 4JB1 engines. I bought mine , and had it installed , by ' mervin Burgins,. Burgins 4x4 ? New & Used 4 Wheel Drive Specialists. Chevrolet. Isuzu. Landrover. Mitsubishi. Sales and Service across Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Mid Wales. In Wales, uk. He may have some s/h units still, that he could export. He does like to haggle!! (well I do anyway) (look under engine conversions)

trooper Tdiesel 03-19-2012 11:19 PM

ahh thank you for the info....


what does
Quote:

Price for conversion is 4950 + VAT
i know what VAT is having gone to Canada but is the 4950 UK pounds or some other cerency :confused:
and did that include buying the engine in that doller amount?

i know some people have goten the 3.1L as well the 4JG2-T, having the bigger gen2 trooper they want the extra 20hp for the extra 1/2 a ton of auto and more sound friendly to your ears.
but sence im in a cold climet and have gen1 troopers. i like the idea of direct injection for much better cold starting ability and better mpg.

kinda funny to hear some one say the computer free 4JB1-T that was sold 1987 and up in some country's. is less like a tractor engine then a newer computerized TDI engine.
just goes to show, how ahead of its time it was.

yostumpy 03-20-2012 03:26 PM

Yes it was a luverly engine. The block was wrapped in a rubberised coat, kept the noise down and the heat up. The website is a company based in Wales, in uk. The price would be 4950+ vat (english pounds), but that is for the conversion, with them supplying the NEW engine and doing all the work to your truck. Obviously not YOUR truck. So one might say the engine was 3500 + vat @20%, ( which you prob wouldn't have to pay if it was exported). You may also get a good deal from japan direct? I've often said that if my engine blew up catastrofically, I'd have one of these fitted again, but it'd cost what my truck is worth. often get s/h ones come up on uk forums and e-bay. trouble is you don't know what your buying. would you want new or 2nd hand?:confused:

trooper Tdiesel 03-20-2012 06:34 PM

i have been looking at the JAPAN emisson take outs. so yea used.

Japan deals with emissions in a very strange way. :eek:
when you get to 40,000 - 60,000 miles....you are required to replace your engine or get a new ride. or something along those lines.


the big issue ive ran in to is the 2.8 and newer Isuzu passenger car diesels where never sold in the USA as a on road engine. only as a off road engine.

we only got the 2.2L and 1.8L diesels, with the older MSG trans tell 87.

since the 2.8L uses the MUA trans and theres no way to put a MSG diesel housing on a MUA trans, we have to get the trans with the engine......OR......
they used the same trans even with the same gearing in the USA with the 2.6L gas, so really all we need is a pallet or two of the diesel housings. and buy the engines with out the trans.


where trying to get a group buy, this will be the 2nd time
1st time was 4 engine/trans combos.
Planetisuzoo.com • View topic - 2.8 /4JB1T, 3.1 /4JG1T Group Buy

very good rite up on the 4JB1-T swap in to a USA spec Isuzu trooper its about as close to a bolt in as it gets....going from gas to diesel.
1988 Isuzu Trooper diesel conversion

JanvdW 04-17-2012 08:30 AM

I have a 1998 Defender as well (300Tdi Hardtop)
It has done 405 000km (300 000km on engine)
I get about 10.5km/l under normal conditions, but I am looking at ways to squeeze 13 to 14km/l out of it.
I thought my 10.5km/l was average, but not particularly great. Looking at the consumptions quoted here, mine looks quite good.

I am however forced to use the Defender to commute (110km one way) into Johannesburg CBD on a daily basis for a while, and with the fuel price the way it is, I want to get by on a tank per week. (80 liter)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com