Are the 300SD's Pure Diesel Engines!?
 

Well I noticed that my dad's chevy pick up is a gasoline Engine transformed into a diesel. I guess to cut cost.

But I am wondering if my OM617 was built from the ground up?

Probably was, just wondering....

Yes, OM617 is descended from OM616, OM615, OM621 and other diesels.

Yes, it was. :)

and what motor would that be?

the 6.2 and the 6.5 are designed and built by detroit deisel and share NO parts with a gasolene engine. And contrary to popular opinion the 5.7 diesel wasn't a gasolene to diesel conversion.

Ha dont be to fooled. My father has an 87 6.2 L and it is very much converted. You can see right away. I think thats why they don't last as long...

Detroit (my apologies to Michigan)
 

You must always remember ...Detroit's Q.C. is the CONSUMER.
They'll put ANY excrement on the road , if some fool will buy it!

Engineers ...IN AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE Pursuits ????????????
"might as well dis-CUSS MILITARY INTELLIGENCE!

#2 Detroit has not the savy to produce an automotive DIESEL
#2a The Seven Sisters loose out if We go Diesel.

We can almost say that for any American Company. ;)

General Motors is the main reason that diesel engines have a "bad" reputation amongst the general public in the US.

In the late 70s/early 80s when Mercedes and VW diesels were getting popular here, and VERY popular elsewhere in the world, GM wanted to jump on the bandwagon. In their rush introduce diesel-engined cars to compete with MB, VW, and others, they produced some poorly engineered and weakly built models which WERE basically conversions using a beefed-up version of the existing GM gasoline-burning small block V-8 engine design. Certain components of these engines were not adequate for the forces inherent in a diesel engine, and also many US customers, repair shops, and car dealers did not know how to maintain diesel engines. Subsequently most of them didn't last very long.

Click on the link below and scroll down a bit...there's two different articles on the "Oldsmobile 350 Diesel".

http://popularhotrodding.com/features/0408phr_worst/

This ended up being such a fiasco for GM that it badly tainted the "average American's" perception of diesel-engined cars, and this negative image persists in the minds of many people to the present day.

We'd probably have a LOT more diesel-engined cars in the US if it weren't for this huge blunder by General Motors. Fortunately the negative perception that it caused here didn't reach Europe and elsewhere in the world.

I think I remember reading that nearly 50% of the cars on the road in Europe are diesels....The percentages are high in Australia, Japan, and most of the Middle East as well.

Hopefully they will become more commonly embraced in the US eventually. With fuel prices being what they are lately, that process might be sped up a bit.

Mike

What looks converted?
 

What is it about the 6.2L engine that makes you say that it looks converted? I'm not an expert on GM diesels by any means, but the only engines I was aware of that were based on gasoline engines were the earlier Olds and Caddy 350 diesels.

SteveM

The 6.2 was a "from the ground up" diesel - but it has amazingly poor power output. As recall the 6.2 GM Diesel put put less power AND torque than the 3.0 liter 617 Turbodiesel!!!

I've driven a Chevy Suburban with a 6.2 Diesel - it kind of reminded my of a 240D automatic on a cold morning.

I'd love to have a 1996/97 Cummins diesel Dodge truck, but they are holding too much resale value for me.

Considering the 1984 GMC 6.2 diesels. Am I better off just getting a 350 gas GM?

Ken300D

Yup, the only gaso-converted-to-dsl attempt by GM was the 350 cid in the 80ish era. Also used in that era in Chev trucks.

Ken,
It's kind of funny. A couple of guys will be talking. One will say something about his diesel truck, and the other guy will ask "Ford or Dodge". Chevy isn't even considered, and that's as it should be...

**edit** I'm sure someone will rave about his random chevy diesel being so reliable and long lasting, but like Volvo diesels, that is the exception, certainly not the rule...

Was there also an Olds 4.3 V6 diesel? Was it converted or engineered?

Yeah right just like the power stroke is.

I have one and there isn't a damn part except maybe some bolts that will fit any other GM engine. I am a LONG TIME GM guy, going back 30 years.

You are blowing smoke on this one.

With routine maintenance these last just about as long.

What kills them are harmonic balancers that go bad and are not replaced when they should be.

Their IP's are not as long lived as soem but they are cheap to get rebuilt.

AND they are not subject to the cavitation related failure the powerstroke is famous for, AND the parts are nowwhere near as expensive. I will not argue they are the best out there but they are nowhere near what YOU are trying to paint them as.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 :D

"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.

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.

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.

Why don't you just admit you don't like GM vehicles instead of fabricating a bunch of falsehoods. Mercedes made more than its share of CRAP engines.....luckily most of those stayed in Europe. Ask people in Europe, they can substantiate this fact.

I've had 2 of the GM car diesels. The first was a Pontiac Bonneville I bought for $600 and was the quietest and had the best ride of any car I've ever been in. My wife drove it across the mountains from Washington to Montana and got 29 mpg. At the time it had 269,000 miles. Sold it for $700 with bad glow plugs.

The second was an 8-passenger Olds wagon. Drove it cross country (6000 miles in 2 months) and it was like driving a limo. Except that you could put a 4x8 sheet of plywood in the back with the seat down. Averaged 24 mpg - 29 on the highway, about what my 300SD gets. Burned a quart of oil per fillup. I taught my daughter to drive in it. I had installed a temp gauge and as she was driving, she said, "Dad, is the red part of the gauge good or bad?" It had blown a head gasket at 173k. In my quest to replace it, I came across a lipstick red Mercedes 220D for $700 and that was the end of GM diesels.

Wow trucks are as bad as oil and politics! :D I really don't like trucks but the Cummins has Ford and GM beat. No contest the Cummins is one of the best diesels around today. Unfortunitly it is in a Dodge, now if Dodge would bump up the quality a little.

I still can't get past dropping $40k on a diesel truck! :eek: For $40k I want a Humvee or CDI.

Mr Doctor,

I, for one, will readily admit I think GM builds crap. Everytime I have to work on a GM vehicle its readily apparent that the first, second and third most important thing to GM is "how cheaply can we build this thing?".

I don't think you have to go to Europe to prove that Mercedes does not always build a great Diesel engine - there are plenty of cracked heads and bent rods on various flavors of the OM603 engine that were imported to the USA. These problems are very comparable to GM's 5.7 liter woes - the only difference is that when Mercedes makes this kind of mistake I'm surprised and when GM does it I think it's pretty much par for course.

Won't argue with you there, I hate dodge on their built quality, but Cummins is the best damn diesel out there.

[QUOTE=TimFreeh]Mr Doctor,

I, for one, will readily admit I think GM builds crap. Everytime I have to work on a GM vehicle its readily apparent that the first, second and third most important thing to GM is "how cheaply can we build this thing?".

QUOTE]

My moms 1996 Olds Cutlass is a perfect example of this, it is nothing but cheap parts and poor design stuck together to make a poor car. It doesn't even have a low fuel light!! :eek: My Camry was cheaper new had 100k more miles on it and drove better stopped better and was quiter inside. I can't believe my moms car will make it much past 100k, even though it is garge kept and has been perfectly maintained since new. I can see why not just GM, Ford is just as guilty if not more so; are getting their clocks cleaned by the Japanese.

I was lumping in Mercedes gasolene engines into that also, they made far more lemons of those we never saw.

Chrysler, and Ford, don't subscribe to the "How cheaply can we built this thing" school of thought? , or even Mercedes too?, I think the only car in the world built today without the bean counters calling the shots, is the MayBach. Exclusively, even Rolls Royce answers to been counters. GM is NO way the Worst offender........They have more than their share in the JD powers list for that statement to hold water.

They may not be the best, but then nobody else is either.

[QUOTE=Hatterasguy]OH, Mercedes didn't make its share of lemons too? If you look colse enough you will find something to complain about in every car built in the world.

But then don't fail to be as critical on the brand YOU may like lest you see the same faults in it.

Chevette
 

And please don't forget the wonderfull diesel chevette!!! Quality :D

Hey, there are lots of those that have seen 600-700K miles......WITHOUT having their motors opened up ever.

It wasn't pretty, it wasn't fast but those things ran forever.

Sort of like the old Diesel toyota trucks.

As a GM family member, living in a GM production town, with 2 grandfathers who retired from GM, driving nothing but GM all of my life, and being an employee of a GM subsidiary (Saturn), I find this GM bashing to be disconcerting. GM may not be the greatest automaker on the face of the Earth, but they are not the piles of garbage you are all making them out to be. They not be as overengineered as a Mercedes, but they fit the bill just fine for 99% of the population, are arguably less demanding on the owner as far as maintenance goes, and are a decent automobile.
My Saturn has lights for Low Fuel, Low Washer Fluid... etc... what a way to dumb down a vehicle... corners are cut on some GM products, and next to SAAB and Cadillac, Saturn has the least cut, but still, they try to build some convenience features into them.
We have a Mercedes in the garage shared with 3 other GM vehicles, as well as a Lexus... all 3 makes have to be worked on for cantankerous crap at about the same frequency.
~D.J.~

I had a 2000 6.5 chevy van and pulled a 30' camper with it. Loved that van, motor ran like a top and was especially quick without a big load. 4L80E tranny is bullitproof. I often frequented a GM diesel site as I do this site now, and can attest that the 6.2 and 6.5 were Detroit Diesels. I know nothing of the 80's automobile diesels.

The biggest knock against the 6.2 and 6.5 was their lack of pulling power or pulling uphill compared to Cummins or powerstroke. Plenty of people tweaked them so they would do good uphill with a load, but they were not as strong stock as the 2 competitors. They also had issues with the electronic injection pumps in the mid 90's, but that settled down (made by Stanadyne) GM extended the warranty out to 120K for the injection pumps.

Did you know that military hummers have 6.5"s?? The military specifies that they have the older style mechanical injection pumps, however.

Powerstrokes are known for the cavitation issue, and I've talked to owners of the new powerstroke that said they have other problems with the new motor, but that could just be first year issues.

Let's face it, the Cummins is the most bullit proof, but Dodge can't build a good tranny. GM's have the best ride and best transmissions but people say even the Duramax (joint venture between GM and Isuzu built in Ohio) doesn't quite have the pulling power it should. Ford, well the ride and transmissions are better than Dodge but.......

Personnel preference :)

True. These GM bashers aren't going to look as close at their favorite Babies because they would see the same faults if they did.

And is it NOT the bells and whistles that make the newer mercedes cost so damned much to repair. More Gizmos, means more gizmos to break.

If you don't have common sense to get fuel before your car runs dry, with or without a "LOW FUEL" light then you deserve to run out.

What engine's did Mercedes make that were problem engines? I can think of two the 350 diesel and the single row timing chain 3.8 V8.

The 603 is a damn good diesel, that got a bad rep because of the original "14".

I have yet to see a GM, Ford, or Chrysler car that by 100k miles wasn't falling apart. The body panals all have wide and ever changing gaps the paint is failing. I have lost count of the number of Lumina's and Neons I see with no paint on the hoods, trunk lids, or roofs. Also every Ford crown vic or Lincoln I see seem to emit blue smoke from their exhuast even very new looking ones. 4.6 or 5.0 valve seals heading south?

Also GM now makes more money selling insurance then cars, profits are super low. Ford and GM are also stuck footing the bill for retirement benifits for it's workers. Toyota on the other hand has monster cash reserves and seems to be doing quite nicely.

It doesn't bother me so much as closed-mindedness towards other makes. I have dealt with this with my Saturn club and at Saturn events from my Japanese driving peers, and the mentality makes me ill. I'm hoping to get away from this by going with the Germans as I have always liked - it takes more common sense and intelligence to drive a German car, or it so it is assumed.
~D.J.~

Finally why can't a Caddy compete with and S class? Or an A8? Or a 740IL? Or an LS400/430? Or a Jag XJ6/8? Or a Rolls?

As an American it bothers me that our best is second rate. Why can't I buy a V12 or big V8 Ford or Caddy that is the pinical of design and quality?

[QUOTE=Hatterasguy]I have yet to see a GM, Ford, or Chrysler car that by 100k miles wasn't falling apart. The body panals all have wide and ever changing gaps the paint is failing. I have lost count of the number of Lumina's and Neons I see with no paint on the hoods, trunk lids, or roofs. Also every Ford crown vic or Lincoln I see seem to emit blue smoke from their exhuast even very new looking ones. 4.6 or 5.0 valve seals heading south?
[QUOTE]
I'll call your first statement... you obviously are not looking very hard. Granted if you look at a Geo you might not see it going that long - but your exaggeration of the supposed lack of quality kills me. I guess working for the largest Saturn retailer in the US and escorting vehicles through the serice department (At the philosophy stores, Saturns are escorted from the customer to a parking area, and then by the same porter to the service bay, from the service bay, thorough the cleaning, to parking in the outgoing lot, to the final customer presentation), and seeing a majority of the cars with 100K+ on the Odo in for routine maintenance sways me. That or the fact that my father's business has 2 delivery trucks, 1 with well over 100K on the odo, and 1 with nearly 250K, and neaither has EVER been back to a dealer.

GM and the other americans had an issue switching to water based paint in the '90s.. I will give you that.

And the Ford 4.6 has low compression rings which cause this. It is a problem that developed with time, and can be fixed by running a heavier oil in it, as has been changed on the latest 4.6s by Ford.

I'm not here to argue that Mercedes are not quality, because they are, and I plan on being a long term owner, but don't put down the other makes with blanket statements.
~D.J.~

I'd rather have a STS Caddy before I would take the New mercedes. In fact the ONLY new mercedes I would own is the new diesel. But at that price, its not gonna happen.

Anyway who says it can't compete, it does, and does quite well. Why can't Lincoln compete, why can't Mercury? I don't see dodge, hyundi Honda, Suburu, or Kia doing it either, or for the people outside the USA, Peugot, Renault , Fiat, Autobianci, Seat, Skoda, Lancia , Alfa-romeo just to start..

Because GM doesn't have anything to market to that high of a price point. It would be pointless, the average Cadillac buyer may be a well off retiree or such, but they are not going to spend a copious amount of money on a car, especially one festooned with such gadgetry which might be useful, will make them feel like they are driving a damn spaceship. The money is in the midrange, not the upper spectrum. Perhaps this is why in the US, MB moves more E and C classes than S classes.
~D.J.~

What happened to the guy that started this thread?
 

What happened to the guy who started this thread, claiming that it was obvious that GM had "converted" a gasoline engine to make the 6.2L diesel?

SteveM.