Yours was not running right. My 3/4 ton 4X4 will smoke the rear tires in two wheel drive. And they have WAY more torque than the 617, the HP figures are lower than you would think as its redline is at a lower RPM and its peak torque is too. But still higher than the 617.

It will eat my 300SD W116 alive in acceleration.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

We had a 6.5 Turbo in a '97 GMC Sierra.. it was rather bulletproof. It wasn't the quickest thing around, but strap ~12,000 pounds of our boat behind it and it would pull like hell and not gripe a bit. We have since traded that truck in on a Sierra with a Duramax in it, and I have to admit that I am highly impressed. It goes down the road like a gas truck, and it even makes our old 6.5 look weak in handling the boat's weight on mountain roads. IMHO.. if people can get over the GM diesel stigma, the Duramax will be a valiant competitor.
~D.J.~

They should, considering that the Duramax is built by Isuzu, a manufacturer that builds some of the most reliable trucks in the world.

Whoa, I agree with Mike on something Mike's completely right, and this is actually one of my reasons for actively boycotting GM. I just hope we're seeing the beginning of a new trend...the E320 CDi, Liberty diesel, etc...this could be the start of something new...

If that's truly the case, I think something's wrong with your 300SD. Granted I have a 123, but before adding the turbo to my Ford, my 123 could outrun my truck. This was with a 6.9l engine that's got a full 50 horsepower and 155 ft-lbs of torque on an OM617. The difference in my case is that the truck weighs almost double what my 300D weighs.

With the turbo, I haven't tried yet...

This explains a lot...

You are correct about the torque - An OM603, with three liters of displacement, equals the GM 6.2 Diesel with 150Hp +/- horsepower but the GM 6.2 makes the most of it's 3.2 liter displacement to enjoy a 50 lb/foot advantage over the Mercedes engine.

I realize I'm comparing a turbo to a non-turbo setup but I'm sticking to my observation - the 6.2 has a very low power output as a function of engine displacement. No real surprise there.

I think this was deliberate...IIRC, GM's IDI diesels were built primarily for fuel mileage, not brute power. They were also built lighter (this is why you find them in 1/2 tons and Blazers)...if memory serves, they don't weight that much more than a smallblock g@$$er, whereas other pickup diesels tend to weigh nearly double that of a g@$$er of similar displacement.

I rememebr hearing that a stock 6.2l driven lightly can get 25+ mpg...but it can't tow worth beans (at least compared to the Ford and Dodge diesels) and tends to go through auto trannies like they're going out of style...

Our '88 6.2 Diesel Chevy Conversion Van I elected to rebuild at 189000mi since it burned a couple quarts between changes otherwise took us to east and west coasts on many occasions. I added a turbo from a "98 Chevy Van and wow what a wake up for this motor.

Transmission failed several months later with only a blown nylon seal inside. The mechanic remarked how little wear were on the bearings in the motor and on the clutches in the transmission. The numbers were readable on the surfaces of the clutches.
The full size van accelerates effortlessly and my wife's mileage with our 6 children around town is at 17mpg. The range on this vehicle is terrific.

I owned 2 Olds diesels up to 167000mi and 186000mi respectively. The "82 I replaced head gaskets 3 times the other '83 ran with no problems till I sold it. I also owned an '84 Cadillac Fleetwood diesel and sold it with no problems at 189000mi. It was rare, beautiful and extremely comfortable long range driver.

I hope I didn't get to carried away in our forum with this dissertation on GM diesels

__________________
'96 C220 138,000mi, '95 E300D 239,000 mi., '87 300TD 214,000mi '88 6.2 Turbo Diesel Chevy Conversion Van 253,000 mi.

I was the proud owner of an 82 Chevy with a 4.3 diesel. No problems for the first 50,000. After 50K, damn near everything but the engine itself broke. Starter, fuel pump, a couple injection pumps, a couple A/C compressors, cruise control, radio, power antenna, water pump, serp belts and tensioners, fuel tank rusted through, etc. Then at about 85,000 the engine itself blew chunks.

Dealer asked the GM service Rep to look into it. It's been 20 years now. I'm beginning to think he ain't coming.

Second worst car I ever had. Have not and will not consider any GM product since.

__________________
Palangi

2004 C240 Wagon 203.261 Baby Benz
2008 ML320 CDI Highway Cruiser
2006 Toyota Prius, Saving the Planet @ 48 mpg
2000 F-150, Destroying the Planet @ 20 mpg



TRUMP .......... WHITEHOUSE
HILLARY .........JAILHOUSE
BERNIE .......... NUTHOUSE
0BAMA .......... OUTHOUSE

I have owned one gm diesel and driven multiple ones, and I for one love them. They are suprisingly quick and get good mileage and well taken care of will pull a bunch. Most of the guys that trash them have never owned one. If built up right they can be very very quick. So don't trash em unless ya know em. I have even heard that the olds engines were not as bad as they were made out to be.

I have had both a 1/2 (1982) and a 3/4 ton (1983) GM Diesel and loved both of them. The 1/2 ton gets a bit over 20 mpg at 70 mph. It has reasonable accleration and over the long haul will stay up with or pass most cars on the road. I can drive it flat to the floor in 3 rd. gear all day long hauling my 8K pound trailer and tractor. I hauled my wife's Buick back from Junction (350+ miles) on a trailer going a lot faster than I should have and never heard a whimper.

I had the 3/4 ton in Dubai (no speed limits) for 5 years and and drove it full speed everywhere. I brought it back here and my son drove it for a couple of years. He cut off a telephone pole with it and it kept going (he drove it home). I rebuilt the front end and he drove it another year. Finally it blew a head gasket for the 3 rd. time and I scrapped it at 190K. Really a great engine.

I have heard that the Duramax have been having trouble with the aluminum heads cracking. I don't know this for a fact but a friend spoke with the shop manager in a Corpus Christi Chevy dealership and he said that they were having problems.

Whoops, the powerstroke is not famous for the engine destroying pinholes caused by cavitation. That was a problem with 7.3 IDI Navstars. I have one of these in a 93 Econoline. I check the coolant every few months, so I don't have a problem. The Powerstroke is a Direct Injection Navstar and has a redesigned block.

I have been hauling livestock all over California and Nevada this summer and fall. I really need a newer truck with more power, but it gets the job done and it's not bad on the fuel bill. My wife's truck is a powerstroke with about 300,000 miles. It is our income, so we don't use it for hauling horses over the Sierras.

Don't blame Detroit Diesel for the crappy 5.7 and 6.2. They could have designed a good engine if Chevy wanted to build one.

GM wanted a cheap engine built on a modified big block gasoline engine. They got what they ordered.

__________________
69 220D not running
79 240D parts car
80 240D Beater runs everyday
81 300TD temp disabled cooling problem
82 300SD sweet

Uhh...it seems to me that you just contradicted yourself. A diesel should be able to go considerably further than 190K. I'll admit that I redid the head gaskets on my Ford at 220K, but this is because I was adding a turbocharger on, which the engine wasn't originally designed to handle. The gaskets were actually fine (and probably would have been okay with the turbo); I did it primarily for peace of mind. So, to be safe, I put new head gaskets on and replaced the head bolts with ARP studs.

Most GM people try to claim that the aluminum heads on the D-max are a non-issue...IMHO it's just a matter of time. Just because they're fine now doesn't mean they're going to be fine in 10 years.

If aluminum heads on diesel engines are so great, why are both the Powerstroke and the Cummins using cast-iron heads?

Any chance of your friend getting documentation on that? I'll bet that the GM die-hards will try to write that off as BS unless there's some documentation...and I for one would love to have that bit ammo for my anti-GM arguements

"I rebuilt the front end and he drove it another year. Finally it blew a head gasket for the 3 rd. time and I scrapped it at 190K. Really a great engine."


I just scrapped a POS dodge Caravan with a little over 200k. In fact I have worn out about 6 cars in the last 15 years, all with over 200K. None had ever had their heads off. A little Nissan pick up had over 200K before I got it and I put almost that much on it again. The truck was beat to stuff, but the Z24 engine ran like a top and easily passed smog when I unloaded it.

Even a gasoline engine should be worth more than 190K. There are untold numbers of Chevy trucks that have had 5.7 or 6.2 diesls replaced with gassers. I have never heard of a Chevy 350 that needed head gaskets three times with less than 200K.

__________________
69 220D not running
79 240D parts car
80 240D Beater runs everyday
81 300TD temp disabled cooling problem
82 300SD sweet

No YOU are wrong, its the powerstrokes in Ford pickups with cavitation issues, its a well known issue if the coolant does not have the correct level of additives.

Its well documented and well known on the Ford Diesel boards.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

No experience on the 4.3 never saw one , never had one, and didn't know anyone with one, The primary problem with the 5.7 was the head bolts. They stretched and in general didn't provide sufficient clamping force, and that led to head gaskets blowing, and people drove them with blown head gaskets untill the engine was destryed. Drive any engine with a blown head gasket and you will destroy it.

My brother had an olds 88 with the 5.7 drove it to well over 250,000 miles when he used starting fluid to get it started one day and blew the head gasket as a result. Simple glow plug problem compounded by someone unfamiliar with diesels and the result is a blown engine that would have lasted a log time more.

GM fixed that problem, albeit way too late in the game. The last year of that engine was without problems, and replacement engines have all problems fixed. Only problem was it was too late to salvage the earlier reputation of these engines.

Heck my Uncle has a 1978 GMC 1/4 ton with the 5.7 diesel still runs perfectly, and its still original.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche