What if GM diesel car sales keep rising from 1981

Would that thing have fit under the hood of any GM passenger car in the 1980s? And because it's so big, it pretty well negates the fuel economy benefits.

SBC 28L x 27H x 22W 575lbs

Now even though not factory, any G-Body could fit Big Blocks just by using off the shelf GM mounts.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Incorrect Olds V-8. You are showing the aluminum block which became the Rover V-8. It was the basis for the Buick 300-340-350 V-8's, but modified for iron block, heads, and raised deck. The Oldsmobile small block 263-307-330-350-403 V-8's were about 28x28x26 lxhxw and 560 pounds. They were short stroke engines. The 1966-84 or so Cadillac 425-472-500 was only 50 pounds heavier than a small block Chevy. I've never heard of a slant four from the Buick V-8 base. Pontiac developed the slant four from the 389 of GTO fame.

In my opinion the 300-340-350 Buick small block, a longer stroked design, would have worked better for a diesel conversion. It was 450 pounds measuring 31x29x23, nearly matching the small Ford. Rework the engine for diesel at 18:1 CR and 6-8 pounds of boost. It started with 10-11:1 CR in gas form. The V-6 variants were turbocharged by the factory.
 
Diesels failed in the same way that most early imports failed here. Thin factory service, vehicles that did not tolerate ham-fisted wrenching and demanded regular maintenance, tuning that demanded high-quality fuel... Even the awful Olds diesels would last for a respectable lifespan, if you were fussy about maintenance, fuel and operation. Hop in and run it like a gasser - no warm-up, pedal to the floor all the time, pop the hood once a year to check the oil, buying the cheapest fuel you can find, trusting it to Cooter down at the Sinclare because the dealer is just out to screw you... Nah. They could have had 500hp coal rollers in 1980, but if they needed any more upkeep than a inanimate carbon rod, they'd have failed too.

Yet Dodge succeeded with Diesels in the truck line, because the Cummins 6BT was such a tank. Ran like a top, started easy in cold without glowplugs, and even though it only had 200HP, it had almost 500ft.lbs of torque , far more than the gas 440V8, and at a lower RPM
 
I've never heard of a slant four from the Buick V-8 base. Pontiac developed the slant four from the 389 of GTO fame.

was saying that the 500 could have been split, like Pontiac did

I included the 215 stats as Masked Grizzly had some posts over it
 
Yet Dodge succeeded with Diesels in the truck line, because the Cummins 6BT was such a tank. Ran like a top, started easy in cold without glowplugs, and even though it only had 200HP, it had almost 500ft.lbs of torque , far more than the gas 440V8, and at a lower RPM
To clarify, I was specifically talking about passenger cars. Trucks are a different dynamic.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
was saying that the 500 could have been split, like Pontiac did

I included the 215 stats as Masked Grizzly had some posts over it

Sorry, I thought I responded to Masked Grizzly's comment. As far as a Cadillac slant four, be prepared for losing your fillings. Without balance shafts the car will wriggle down the road. It could be done, but would it help GM's image?

Buick went from 110hp to 245hp with improved fuel control, turbocharging and spark control between 1975 and 1987 with the 3.8l V6. A diesel 350 V8 could go from 125hp to 225hp without much effort. Torque would increase in a similar fashion. Roadmaster here we come.
 
As far as a Cadillac slant four, be prepared for losing your fillings. Without balance shafts the car will wriggle down the road. It could be done, but would it help GM's image?

While did have vibration, most seems to point at not enough time to properly balance the crank, sothe crappy nylon timing gear didn't last long. From what I heard they didn't shake as bad as the early Buick V6s, and diesels you won't be spinning as fast in any case
 
IMO, the best block for GM to use, would be the Caddy 500, it had the most torque of the GM family.

It's big, though, but beefy
Buick/Olds 215 ci 28L x 27H 26W 315lbs
Cadillac 500 ci 30L x 32H 28.5W 625lbs
For the smaller vehicles, could split it to a slant four, like Pontiac did with with the 1gen Tempest

A hypothetical non-alloy version of the 215 Buick / Oldsmobile V8 displacing around 4-litres should roughly weight about 466-472/478 lb or so (via the 3-litre V6), since the Buick V6 weighed about 35 lb or 15.9 kg more compared to the all-alloy V8 at 318-350/375 lb or 144-160/170 kg though it seems different sites cite different figures (e.g. 3-litre V6 ranges from 350-377 lb, 3.2-litre V6 meanwhile ranges from 354-414 lb with the 3.8-4.1-litre V6 ranging from 380-410 lb).

OTOH though the Iron-block 4923cc / 300 Buick V8 featured very similar architecture to the all-alloy 215 Buick V8 yet weighed 405 lb or 184 kg, so it is likely the hypothetical non-alloy Buick V8 would still be significantly lighter than the rough 466-472/478 lb figure given.

Either way there should still be more then enough strength in the non-alloy 215 Buick V8 for easier conversion to diesel, compared to the Rover / Perkins Project Iceberg dieselization of the all-alloy Rover V8 that was ultimately done in by financial and logistical problems (which GM being a significantly larger company would have had to deal with).

Project Iceberg
In the late 1970s, British Leyland became aware of the increasing importance of diesel engined cars to the British, European and (especially) North American markets in the wake of the 1979 energy crisis. It was decided that a new series of diesel engines powerful, refined and economical enough for use in BL cars was needed. However, with development funding tight, it was necessary to use existing BL petrol engines as a base. This included a diesel version of the 3.5-litre V8, the development project for which was code-named 'Iceberg'.

BL collaborated with Perkins Engines of Peterborough to develop the engine. Both naturally aspirated and turbocharged versions were produced, both using a Stanadyne rotary mechanical fuel injection system. Power outputs of around 100 (naturally aspirated) and 125-150 (turbocharged) horsepower were achieved.

The Iceberg engine was slated for fitment in the Range Rover, Rover SD1 and the Jaguar XJ but the project encountered problems with failure of the alloy cylinder heads and internal cooling. They were limited by the need to use the same basic block casting as the petrol engine to allow the Iceberg engine to be produced on the same production line to reduce costs. Whilst these problems could have been overcome, the project ran into financial and logistical problems caused by the reorganisation of BL and specifically the splitting of Land Rover and Rover into separate divisions.

Land Rover took over production of the V8 engine in 1982, moving it from the main BL engine plant at Acock's Green into a new, much lower-capacity production line in the Solihull works, where it was built alongside the other Land Rover engines. This meant that there was no spare capacity to build diesel versions of the engine. Coupled to this, it was clear that the market for large diesel engined cars in North America had not developed as expected.

BL finally pulled out of the project in 1983. Perkins initially decided to pursue the project alone, and even produced advertising brochures for the engine as an industrial power unit, but BL withdrew all technical support and Project Iceberg was wrapped up in late 1983. BL's other collaboration with Perkins (producing a diesel version of the O-Series engine) produced the highly successful 'Prima' unit. BL (and its Rover Group successor) bought in 2.5-litre 4-cylinder turbodiesel units from VM Motori to use in the SD1 and Range Rover.

Later on the 4.2 Rover V8 petrol from 1992 ended up used the crankshaft castings from the failed "Iceberg" diesel engine project.

Like the idea behind the Oldsmobile V6 and V8 engines had they been both properly developed and featured turbodiesels both with and without intercoolers, cannot help but wonder whether GM should have also got Isuzu involved with this project given their experience with building engines and diesels in particular.
 
Last edited:
no i mean go look at the oldsmobile diesel article

well, they also wasted time on the 2.5L 'V5' Diesel, 70HP@4000RPM and 111Ft. Lbs@2400 that was killed before it would ruin even more people on diesels for the 1984 model year.
Half the HP and 1/3rd the torque of the '50's era 4-53 two stroke, for 1L less in displacement. An engine made to keep Olds Engineers busy, I think, than to actually power anything people wanted to drive

At the same time, the 'Iron Duke' gas four-popper of the same displacement had 90hp
 
Early turbos suffered from the automakers decision to stress top end power over responsiveness. Lag can be reduced by using smaller turbochargers. See the Ford solution of using twin small turbos to get the best of both worlds. Turbocharging does increase fuel usage. However, this is somewhat offset by the increase in lower rpm torque from using a smaller turbo to offset pumping losses within the engine. The increase in power results in increased acceleration at lower rpms. The driver is less inclined to floor the pedal.

The OP stated he was looking for 10 million diesel sales from 1978 to 2018, a forty year span. The average sales per year would be 250,000 cars, just 3.5% of 2017 sales volume.
NO I SAID OVER 10 MILLION SALES FOR 2018 CALENDAR YEAR
 

SwampTiger

Banned
NO I SAID OVER 10 MILLION SALES FOR 2018 CALENDAR YEAR

Yikes! You would need the automaker to convert its entire fleet to diesel. I doubt GM had the commitment to do so. If it had done a better job with the early 350 diesel, GM may have been able to convince sufficient buyers of the advantages. The early issues with the diesels, plus their complete lack of power undercut GM's message. The drop in fuel prices in the 80's and 90's further eroded the public perception of diesels. Only once truck buyers recognized the better towing characteristics and fuel economy of diesels did the technology become accepted. GM could have given the task to another division for the first automotive diesel. Say have GMC and Buick combine to create a diesel based on the small block Buick V8 with turbocharging and if possible turbocharging, you MAY have had a better first attempt. GM could turn the project over to Chevrolet to use a thick-walled 307 with a 400 crank for a 354 cid engine.

However, GM and Chevrolet failed in providing the Army and truck buyers with a reliable and powerful small-block derived V8 with the early 6.2 and 6.5 engines. Once improvements were made and turbocharging added, the GMC/Chevy engines became more accepted. Note that these engines came as a result of Dodge Cummins success.

GM had the expertise and experience to start on the right foot early. It failed to consider diesels as anything more than a fuel economy gimmick, thus dooming any chance of public acceptance.
 
However, GM and Chevrolet failed in providing the Army and truck buyers with a reliable and powerful small-block derived V8 with the early 6.2 and 6.5 engines. Once improvements were made and turbocharging added, the GMC/Chevy engines became more accepted. Note that these engines came as a result of Dodge Cummins success.

GM had the expertise and experience to start on the right foot early. It failed to consider diesels as anything more than a fuel economy gimmick, thus dooming any chance of public acceptance.
Yeah, GM used to own Detroit Diesel. The old school 4-53 212cu.inch 3.5L 'Green Leaker' was 1200 pounds of turboed Two-stroke, but it was 175HP@2500rpm and 420ft.lbs@1600rpm

That crap 350 was 125HP@3600 and 225ft.lbs@1800
The thinwall DD 379cu.in 6.2L was 130HP@3600 and 240ft.lbs@2000 650 pounds dry weight
The Turbo 6.5(395cu.in) was 155HP@3600 and 340ft.lbs@1800 750 pounds

Now the Cummins 6BT 5.9L 359cu.in in the Dodge was 160HP@2500 and 400ft.lbs@1600, and was a burly 1100 pound of inline Six, add 55 HP and 40ft.lbs for the Turbo version

In the late '70s, GM might have been able to do an aluminum 4-53, DD apparently did some AL Vee blocks in the 6V53 form for the Army. a lightweight 4-53T probably would have still been able to pass truck emissions
for the One Ton class, long enough to get pickup folk to see the light on how to really tow a load.
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
marathag: The 4-53 and 6v-53 could not pass GM's NVH(Noise-Vibration-Harshness) standards for passenger car and light truck use in OTL. Plus their weights were excessive. GM bypassed these engines for a reason.

Masked Grizzly: The "non-hypothetical" non-alloy Buick 215 was the Buick iron block 300/340/350 series. The Rover V8's were Buick aluminum V8's. They accept 300 heads, cranks and valves. With a slight re-bore, the later Rover can be pushed to near 320 cid. It cannot take the 340/350 crank without issues because those engines had a raised block deck height to account for the longer stroke.
 
marathag: The 4-53 and 6v-53 could not pass GM's NVH(Noise-Vibration-Harshness) standards for passenger car and light truck use in OTL. Plus their weights were excessive. GM bypassed these engines for a reason.

Slightly heavier and a bit less power than the 6BT in the Rams. Aluminum block and head is an option, that would be well under 454 V8 weight, with 100 ft.lbs more torque at 1000rpm less

Was not really thinking of this for light truck or autos, but for 1 ton and up applications
Here for an example of a very civilized swap

Biggest problem that would be impossible to solve would be that yes, they are 'buzzy' at highway speeds and will pump out more soot, but they weren't shakers and rattlers like the 6.2

But it would give Diesels a great rep vs the 350 and 6.2 and 6.5. Not gutless, and will outlive the chassis the motor is mounted in.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Slightly heavier and a bit less power than the 6BT in the Rams. Aluminum block and head is an option, that would be well under 454 V8 weight, with 100 ft.lbs more torque at 1000rpm less

Was not really thinking of this for light truck or autos, but for 1 ton and up applications
Here for an example of a very civilized swap

Biggest problem that would be impossible to solve would be that yes, they are 'buzzy' at highway speeds and will pump out more soot, but they weren't shakers and rattlers like the 6.2

But it would give Diesels a great rep vs the 350 and 6.2 and 6.5. Not gutless, and will outlive the chassis the motor is mounted in.

Much better than I remember. It would do for outdoorsmen, commercial and similar buyers, but does not fit with GM's intended market until you add auto transmission and reduce noise and soot. GM built thousands of 1/2 ton trucks and SUVs for the suburban market. The 6.2 and 6.5 were expected to eventually slip into Tahoes, Suburbans, Yukons, Escalades, Safaris and Sierras. GM wanted a relatively quiet, tame diesel for everyone.
 
Much better than I remember. It would do for outdoorsmen, commercial and similar buyers, but does not fit with GM's intended market until you add auto transmission and reduce noise and soot. GM built thousands of 1/2 ton trucks and SUVs for the suburban market. The 6.2 and 6.5 were expected to eventually slip into Tahoes, Suburbans, Yukons, Escalades, Safaris and Sierras. GM wanted a relatively quiet, tame diesel for everyone.

A TH400 3 speed could live behind a 4-53T, but would still want a two speed axle. DDs are a bit peaky for RPMs.
The above clip seem he was going straight pipe off the Turbo to get that true DD scream, that could be muffled, but not much you can do about the soot with a two stroke.

But the game is to get a reliable diesel in the C30 and K30 in the '70s while Soot wasn't so much a concern and diesel prices were lower than gas from being high sulfur content and lower excise taxes.
Once there are reliable and powerful Diesels out there with GM badging,that give GM time to make a decent V8 diesel for the rest of the fleet. The Green Leakers are only a stopgap.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Yes, that could work. The choice of three speed transmissions was to improve on the prior two and four speeds for the new higher torque wider rpm range V8s. GM could have stayed with the four speed, or moved to more speeds for low torque or narrow rpm engines.
 
Top