Just what are you trying to pull that lugs this thing @ 1800rpm? If that is happening, you probably have either a fuel delivery or charged air issue.

_________________
2005 Liberty Sport CRD, Lt Khaki, sunroof

Thankful to now be an EX-CRD owner.

Man I am thinking the same thing. Mine in no way lugs in top gear at those RPM's even going up some long steap grades. Matter of fact I have never heard my even begain to sound like it was lugging.

_________________
91 MB 300D 2.5L Turbo. Her's

05 MB E320 CDI. Mine

That's because it's still making more and more power up until redline.

Ok... seems the debate over the 2.8 motor and it performance curve is being debated by those that won't even look at a chart available from VM.

www.vmmotori.it/uploads/doc/29.pdf

Look at the page that shows the R 428 DOHC. This is the motor in the CRD. In the lower right is the performance curve on the motor. From my experiences with this vehicle and over 2 million miles in semi's, the peak torque is not necessarily the ideal RPM. The chart shows that the minimum fuel consumption is at 2K rpm. The corresponding Torque maximum in that area (1800 on the specs). Based on the torque curve and corresponding fuel curve, the operating area for the CRD motor is 1800-2600 rpm.

The torque remains fairly flat until it starts dropping off above 2600. Since the fuel usage is at it's minimum at 2000 and it is in the torque flat range, ideally, 2000 rpm would be the so-called "sweet spot". However, on a hard pull, taking the engine up to 2600 still keeps the torque in the flat spot and the fuel usage only increases slightly.

To say that the "best" pulling is done at 1800 is not quite correct. Study the chart and learn your motor. Fuel usage, power, and effeciency are studied by the best drivers and they memorize the performance characteristics of the motor.

In a previous post, it was stated that at 2200 the CRD pulled like a raped ape. I would agree. If you start your pull at 1800, you are at the bottom of your power range. There is no room for a hard pull as torque drops off fast below that. I would concur with a 2100-2300, based on the chart, as the best RPM range for a significant pull. Try it out.

Cliff

Engine efficiency on a test stand differs from the same engine in a CRD, that is a box lacking any aerodynamic design whatsoever other than the fact that the tires are round.

Consequently, just as with a tractor trailer unit, there is some speed at which the "box" of the CRD will "penalize" the efficiency of the engine. The large trucks are penalized early in terms of MPH and the efficiency penalty curve steepens rapidly at speeds over 55 mph.

There is no more "pulling" above 1800 rpm although the torque peak is available for 900 rpm. The horsepower (such as it is) has a steep curve which continues to the rpm limit. So, while there is "acceleration" above 64 mph (1800) the torque limit has maxed although it remains peaked until about 2700 rpm. We would assume for efficiency that using the least horsepower at max torque would be about as good as it gets. Thus, the zero point on the chart is 2000 rpm/70 hp. At 1800 rpm it is 60 hp. Again, that is test stand testing. So, that is a range of about 6 mph, say 64 - 70 mph. Once again, the"curve" is nearly flat from 1800 to 2200 with a fairly narrow spread of 15 HP (60 - 75).

The CRD has a HP/weight ratio of 1/29 and a torque/weight ratio of 1/16. The 4x4 gasser is 1/21 and 1/19 respectively. I added 400 lbs for 2 adults and a full tank and my wife's purse. The values are fairly close. The major difference is RPM values for the hp and torque ratings. Also, DC likely fudges on the gasser figures.

The CRD is not a fuel efficient vehicle. The Motori may be a fuel efficient engine but not necessarily in a Liberty box. Add a questionable transmission to the mix, 2 geared axles and a transfer case, ESP and cheap-labor programming code from New Delhi and there ya go.

I've driven my CRD full throttle and have not yet suffered any whiplash. It gets about the EPA average for mileage. It was fairly cheap to purchase. It is comfortable. I got a diesel to avoid emissions tests annually. I've had diesel pickups since '93 (7 of them).

Those who are looking for economy won't find it in the CRD. Those looking for breathtaking performance won't find it in the CRD. But it will likely take you anyplace you want when you want and it won't cost you an arm and a leg either to purchase or to fuel (relatively). I think the Motori in the right package would be very efficient.

Obviously, as fuel prices increase, the CRD's inefficiencies will become more apparent. I didn't buy my CRD thinking it would be fuel efficient. For a real 4x4, it is about the best mix of features, unless one wanted a pickup.

_________________
06 CRD Spoat

What the CRD is crying for is a manual transmissions that will handle the torque and will allow the driver to operate the motor in the right RPM range.

What destroys all of our discussion is that the 545 tranny decides what we will get in overdrive. Some hotshot needs to come up with a reprogram of the TCM, and there should be, ideally, a way for the driver to decide which ratio of OD to be in. It would be good to allow a lockout option of either ratio in OD, not just an "all or nothing" scenario.

Until then, our discussion becomes somewhat academic. True that the CRD is as aerodynamic as a brick, but that does not negate that the engine should be operated in the areas where it can reach its potential in power and economy. With the aerodynamics of the CRD what they are, rolling resistance is just about the only area that the owner has some say in. But we know, that if we try to minimize rolling resistance, traction usually takes a hit.

Our CRD when driven in the 1850 to 2100 rpm range will easly get 30 to 33 mpg and I expect it to get in the 34 to 36 range once it goes past 20k miles and we start getting ULSD fuel. But let me tell you once you go past about 73 mph or 2200 rpm's the fuel mpg's really drops off big time and when you get in the 80 to 85 mph range the mpg's must be low 20's to high teens by then.

_________________
91 MB 300D 2.5L Turbo. Her's

05 MB E320 CDI. Mine

That rpm range of 1850-2100 is right in the sweet spot. I just did a small trip at 1900 rpm and got 33.99mpg. I just set the cruise and turned on the radio. Best thing about the CRD cruise compared to the 3.7L cruise is that the torque of the CRD lets is stay in 5th up hills where my 3.7L had to downshift.

With the CRDiesel decal on the back window, I just smile when others pass by at 75 getting 1/2 the mpg or less. They still look funny at the CRD when they realize it is a Diesel.

_________________
Founder of L.O.S.T.
2006 CRD Sport
Mods: GDE Hot Tune w/ 364#@2000rpm/Air Box /3" Str8 Exhaust/ASFIR Alum Skids/245-75R-16 Cooper STT PRO/OME LIFT w/Clevis & 4 Spring Isos/AirTabs/Rigid 10" S2 LED/4xGuard Ctr Matrix Bumper
Drag Strip:Reac=.1078_60ft=2.224_1/8=10.39@64.8mph_1/4+16.46@80.8mph

I painted on the back window of the CRD for my return trip from MI VW diesel GTG in May:

32 MPG

Your SUV?

I had a guy follow me into a rest stop and ask about the CRD and how I like it, he had started to get one but let wife talk him into loaded Toyota Camray V6 with all the options. His first comment was the best he had gotten on his trip, he was from WI, was 24 MPG and he was not happy with the 18 mpg in town either. I told him the wife normally got 20 to 22 mpg in town and that it was her vehicle and I had it on a trip because my Dodge Magnum Sport Wagon only averaged 26 mpg on the highway. What was funny was he said the Magnum was the other car they looked about buying because it was available AWD. Sometimes life is just too funny to not enjoy.

_________________
91 MB 300D 2.5L Turbo. Her's

05 MB E320 CDI. Mine

For those of us who have previously owned a Liberty 4x4 w/3.7L V6, I, for one, will disagree with you. I'm sure others here will disagree as well.

The ability to go from 270---280 miles per tankfull to 470---480+ miles per tankfull in the same vehicle is great. The giddy'up and go of the CRD compared to the gasser is better, too.

If I'd wanted a low 14's street car, I'd bought an SRT-4.

For now, my CRD works out great for use in the hilly eastern Kentucky area where I live.......my wife and 5 year old daughter love it.....and my 2003 Dodge RAM 2500 CTD HPCR with only a few mods and 381/728 at the rear wheels does me OK, too.

Greg

_________________
2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 3.6L and A8
*SOLD*2005 Jeep Liberty Limited 4x4 CRD, Bright Silver Metallic, Dk/Lt Slate Gray Leather w/bun warmers, 5 spd auto, 22G pkg, Trailer Tow, 3.73 Rear Axle w/Trac-Lok Differential, P235/70R16 Firestone Destination LE's, Power Sunroof, Selec-Trac 4WD, Infinity 6-Disc In-Dash, Magnaflow #15870 System.

Not to split hairs, but NO SUV is fuel efficient. Not even the hybrids, unless you keep a hybrid strictly on surface roads and don't exceed 35 mph - when their tiny little briggs & stratton lawn mower engines kick in. Their economy ratings are based on mixed driving, not soley on battery or soley on gasoline power. In the real world, when you commute long distance on the interstate/freeway in a hybrid, it is the little tiny wind-up engine in it that is hauling it along, not the batteries, they are only supplementing the power - if at all - at those speeds.

You don't buy an SUV - ANY SUV - for it's fuel efficiency. Beacuse they (all of them) just are not fuel efficient. You are either looking for space to haul people or cargo, you are a suburban soccer mom who needs all the room to go to Target and Costco, OR you like to go off-road.

So the CRD is not a thrifty milage maxmizer, and it's not the biggest SUV, and it is not the fastest. What it DOES do, however, is give you the best milage for a decent size SUV where you still have more room than a car, enough ground clearance to traverse some bad weather and off-road stuff. It also doesn't make you a bunch of empty promises that the car companies do of their hybrids by assuring those of us that hold on to our cars for 6 or 7 years, that when the battery packs wear out and begin losing their ability to recharge, we wont be left holding the bag on $5000 to $8000 battery pack replacement bills cause they still aren't mass-produced enough (yet) to drive down cost to the end consumer.

Not a bad for proven diesel technology that has stood the test of time. So Chrysler messed up on some transmission, software and emissions stuff so that they could rush it to market - that's what you get for buying a domestic car. Sure, foreign cars have their trouble and get recalled too - but much, much, much less.

I like my CRD a lot, but my head isn't buried in the sand when it comes to who engineered the overall package

_________________
'05 CRD, Midnight Blue. Every option. Nice ride, idles like a garbage truck

I guess what it all comes down to is. Hopefully BullyDog will release a programmer that updates the ECU and TCM. Just like on the Dodge/Ford/Chevy trucks. Instead of the band aid solutions like what is currently avalible.

_________________
05 CRD Sport
Digi CR

BINGO!

Unfortunately, it is a hard sell to persuade folk to buy manual transmissions. Even in HD pickups. Most buyers want an auto tranmission. Which they should have if they want them.

I notice the press release for the 07 GC diesel is touting 23 or 24 mpg highway, so the CRD will apparently be outperforming that package in terms of fuel mileage. I may have read it wrong or it may have been a misquote cause that seems too low a mileage expectation for a new, pricey model.

_________________
06 CRD Spoat

The press release I saw said 23 to 24 mpg and city or highway was not mentioned. That said the guys in Europe report mid 30's on the I6 and the new V6 is suppose to be about 15% more fuel effiecent. So I bet you have read wrong or more likely the add you read had the info incorrect as the one I read.

I bet the average for the GC CDI V6 will be 3 to 5 mpg better then our Liberty just from arodynamics and the use of the MB tranny.

_________________
91 MB 300D 2.5L Turbo. Her's

05 MB E320 CDI. Mine

OldNavy:

I got this at the Jeep site. 23 highway. I find it difficult to believe also. If that's it, why bother. It might be a misprint although it is on the official Jeep site.

http://www.jeep.com/jeep_life/news/jeep/diesel.html

_________________
06 CRD Spoat

Saw the exact same thing on a internet automag and the part about fuel mileage and other stuff was not in quote's but it was word for word from the Jeep page. All that aside our Liberty said 26 mpg highway on the window sticker and we can get that at 75 mph or a little more, but down at 68 to 70 mph we can easy slip past 32 mpg with a well loaded vehicle. VW TDI was the same way, my '00 NB TDI was only rated 49 mpg, but at 70 to 75 mph would easy get 54 to 56 mpg and if I drove 60 to 65 range the NB would go into the mid 60's without fail. It all depends on how the engine is geared and I suppect that Jeep is gearing them low, because they have 7,400 lb tow rating if you noticed.

_________________
91 MB 300D 2.5L Turbo. Her's

05 MB E320 CDI. Mine

As far as manual transmissions are concerned: in general (except econoboxes) they can't be given away and are used just as loss leaders.

In fact, when my son got his 5 spd Forrester a few years ago the salesman kidded him that he never needed to take the keys out of the ignition as manual transmission cars are never stolen because A. they are worth alot less and B. nobody knows how to drive them anymore.

That is pretty much the truth in the USA, but not the rest of the world. In Europe automatic's are for old folks like me.

_________________
91 MB 300D 2.5L Turbo. Her's

05 MB E320 CDI. Mine

AMEN to that!

We have been trying to sell the wifes '01 530i BMW for over a year and a half! no takers because it was a 5 speed. Beautiful car, Perfect condition, but just WOULDN'T sell because of the manny tranny.

Traded it (and took a loss) for the Liberty, and I ain't never lookin back!

_________________
Murf

92 W250, Cummins powered (mine)

06 Liberty Sport 4x4 (hers)