• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

99 Dually Burb

I wonder if the seller knows that a 5.7 isn't a diesel, haha.
Not entirely true. One of GM's first diesels was a 5.7L. IIRC it was a 350 olds converted over to run on diesel. It became a HUGE flop and gave diesel a HUGE black eye that took DECADES to overcome.
 
Not entirely true. One of GM's first diesels was a 5.7L. IIRC it was a 350 olds converted over to run on diesel. It became a HUGE flop and gave diesel a HUGE black eye that took DECADES to overcome.
I remember that. The people that did not have problems loved their deisels.

Had a couple friends that had them - one had a Riviera and one had a Chevy van.
 
I remember that. The people that did not have problems loved their deisels.

Had a couple friends that had them - one had a Riviera and one had a Chevy van.
If cared for and driven properly, they weren't entirely bad engines. The problem was light duty diesels were still VERY new, and GM screwed the pooch on implementing them as well as maintence. This is what gave diesels such a black eye in the US, and made it so hard for diesels to take off state side.
 
Scuttlebutt was that GM just stroked it for compression and did nothing else. IIRC, head gaskets were the first to go and the motor was not long thereafter due to not having enough 'beef' for the diesel configuration.

Seems that the only ones that lived were absolutely babied.


While an 'A' for effort on GM's part to move a diesel into the sedan market, am not convinced the 350 conversion was what soured the US appetite. Having a bunch of loud IDI's that spewed black clouds and were under-powered had a fair amount of impact with the US consumer. Look at it this way, at the same time GM flopped with the 350 in the US auto market, Mercedes did not have any trouble selling the 5 and 6 cylinder diesels and IIRC Isuzu and Mitsubishi had decent sales with 4 cylinder diesels in the automotive market.
 
Scuttlebutt was that GM just stroked it for compression and did nothing else. IIRC, head gaskets were the first to go and the motor was not long thereafter due to not having enough 'beef' for the diesel configuration.

Seems that the only ones that lived were absolutely babied.


While an 'A' for effort on GM's part to move a diesel into the sedan market, am not convinced the 350 conversion was what soured the US appetite. Having a bunch of loud IDI's that spewed black clouds and were under-powered had a fair amount of impact with the US consumer. Look at it this way, at the same time GM flopped with the 350 in the US auto market, Mercedes did not have any trouble selling the 5 and 6 cylinder diesels and IIRC Isuzu and Mitsubishi had decent sales with 4 cylinder diesels in the automotive market.
Those early GM diesels were some of the WORST offenders for spewing black smoke. Yes head gaskets let loose left and right, and if you pushed them I believe the rods were known to shorten. They upped the compression by going to a zero deck, and a head with basically no combustion chamber to them. It was what seemed like a good idea at the time, but proved VERY bad. And if you listen to older people talk about diesels, the converted GM diesels are almost ALWAYS quoted as why diesels are loud, smoky, and undependable hunks. I cannot believe how many people accused my 6.5L of being a converted gas engine when I got it. The best was people with FORD's and there IDI's when in fact THERE diesel WAS a converted gas engine to diesel. Next on the GM list after head gaskets and rods I believe was injector pumps which early on failed quite a bit. Then if they got many miles on them, they would sludge up because people didn't know that diesels needed different oil than there gas counterparts, so the sludge would plug em up within a failrly short amount of time with S rated oil without much detergents. So it was a doomed experiment fro mthe get go. And if you think about it, the diesels of the day you quoted weren't sold in large numbers, and were rearded as good because they WEREN'T made by GM. Probably one of the reasons GM went to ISUZU to design the all new DURAMAX for them to build(and yes, GM has built the DURAMAX since the beginning for the most part. They did use parts from ISUZU, but they were still assembled right here in the states, yet people still call them an ISUZU).
 
The oil/fuel company fleet I worked for did the testing of the duramax before it hit the market, and of coarse we had duramax #1 sold to the open market. It is known as an Isuzu because it is an Isuzu engine used in generators for 4 years before having hangons like throttle control modified to work in a truck, and emissions being the biggest delay. I worked with 5 of the 7 engineers on the team. 2 that I didnt work with were Isuzu, 3 I worked with were Isuzu, 2 were GM. Afaik it was 50/50 on the first series change and has been all GM since then. It's all in the roots.
If the Cummins engine had been assembled in a dodge plant on day 1, we would still call it a Cummins not a Dodge.

I agree on being tired of the 6.2/ 6.5 being confused with the 350 diesel, but i get the confusion. It's not like the 6.2 came out as a power monster or lived up to the GM insinuation of 1 million mile engines like the big rigs. They over promised in the marketing instead of saying -yes the 350 was an experiment and now here is a great fuel efficient diesel that will have the same lifespan as it's gas counterpart. If Edsel continued and later made a wonderful car, how long would it take to shed the history...
 
Back
Top