Talk:Oldsmobile Diesel engine

Talk from Olds V8 engine page
The text of the Diesel section of this article contradicts that of the Oldsmobile Diesel V6 engine article -- this one claims that the engines were a substantially new design, plagued by teething problems and ignorant service techs, while that one squarely points the finger at these engines' derivation from the Oldsmobile gasoline engine. So, what's the story here? jhf 04:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The story, as I understand it, is this: The Olds diesels were derived from the gas 260 and 350. One problem stems from GM's refusal to follow the engineers' recommendations that more head bolts be used. Not enough head bolts = big problem. The diesel V6 was 2 cylinders lopped off a diesel 350, but this time they used more head bolts.
 * Being derived from a gas engine is not an inherent problem for any diesel. Filthy and waterlogged diesel in the '80s, plus GM's refusal to use a proper diesel filtration system, compounded the corner-cutting on the engine design.
 * FWIW, the problems with Olds diesels afflict mostly the early 350s. The diesel V6 was very reliable, and improvements to the later V8s made them so as well. --Sable232 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The extra head bolts seem to be the big issue, but other items mentioned by Sable232 are correct as well.  However, to answer the original question - the Oldsmobile Diesel engines were most certainly NOT a substantially new design.  It was based almost entirely on the gasoline engine, and I have no idea why someone in the article had originally said otherwise.--King V 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Olds FAQ is a good start on Oldsmobile lore. I've personally owned/worked on and with several of these engines.
 * These are not "converted gasoline engines" they are much beefier in many ways than the rocket motors. The only real commonality with the 307-455 olds engines is the exhaust manifold hole/bolt spacing, bellhousing bolt pattern, accessories (alternator etc) and motor mounts...  They needed to fit in the engine bay with minimum disruption to assembly line flow.
 * These were sought after blocks for several years for dragstrip motor buildups as the cylinder bores were much thicker than their gasoline counterparts and were rumored to have higher Nickel content than the gas blocks. Custom built Joe Mondello conversion cylinder heads (the diesel heads are different) custom intake manifolds, offset ground 425 cranks and you can have a 437 to 451 Olds engine that runs with nitrous... and... you need to machine off and cap that injection pump drive that those gas motors didn't get.Hatzie (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one am not arguing that they are "converted gasoline engines." However, the claim that they are a substantially new design is patently false.  They are based on the existing gasoline engines, but with much beefier structure (solid main webs vs windowed, big-block style main journals, etc).  A beefed up block based on existing gasoline engine design.  To suggest that it was a substantially new design is ludicrous.--King V (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * YES they are a substantially new design in that these engines (the V6 and V8 diesels) were the first attempt by Olds (or GM for that matter) to create and sell a passenger car diesel engine. The only thing common between the gasoline and diesel engines is the overall dimensions, bolt pattern, etc. The block is substantially modified, the heads, crankshaft, pistons, rods, and intake manifolds are totally different, and there is a lot of extra hardware and equipment involved with the diesel fuel system. Guys there is lot more to a "complete engine" than just an engine block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.12.235 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You realize you're contradicting yourself with your own wording, right? You say they're a substantially new design, then you say "substantially modified."  So, modified from what?  From the gasoline engines, right?  A "new design" would be something that was started as a clean sheet, wouldn't it?  They used beefier main webbing, Olds big block sized mains, etc., but all this was just modification of their existing equipment.--King V (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain if this article is the source of http://www.cadillacseville.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=4, or if http://www.cadillacseville.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=4 is the source of this article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.131.14 (talk) 14:22, August 28, 2007 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieselDork (talk • contribs)

Contradiction
I've added a section on the Oldsmobile V8 engine talk page for discussion of the contraction between this article and that one; it's probably best to keep all the discussion there. jhf 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please point out the contradiction. The LF9 article goes into more detail, but I don't see anything essentially contradictory

Javance (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Racing
The Oldsmobile diesel V8 is loved by people who build racing engines because the block and crankshaft are stronger than the gasoline version. The gasoline heads, intake manifold, camshaft etc. from a gasoline engine can be installed. Here's a magazine article on building a 440 'stroker' gas engine from a Olds diesel. http://mondellotwister.com/ArtStroker440.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Renamed article
The previous name, Oldsmobile Diesel V6 engine, was invalid as there were actually 3 engines, two of which were V8s - so I renamed the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just how...
...did they end up making something that didn't even quite manage 20hp per litre when Mercedes, VW and Peugeot were already happily turning out reliable diesels with at least 50% better hp/L at the same time? That's an embarrassingly poor specific output, even for a naturally aspirated oil burner.

I wonder, if they hadn't had all the head bolt issues (and thus had no leeway to increase compression still further), they might have experimented with bolting on the turbo from their existing gas-turbo motors. History might have been very different. We were making some early TDs in Europe at the time, but mainly as an avenue to downsizing and fitting decently powerful diesels into small cars (including a weeny 40hp, 850cc supercharged one in a prototype VW), rather than making big power. 40+ hp/litre plus a 4.3L displacement, and the much better economy from off-boost cruising in a diesel designed for charged intake - oh, and with a decent and automatically discharging fuel filter system of course - would have made for a very competitive powerplant, rather than one that was dreadfully underpowered, especially in a heavier, midsize sedan like the Olds was generally fitted to.

(By comparison, I currently drive a small hatchback with a 1.5L diesel ... that develops eighty-six BHP... its performance is just about in the daily driver "sweet spot" where acceptable starts turning into sporty. If I was to load it up to weigh as much as e.g. an Electra, driving would be rather less enjoyable.)193.63.174.211 (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)