Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: LPG max tank size under D3?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    134
    When I did mine, the maid reasons we’re economy and environment. Plus and extra 70 litres travel. I had been worth it but I did mine a few years ago.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by AntonP View Post
    Worth it? Im considering it for the extra range and for the environmental benefits.

    For extra range I could get an aux tank installed for $1400? When you deduct that cost it becomes more attractive
    There are no enviromental benefits to be had from LPG in this application. (Making the tanks and components, Shipping them on Vessels etc negates most of the benefits in a single vehicle)

    For the extra range (sub 300km gain) and the eating up a signifcant amount of the load capacity (GVM) with the frame and tank you'll gain very little.

    Then add the fact that LPG is becoming harder to find now as many service stations are actively removing their LPG infrastructure.


    You will be better off either going with Jerry Cans for those longer trips or an extended fuel tank (which still eats some of your load capacity)
    Cheers
    Tombie

    D4 MY11
    - Just about the way I want it.
    D90 MY15 - Just about the way Mrs Tombie wants it.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    13
    I disagree. Assuming a 90kg tank
    The embodied CO2 from energy used in the steel would be around 200kg
    The fabrication might double that
    And the shipping would have less than 4grams of CO2



    That equals less than 100L of Petrol to offset the CO2 of the LPG tank

    Add all the electronic components, the copper in the wiring, the land transport, the carbon overheads of the retailer and the installer, and you are still going to be environmentally friendly within the first 200L of petrol saved

    Lpg makes 33% less CO2 than petrol for the same energy output

    So after leas than 8 refills you are doing better than not converting

    Plus you reduce emissions locally as well

    This also assumed there was no green energy in any stage of the system. Unlikely these days

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Avoca Beach
    Posts
    11,853
    I disagree. Assuming a 90kg tank
    The embodied CO2 from energy used in the steel would be around 200kg
    The fabrication might double that
    And the shipping would have less than 4grams of CO2
    We are talking about a 2.6 tonne 4x4 probably over 3 tonnes when loaded aren't we?

    Regards PhilipA

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    13
    I think the suggestion was that the environmental footprint of the lpg system was higher than the environmental benefit of the system (as is the case with electric cars)

    I assumed 90kg for the lpg tank to do a quick calc as the other components are minor and was bundled into an assumption at the end

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilipA View Post
    We are talking about a 2.6 tonne 4x4 probably over 3 tonnes when loaded aren't we?

    Regards PhilipA

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    632
    The footprint is larger on the whole now as the volumes aren’t there.
    The entire LPG supply chain has now shrunk - so the trucking of the gas, the offset by volume etc aren’t there as much anymore.

    And a 30% lower emission per litre is offset by nearly double the lpg consumption.

    Using “emissions” as a justification for a conversion are really not the key factor. FI vehicles still cold start on Petrol, this is when their emissions are greater etc.

    To quantify it all takes a lot of work.



    If you want LPG then go for it, the added systems on the vehicle will just be another complexity and additional weight that comes off your available payload. Anything that hangs lower than an Aux Fuel tank will reduce capability offroad so keep that in mind when choosing tank size under the floor.


    Having had some very high powered LPG vehicles it was viable, but no longer is. Even here in a rural city - we now only have one source - so a fill requires a 20min detour just to get LPG. And at $1.00+ a litre it’s on or with petrol for consumption cost per km.

    Your call...
    Cheers
    Tombie

    D4 MY11
    - Just about the way I want it.
    D90 MY15 - Just about the way Mrs Tombie wants it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Avoca Beach
    Posts
    11,853
    I think the suggestion was that the environmental footprint of the lpg system was higher than the environmental benefit of the system (as is the case with electric cars)
    And I was jokingly suggesting that if you cared about emissions you would not be driving a D3 but perhaps a Jimny with a trailer on the odd occasion.
    Regards PhilipA

  8. #28
    p38arover's Avatar
    p38arover is online now Major Part of the Heart and Soul of AULRO Gold Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    27,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Tombie View Post
    And a 30% lower emission per litre is offset by nearly double the lpg consumption.
    I disagree with your double the consumption figure based on my experience with 13 years of driving my dual fuel P38A. Yes, consumption was higher (about 15%) - not so high that it wasn't worth it.

    My P38A originally had a venturi LPG system (no ECU) but that was later changed to an ECU-controlled injected system.
    Ron B.
    VK2OTC

    2004 L322 Range Rover Vogue 4.4 V8 Auto
    2007 Yamaha XJR1300
    Previous: 1983, 1986 RRC; 1995, 1996 P38A; 1995 Disco1; 1984 V8 County 110; Series IIA



    RIP Bucko - Riding on Forever

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisbane some of the time
    Posts
    8,341
    Quote Originally Posted by p38arover View Post
    I disagree with your double the consumption figure based on my experience with 13 years of driving my dual fuel P38A. Yes, consumption was higher (about 15%) - not so high that it wasn't worth it.

    My P38A originally had a venturi LPG system (no ECU) but that was later changed to an ECU-controlled injected system.
    Same for our vans,consumption increase is actually less than10%,over fuel,and that’s over many vehicles and many years.

    The earlier LPG systems definitely were not as efficient as the latest injection systems.
    paul

    D4 MY12 white,2.7(with a few more killer wasps) rear air,e diff,xenons,arb bar,7 seat ,18" bfg KO2

    2009 Defender 110 (son's)ARB
    bar,snorkle,rocksliders,rack,KM2's,BAS chip, always needs a wash

    '56 S1,been in the family since...'56

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!