No. A total war, by most definitions, is a war which utterly dominates its main belligerents; a war in which any target is considered reasonable, any tactic is considered reasonable, any weapon is considered reasonable. The normal conventions of what is acceptable go out the window. Total wars usually entail the industrial, economic, and political resources of a state or society being marshalled toward the goal of victory at the expense of liberties and prosperity. These things are not true of the crusades.

The conventions of medieval warfare were far less protective of innocent civilian life than in the modern day, but unrestrained acts of violence were usually met with a chorus of condemnation. Events such as the massacre of Edessa by Zenghi in 1144, Richard I's massacre of prisoners in 1191, and the massacre of Béziers in 1209, were all met with outcry and anger. These were not considered normal as they would be in a total war, and even medieval writers who tried to justify these actions (the discourse around Richard's massacre is particularly interesting) clearly felt the need to explain why these events weren't as bad the audience might assume. The only exception to this that comes to mind is the original capture of Jerusalem in 1099, which was widely celebrated despite its brutality. Many rulers, such as Baldwin III of Jerusalem and the sultan Saladin, made a point of keeping the moral high ground and acting in a more chivalric (and religious - mass murder isn't exactly pious) way than they ordinarily would in a deliberate effort to avoid escalation of hostilities. In their minds, war was for soldiers, not civilians.

A particularly illuminating text on what it was like to be in the Holy Land during a period of conflict is the travel writing of Ibn Jubayr. He made a grand tour of the region from 1183 to 1185, touring both Islamic and Christian territory. The political situation at the time was rapidly deteriorating, with the Frankish nobleman Reynald de Chatillion raiding the border between his own domains and those of Saladin. Two years after Jubayr went home, Reynald's actions would spark the conquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by Saladin. Ibn Jubayr was expecting something akin to total war, and it's fascinating to see that expectation fall apart piece by piece. First he had no trouble finding passage on two Genoese ships, and despite his concerns that the mostly Christian crew and passengers would cause him trouble he noted that in the end the weather was the only issue. He also had no difficulties travelling through Christian territory, and was surprised that freedom of trade and movement continued despite the deteriorating political situation. He even claimed to have witnessed two skirmishing parties hold back from attacking each other to let a trade caravan pass between them! He noted that despite rising tensions, there was no visible animosity between Christian and Muslim communities in the territories he travelled through:

We moved from Tibnin - may God destroy it - at daybreak on Monday. Our way lay through continuous farms and ordered settlements, whose inhabitants were all Muslims, living comfortably within the Franks. They surrender half their crops to the Franks at harvest time, and pay as well a poll-tax of one dinar and five qirat for each person. Other than that they are not interfered with, save for a light tax on the fruit of their trees. The houses and all their effects are left to their full possession. All the coastal cities occupied by the Franks are managed in this fashion, their rural districts, the villages and farms, belong to the Muslims. But their hearts have been seduced, for they observe how unlike them in ease and comfort are their brethren in the Muslim regions under their (Muslim) governors. This is one of the misfortunes afflicting the Muslims. The Muslim community bewails the injustice of the landlord of its own faith, and applauds the conduct of its opponent and enemy, the Frankish landlord...

A particularly difficult moment for him was seeing a wedding in Tyre, attended by the large crowd of cheering Muslim and Christian onlookers. It seems to have been the moment that the idea of the region being locked in contest between Christians and Muslims finally fell apart for him, as the evidence in front of him was that they were quite happy living side by side even in times of holy war. He even added a little admonishment to himself (and his audience) for enjoying the sight, and you can see him trying to cling to his idea of the region as 'Christians vs. Muslims' even as it became untenable in front of him. By the time he was shipwrecked in Sicily on the way home, and saw the strongly multicultural court of King William of Sicily, his attitudes had softened substantially. His account provides clear evidence that most people had nothing to do with the ongoing wars in the region, even when they were escalating as they were during his travels.

It would be incorrect to say that the commonly accepted rules of war were the same in the Holy Land than in the middle of France (studying the difference is currently a substantial part of my PhD). Acts of violence against prisoners was far more accepted in the context of a crusade than in conflicts between Muslims and between Christians, for example. That being said, crusaders also understood that free trade was to be protected even though the disruption of trade through pillage was a common tactic back in Europe. Shortly before the Third Crusade, the sultan Saladin and the city-state of Genoa received a telling off from the caliph and pope respectively over striking a trade deal, but despite pressure from both religious heads the deal went ahead and later attempts by the papacy to restrict trade between Christians and Muslims failed utterly.

So no, the Crusades were not total wars. The general perception at the time was that they were wars between rulers, and that the average person was to be left out of them.