# Optimum RPM for MPG/Engine Care Ducato 2010 2.3



## namder

I usually travel on major roads/motorways at 55 mph which equates to about 1800 RPM believing this to be fuel efficient. I am getting a consistant 26 mpg fill to fill. I am however wary of putting strain on the mechanicals at these low revs. What do others think?

John


----------



## bigcats30

Diesel engines are designed to run at low RPM (think tractor and donkey engines) they can just sit and chug away all day.

Whats more imprtant is that the engine temp is in the right place.....

But it is advised to run the engine at high RPM once in a while to clear the build up of particals (the black stuff on your exhaust)

Whatever you do don't just switch the engine off after upping the RPM as this can starve the turbo (i'm guessing yours is a turbo engine) of oil (which cools)

I always let the engine idle for 30 secs to a minute to allow it spin down.

I work on 1200bhp V12 twin turbo diesel engines in the challenger 2 main battle tank......low RPM is how these beasts more 70 ton over terrain that most people can't even walk over/up.


----------



## aircool

Is it 130 or the 150?

Generally diesels don't really like low rpm i.e. 1500rpm as its not really that efficient down there as you are a fair way off a decent level of boost at speed.

Best off at around 2000 or more depending on EGR status.


----------



## IanA

You might want to check at what RPM your engine produces max torque as this will be where the turbo is on max boost - might cause turbo issues over time.


----------



## hblewett

Max torque is at 2000 rpm for a 2.3 Ducato, I believe. I usually run mine at about the same speed as you do, or maybe a little more a 2250 rpm


----------



## Philippft

Modern diesel engines are governed, you cannot harm them by over revving! 
I am of the view that you should aim for a range of 2000 - 2200 RPM to get the maximum MPG. Your vehicle manual will tell you at what revs you get the maximum torque and this is not a bad rate to travel at. 

My 2.3 euro 4 produces maximum torque at just over 2000 RPM and is more fuel efficiant at this rate. Speed alone is not a good indicator as it does not determine what gear is selected. However, most guy's on here will agree, in top gear and around 53-56 mph is the most fuel efficiant speed.


----------



## cabby

No sorry I disagree, 58/59 mph at 2000 rpm is a much better figure to work on.this is based on many thousands of miles on varying vehicles.based on this my 3500kg 3.0 turbo diesel 6 speed vehicle returns me on average 29/30mpg.must admit the cruise control helps a lot.

cabby


----------



## WildThingsKev

I actually reckon we get best fuel consumption at 40-45mph in 4th or 5th. Motorway driving at 56-58mph never seems to work out as well as when bimbling around France on D roads. Even mountain driving usually gives figures as good as motorways. (measured tankfulls)


----------



## erneboy

As long as you don't labour the engine to the point to where it wants to stop pulling well I think you will be fine. You should be able to hear and feel when you are torturing the engine either with too few or too many revs.

I have a friend who is currently engaged in wrecking his van in the name of economy, 20mph in third up steep hills, trying to accelerate from 50mph in top gear to overtake etc. I can hear the transmission groaning under the pressure. It seems he can't, Alan.


----------



## dolcefarniente

2.3 max torque at 1850 2.3 148 bhp max torque at 1500. Bhp figures mean nothing as it's all produced at revs you spend no time at (3000 plus). torque is all important and the 148 bhp is worth having because it brings max torque down to 1500. I run my 148bhp 2.3 at 1750 on cruise and get a true (not onboard computer) 28.9 (Apache 700 euro 5 at 3955kgs)


----------



## Scattycat

In my opinion, if you think you are putting a strain on the engine then you probably are.

When in a high gear, if mine drops below 2000rpm then I can feel it's straining.

A good rule of thumb is that when you press down on the accerator and there isn't an instant noticeable increase in speed then you're in too higher gear.


----------



## listerdiesel

Life's too short....

Coming back from Little Casterton with the trailer and engine in tow we got down to about 10mpg on the hills, nothing called economy with a 4 litre V8!

Going back to the original question, Scania and Volvo both used to colour their truck rev-counters with green yellow and red sections, to show the corresponding best fuel consumption areas to run the engines at. 

Green was quite low for what was an 11 litre straight-6 turbo-diesel, and the 14 litre V8 was even lower, but the point was that revving a diesel is not giving it a chance to run in its best operating area, keeping the rev's in the maximum torque band will also usually match the best BMEP and thence the best fuel consumption.

You can't always do it, and I've been out to a couple with broken crankshafts, suggesting that the drivers were going to extremes, but if you get alongside any big truck these days, the rev's are surprisingly low.

The other issue, maybe, is that dual-mass flywheels seem to dislike continous low rpm as they are working hardest at that time.

Peter


----------



## bigtwin

I'm no expert but .........

Large diesel engines are usually designed to achieve 'torque back-up'.

This means that as the load on an engine increases (ascending an incline) the revs drop slightly resulting in the engine operating in an area where more torque is available thereby resisting a further drop in revs. Providing that the engine is powerful (torque) enough an equilibrium will be reached.

Again, I'm no expert but .....

I'd be surprised if the design of engines/transmission systems were not capable of withstanding the maximum possible loadings without failure. If not, would we not see loads (no pun intended) of failures?

DEBATE


----------



## rugbyken

When I first came out the army I worked for Tarmac on the road building driving a cat 8 and scraper maximum torque came from high revs wages were paid at machine hrs not clock hrs and an hr of max gave about 1 & 3/4 hrs machine hrs you were in big trouble if revs dropped,
I usually drive just under 3000 revs on my 2.3 and thats about 70 on most m/ways Fuel consumption sits at average 24.9 don't really think its worth taking 1/2 hr longer to cover 100 mls to save 1 ltr of fuel


----------

