subject:"\[MBZ\] GM diesels"

Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels

2011-11-28 Thread Curt Raymond

>Call it what you want.  Compared to even an old OM621 or an OM636, or
>a JD, IH, Cummins, Detroit, Cat, Perkins, or even a petter, it is a
>crappy engine.

GM's diesels didn't make much power for the size (90hp in the 4.3l v6, ~125hp 
for the 5.7l v8) but neither did the emission strangled gassers of the era and 
got much better fuel economy. They weren't stump pulling big truck. IH used a 
3l I6 Nissan engine in the Scout that only made ~101hp with a turbo. I'd posit 
that MB was making the best power/displacement diesels for consumer use.


>I was wrenching in tech school when these came out. ?I can assure you >that 
>they were built on the small block 350 platform, with a different >crank and 
>pistons, I believe.
A different crank, pistons, rods, heads, rockers, cam, pushrods, valves, valve 
springs, and intake. They used the same SHAPE block so it would drop in where a 
350 gasser would go, that doesn't make it the same engine. It is unfortunately 
why they had head bolt problems, they reused the bolt pattern to save on 
tooling and used bolts that weren't strong enough, a fatal combination.

>The Olds 350 was a gasoline engine re-designed to be a diesel.  This 
>is common knowledge, I think. 

I find common knowledge to almost always be wrong...

That said I could only find a few references that definitively say it isn't the 
same as the gas engine and none that say it is.

http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/02/oldsmobile-350-diesel.html

The only pages I could find that say the GM 5.7l diesel was a converted gasser 
are forums or people saying "everybody knows" which is not the same thing as 
saying "well the part numbers are the same".

If somebody has proof that they're the same I'd like to see it. The most 
damming evidence is that the 5.7 diesel's casting has a space for an injection 
pump. That tells me its a special casting and not just a small block gasser 
with an injection pump bolted on.

What amazes me in researching this (again, we had this argument this maybe 2 
years ago) is how GM almost made a decent engine. Not a good engine mind you, 
it was never going to be a super powerhouse but then they cheaped out in 2 
important aspects, the head bolts weren't strong or numerous enough (though 
stronger bolts could make up for the too small number) and the main bearing 
bolts were too short. Both were largely rectified on later versions. Oh and the 
lack of a water collector which ruined the IP. Typical tactics for that era of 
Detroit iron.

-Curt

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

My dad had one of those things in an Olds 98. He bought it after a
friend of his got one, I think the friend ended up getting a new engine
in his after the original crapped out, but the one my dad had was OK for
as long as he had it, 2-3 yr or so if I recall. I drove it a coupla
times, it was OK but nothing special. I think my dad got it after
Jimmah Cahtah screwed things up, to save money on fuel, or maybe it was
just the novelty of it.

--R

On 11/28/11 5:24 PM, Curt Raymond wrote:

Call it what you want. Compared to even an old OM621 or an OM636, or
a JD, IH, Cummins, Detroit, Cat, Perkins, or even a petter, it is a
crappy engine.

GM's diesels didn't make much power for the size (90hp in the 4.3l v6, ~125hp
for the 5.7l v8) but neither did the emission strangled gassers of the era and
got much better fuel economy. They weren't stump pulling big truck. IH used a
3l I6 Nissan engine in the Scout that only made ~101hp with a turbo. I'd posit
that MB was making the best power/displacement diesels for consumer use.

I was wrenching in tech school when these came out. ?I can assure you>that they
were built on the small block 350 platform, with a different>crank and pistons, I
believe.

The Olds 350 was a gasoline engine re-designed to be a diesel. This
is common knowledge, I think.

I find common knowledge to almost always be wrong...

That said I could only find a few references that definitively say it isn't the
same as the gas engine and none that say it is.

http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/02/oldsmobile-350-diesel.html

The only pages I could find that say the GM 5.7l diesel was a converted gasser are forums or people
saying "everybody knows" which is not the same thing as saying "well the part
numbers are the same".

If somebody has proof that they're the same I'd like to see it. The most
damming evidence is that the 5.7 diesel's casting has a space for an injection
pump. That tells me its a special casting and not just a small block gasser
with an injection pump bolted on.

What amazes me in researching this (again, we had this argument this maybe 2
years ago) is how GM almost made a decent engine. Not a good engine mind you,
it was never going to be a super powerhouse but then they cheaped out in 2
important aspects, the head bolts weren't strong or numerous enough (though
stronger bolts could make up for the too small number) and the main bearing
bolts were too short. Both were largely rectified on later versions. Oh and the
lack of a water collector which ruined the IP. Typical tactics for that era of
Detroit iron.

-Curt

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels

2011-11-28 Thread Randy Bennell

On 28/11/2011 4:24 PM, Curt Raymond wrote:

Call it what you want. Compared to even an old OM621 or an OM636, or
a JD, IH, Cummins, Detroit, Cat, Perkins, or even a petter, it is a
crappy engine.

I was wrenching in tech school when these came out. ?I can assure you>that they
were built on the small block 350 platform, with a different>crank and pistons, I
believe.

A different crank, pistons, rods, heads, rockers, cam, pushrods, valves, valve
springs, and intake. They used the same SHAPE block so it would drop in where a
350 gasser would go, that doesn't make it the same engine. It is unfortunately
why they had head bolt problems, they reused the bolt pattern to save on
tooling and used bolts that weren't strong enough, a fatal combination.
That sort of thing is still happening. My younger son is a mechanic who
periodically does F250 and F350 headgaskets. He says the trades people
love to chip these things for more power but then they stretch the head
bolts until they start to leak. They use stud kits when they put them
back on in an effort to make them last longer.

The Olds 350 was a gasoline engine re-designed to be a diesel. This
is common knowledge, I think.

I find common knowledge to almost always be wrong...

That said I could only find a few references that definitively say it isn't the
same as the gas engine and none that say it is.

http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/02/oldsmobile-350-diesel.html

What amazes me in researching this (again, we had this argument this maybe 2
years ago) is howGM almost made a decent engine. Not a good engine mind you, it
was never going to be a super powerhouse but then they cheaped out in 2
important aspects, the head bolts weren't strong or numerous enough (though
stronger bolts could make up for the too small number) and the main bearing
bolts were too short. Both were largely rectified on later versions. Oh and the
lack of a water collector which ruined the IP. Typical tactics for that era of
Detroit iron.

-Curt

Hard to fault them for the SBC though is it not? Pretty much the same engine
for more than fifty years and still a good engine.

Randy in red

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels

2011-11-28 Thread Smith, Todd

Curt,

You are correct in almost every way, we did have this discussion ~2 years ago 
and No, it is NOT a converted gas engine.  Oldsmobile DID try testing in 1974 a 
modified 5.7L Rocket spark-ignition engine by removing the spark plugs and 
distributor and adding a belt-driven injector pump.  It failed and all of their 
testing showed that they needed a brand-new design.  The 1979 model year 
D-Block was that new design with a higher nickel content to the block and 
thicker casting.  It did have some problems, many of those GM corrected in the 
later model years.  Some issues were completely outside GM's control and they 
were tarred with the same brush.  For example of the latter, an entire shipment 
of summer-weight diesel fuel was rerouted from South America and ended up 
offloaded in Boston Harbor in the dead of winter.  New England GM diesel sales 
were doing okay until a rash of "engine" failures directly as a result of 
winter gelling issues and not enough experience outside the long-haul trucker 
community to diagnose and treat the real problem.

The 5.7L head bolt issue is something of a mystery of WHY they only used 10 
bolts per head.  The explanation that you wrote about saving on tooling is as 
good as any that I have heard over the years.  The one that I favor is the 
story that GM was starting to use some early robotic assembly equipment and the 
Torque To Yield (TTY) head bolts being used were chosen for compatibility with 
the new equipment.  The people that knew the answer are not available to ask 
these days and no internal documentation has ever surfaced that explained the 
choice.

The main bearing bolt issue was somewhat corrected in the revised DX block in 
that they are longer then the original D block and some people have drilled 
their D blocks out some to accept the longer bolts.  The lack of a water-fuel 
separator is really unforgivable especially given the extremely low quality 
diesel fuel that was in circulation.  Believe it or not, diesel fuel has gotten 
much better in quality then the early '80s in reduced contaminates like water 
and algae from the supplier end.

These are good engines that have a few issues that can be easily corrected with 
a little bit of work.  If the head gasket is not leaking then adding either the 
last generation of OEM head bolts or ARP bolts can be done without removing the 
heads.  (ARP studs are available but you have to remove the heads)  Obviously 
if your are leaking at the head gasket then you should replace the head gasket 
for completeness sake.

I had one for a couple of years and if the wife and the budget in that order 
would allow me to have another one then I would jump on it in a heartbeat.

Todd Smith



-Original Message-
From: mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On 
Behalf Of Curt Raymond
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 17:24
To: Diesel List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels

>Call it what you want.  Compared to even an old OM621 or an OM636, or a 
>JD, IH, Cummins, Detroit, Cat, Perkins, or even a petter, it is a 
>crappy engine.

GM's diesels didn't make much power for the size (90hp in the 4.3l v6, ~125hp 
for the 5.7l v8) but neither did the emission strangled gassers of the era and 
got much better fuel economy. They weren't stump pulling big truck. IH used a 
3l I6 Nissan engine in the Scout that only made ~101hp with a turbo. I'd posit 
that MB was making the best power/displacement diesels for consumer use.


>I was wrenching in tech school when these came out. ?I can assure you >that 
>they were built on the small block 350 platform, with a different >crank and 
>pistons, I believe.
A different crank, pistons, rods, heads, rockers, cam, pushrods, valves, valve 
springs, and intake. They used the same SHAPE block so it would drop in where a 
350 gasser would go, that doesn't make it the same engine. It is unfortunately 
why they had head bolt problems, they reused the bolt pattern to save on 
tooling and used bolts that weren't strong enough, a fatal combination.

>The Olds 350 was a gasoline engine re-designed to be a diesel.  This is 
>common knowledge, I think.

I find common knowledge to almost always be wrong...

That said I could only find a few references that definitively say it isn't the 
same as the gas engine and none that say it is.

http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/02/oldsmobile-350-diesel.html

The only pages I could find that say the GM 5.7l diesel was a converted gasser 
are forums or people saying "everybody knows" which is not the same thing as 
saying "well the part numbers are the same".

If somebody has proof that they're the same I'd like to see it. The most 
damming evidence is that the 5.7 diesel's casting has a space for an injection 
pump. Tha

Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels

2011-11-28 Thread Walt Zarnoch

Forgive me if it's been said, but the reason they look so similar is GM
designed it to use the same tooling and fixturing that they already had in
place.

>From personal experience, I can tell you that if you can, and have the
power/blessing to, design something to use existing tooling/fixturing, you
do it.

The "newer" V8 olds engines running a Stanadyne(sp?) pump, right?

Walt
On Nov 28, 2011 5:24 PM, "Curt Raymond"  wrote:

> >Call it what you want.  Compared to even an old OM621 or an OM636, or
> >a JD, IH, Cummins, Detroit, Cat, Perkins, or even a petter, it is a
> >crappy engine.
>
> GM's diesels didn't make much power for the size (90hp in the 4.3l v6,
> ~125hp for the 5.7l v8) but neither did the emission strangled gassers of
> the era and got much better fuel economy. They weren't stump pulling big
> truck. IH used a 3l I6 Nissan engine in the Scout that only made ~101hp
> with a turbo. I'd posit that MB was making the best power/displacement
> diesels for consumer use.
>
>
> >I was wrenching in tech school when these came out. ?I can assure you
> >that they were built on the small block 350 platform, with a different
> >crank and pistons, I believe.
> A different crank, pistons, rods, heads, rockers, cam, pushrods, valves,
> valve springs, and intake. They used the same SHAPE block so it would drop
> in where a 350 gasser would go, that doesn't make it the same engine. It is
> unfortunately why they had head bolt problems, they reused the bolt pattern
> to save on tooling and used bolts that weren't strong enough, a fatal
> combination.
>
> >The Olds 350 was a gasoline engine re-designed to be a diesel.  This
> >is common knowledge, I think.
>
> I find common knowledge to almost always be wrong...
>
> That said I could only find a few references that definitively say it
> isn't the same as the gas engine and none that say it is.
>
> http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
> http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/02/oldsmobile-350-diesel.html
>
> The only pages I could find that say the GM 5.7l diesel was a converted
> gasser are forums or people saying "everybody knows" which is not the same
> thing as saying "well the part numbers are the same".
>
> If somebody has proof that they're the same I'd like to see it. The most
> damming evidence is that the 5.7 diesel's casting has a space for an
> injection pump. That tells me its a special casting and not just a small
> block gasser with an injection pump bolted on.
>
> What amazes me in researching this (again, we had this argument this maybe
> 2 years ago) is how GM almost made a decent engine. Not a good engine mind
> you, it was never going to be a super powerhouse but then they cheaped out
> in 2 important aspects, the head bolts weren't strong or numerous enough
> (though stronger bolts could make up for the too small number) and the main
> bearing bolts were too short. Both were largely rectified on later
> versions. Oh and the lack of a water collector which ruined the IP. Typical
> tactics for that era of Detroit iron.
>
> -Curt
>
> ___
> http://www.okiebenz.com
> For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
> To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
>
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
> http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
>
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels

2011-11-28 Thread Kaleb C. Striplin

yea that is a popular myth that its a converted gas engine. It is not,
it was designed (rather poorly) from the ground up to be a diesel.

On 11/28/2011 4:24 PM, Curt Raymond wrote:

Call it what you want. Compared to even an old OM621 or an OM636, or
a JD, IH, Cummins, Detroit, Cat, Perkins, or even a petter, it is a
crappy engine.

I was wrenching in tech school when these came out. ?I can assure you>that they
were built on the small block 350 platform, with a different>crank and pistons, I
believe.

The Olds 350 was a gasoline engine re-designed to be a diesel. This
is common knowledge, I think.

I find common knowledge to almost always be wrong...

That said I could only find a few references that definitively say it isn't the
same as the gas engine and none that say it is.

http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/02/oldsmobile-350-diesel.html

-Curt

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com

Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels

2011-11-28 Thread Kaleb C. Striplin

Another problem from the day was the techs really did not know how to 
work on them properly.  After a while they corrected the problems and 
the techs became more familiar with them by then the perception damage 
was done.


On 11/28/2011 5:20 PM, Smith, Todd wrote:

Curt,

You are correct in almost every way, we did have this discussion ~2 years ago and No, it 
is NOT a converted gas engine.  Oldsmobile DID try testing in 1974 a modified 5.7L Rocket 
spark-ignition engine by removing the spark plugs and distributor and adding a 
belt-driven injector pump.  It failed and all of their testing showed that they needed a 
brand-new design.  The 1979 model year D-Block was that new design with a higher nickel 
content to the block and thicker casting.  It did have some problems, many of those GM 
corrected in the later model years.  Some issues were completely outside GM's control and 
they were tarred with the same brush.  For example of the latter, an entire shipment of 
summer-weight diesel fuel was rerouted from South America and ended up offloaded in 
Boston Harbor in the dead of winter.  New England GM diesel sales were doing okay until a 
rash of "engine" failures directly as a result of winter gelling issues and not 
enough experience outside the long-haul trucker community to diagnose and treat the real 
problem.

The 5.7L head bolt issue is something of a mystery of WHY they only used 10 
bolts per head.  The explanation that you wrote about saving on tooling is as 
good as any that I have heard over the years.  The one that I favor is the 
story that GM was starting to use some early robotic assembly equipment and the 
Torque To Yield (TTY) head bolts being used were chosen for compatibility with 
the new equipment.  The people that knew the answer are not available to ask 
these days and no internal documentation has ever surfaced that explained the 
choice.

The main bearing bolt issue was somewhat corrected in the revised DX block in 
that they are longer then the original D block and some people have drilled 
their D blocks out some to accept the longer bolts.  The lack of a water-fuel 
separator is really unforgivable especially given the extremely low quality 
diesel fuel that was in circulation.  Believe it or not, diesel fuel has gotten 
much better in quality then the early '80s in reduced contaminates like water 
and algae from the supplier end.

These are good engines that have a few issues that can be easily corrected with 
a little bit of work.  If the head gasket is not leaking then adding either the 
last generation of OEM head bolts or ARP bolts can be done without removing the 
heads.  (ARP studs are available but you have to remove the heads)  Obviously 
if your are leaking at the head gasket then you should replace the head gasket 
for completeness sake.

I had one for a couple of years and if the wife and the budget in that order 
would allow me to have another one then I would jump on it in a heartbeat.

Todd Smith



-Original Message-
From: mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com [mailto:mercedes-boun...@okiebenz.com] On 
Behalf Of Curt Raymond
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 17:24
To: Diesel List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] GM Diesels


Call it what you want.  Compared to even an old OM621 or an OM636, or a
JD, IH, Cummins, Detroit, Cat, Perkins, or even a petter, it is a
crappy engine.

GM's diesels didn't make much power for the size (90hp in the 4.3l v6, ~125hp 
for the 5.7l v8) but neither did the emission strangled gassers of the era and 
got much better fuel economy. They weren't stump pulling big truck. IH used a 
3l I6 Nissan engine in the Scout that only made ~101hp with a turbo. I'd posit 
that MB was making the best power/displacement diesels for consumer use.



I was wrenching in tech school when these came out. ?I can assure you>that they 
were built on the small block 350 platform, with a different>crank and pistons, I 
believe.

A different crank, pistons, rods, heads, rockers, cam, pushrods, valves, valve 
springs, and intake. They used the same SHAPE block so it would drop in where a 
350 gasser would go, that doesn't make it the same engine. It is unfortunately 
why they had head bolt problems, they reused the bolt pattern to save on 
tooling and used bolts that weren't strong enough, a fatal combination.


The Olds 350 was a gasoline engine re-designed to be a diesel.  This is
common knowledge, I think.

I find common knowledge to almost always be wrong...

That said I could only find a few references that definitively say it isn't the 
same as the gas engine and none that say it is.

http://a350diesel.tripod.com/faqs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine
http://www.carlustblog.com/2009/02/oldsmobile-350-diesel.html

The only pages I could find that say the GM 5.7l diesel was a converted gasser are forums or people 
saying "everybody knows" which is not the same thing as sa

50 matches

Mail list logo