It's a shame, really, that the slant was never developed into a diesel. If it had similar performance to the gasoline variety but much better fuel economy, North America may have learned to love the diesel engine. Instead, we got GM's bodged Oldsmobile diesel that was just plain horrible and turned the buying public against diesels for decades.

_________________
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

what you state above seems to be true, with the Turbo,, but the Diesel Turbo option would have come with a considerable price increase over the base motor.
A new cylinder head, certainly would have required a new machining line.
A significantly revised crank case, possibly existing machining, but with a lot of additional stations
A turbo
An injection pump
A better head gasket
Stronger pistons
Better rings
an the list goes on.
nothing on the list above would be 'down cost' everything would be an 'up charge'


to be really successful in the market place there needed to be a perceived value that made the diesel option price increase less than or equal to gains achieved by purchasing the product.

A slant six diesel in a D150 only offered a potential of improved fuel economy, the performance was about equal to a gas engine as stated. The improved fuel economy was paid for in advance with the up charge of the diesel option. The buyer then had to live with the typical issues that diesels in the 80's had,, poor cold weather starting, noisy, smoke, limited availability of diesel fuel.

When Ford launched the Navistar 6.9 in large pick up trucks, F 250's and above and Dodge followed soon after with the Cummins 5.9 also in 3/4 ton trucks and above,, the additional price point
of the diesel option and the other diesel issues of the 80's became a small price to pay for someone using a large pick up truck for towing, be it business or RV usage.

The medium duty pick up truck diesels that went into the Ford and Dodge large pick ups were built for gobs of torque and long life. Along with gains in fuel economy, those medium duty diesels also offered torque and longevity that was a substantial improvement over their gasoline engine counterpoints. There was a value in the product that far exceeded the cost of the diesel option. That is why those medium duty diesels were successful and started a market that is still viable today.

_________________
Doo Ron Ron and the Duke of Earl are friends of mine.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX8Nj8ABEI8

Europe loves the diesel because the fuel is ridiculously expensive. When my mom had a diesel Cadillac, US diesel prices were much cheaper than gasoline, making the loss of performance palatable. I would love to have a slant diesel Mirada, but I guess we'll never know what a slant diesel would have been like to live with.

_________________
If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

I am not saying that Dan did not present a great article, and an interesting engineering experiment,, he did. Just saying that Lee I did the right thing by marshaling Chrysler’s financial resources away from an at best tiny market diesel D150 or Mirida to a much more viable and profitable program like the mini van.

There was ( and may still be) an option for a modern light duty diesel (European Fiat) in a Dodge Ram,, I don’t remember that being a seller that brought folks into
the show room.

And I will add one more thought, the article mentions that when the Diesel Slant Six Program was cancelled the existing engines/components were buried away in the engineering archives.
That is typical of manufacturing companies, but I will give a tip of the hat to Cummins. In the main hall way of their Engineering Headquarters building in Columbus Indiana is a large display of prototype engines and other contraptions that never went it to serial production. I asked one of the Cummins Engineering Department Managers about the display, his answer was 'even the dead end projects represent significant effort and results and should be remembered'. That is nice.

_________________
Doo Ron Ron and the Duke of Earl are friends of mine.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX8Nj8ABEI8

Chrysler of the 1960's mighta pulled it off, but by the late 70's they were in no position to tackle much other than trying to stay afloat.

Diesels are a mixed bag....as for price, I looked into buying a diesel Ram 3500 around 2002 and looking at fuel only, you'd have to drive to about 130K miles before you offset the higher price you had to lay out to buy the truck. Then there were the significantly higher maintenance costs, harder to find fuel, etc. I ended up buying a 3500 with a V10, 4.10's and 5 speed. There were several times the V10 failed to pull the load and I wished I had bought a diesel*, but I saved money.

On the other hand, my tractor is a diesel and I wouldn't want a gas engine in it for anything.



*Just kidding...that V10 didn't stop for anything!

D

I used to work for a guy who had a diesel 5 speed 4 door Chevette. He ran it on tractor fuel from his business to beat having to pay road use taxes on fuel. It also knocked down 50+. I drove it a few times, you could time the 0-60 with a sundial. It had almost 200K on it when the shock towers rusted off of it.

It would be interesting to have one of the 7 main blocks and a crank.

Back when Pro Stock still ran lbs/ci Warren Johnson used the diesel blocks for race motors because of the heavier mains.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.

It would have been interesting if Chrysler had sourced a 4 cylinder diesel for one or more of the compacts in the late 70's and early 80's. I recall that they used stroked VW gas engine short blocks as a base for the early Omni/Horizon. As also did AMC and even Porsche ( briefly). Perhaps VW had no diesels to sell. I recall people waiting for months and paying way over sticker for Rabbit diesels. The PA. made VW's and there flight out of the US, hurt their rep a lot.

Another unsung sub compact diesel were the Ford Escort diesels. I can't recall if they were Mitsubishi or Mazda sourced. I had an uncle that owned at least two, back to back. He commuted 120 mile a day for some years on a lengthy highway project. I believe that the head usually cracked at about 150k. Then he'd replace the head and do another 150k. Then another new Escort. He often got permission to refill from state highway tankers. He claimed about 50 highway mpg. I drove one of them and was intrigued with the torque, as they easily held 70-80 mph. Slower up to speed though than my '82 Escort "GT" with 80 hp.

*** needless trivia, but the Escorts used the Mazda RF diesel.

_________________
1982 Dodge D150 ( Ram)
225 with A833OD. 2bbl. Non power brakes

Interesting article. Thanks!

If you found one of the VW equipped L-bodies you can swap in a VW TDI diesel up to about 1997 - not sure of the final year. VW used the same block design for many years for the gasoline and diesel motors. Its about as easy to swap the TDI motor and transmission.

I have a Geo Metro that gets 50 mpg, its not running now but that's another project. I think my 33 hp Kubota motor would probably get a Metro up to 55 mph - not that I would do that. I think I'll keep the Metro for an EV project, in about 5 years there should be a plethora of non Tesla EVs to source salvage parts from and the batteries are promised to be lighter, have much more range, and less degradation of service life - some claim "1 million mile batteries" are coming. The new battery technology ought to make for some cool cordless tools. But way too spendy now, and the promised stuff really doesn't exist yet. A Metro with zero to sixty times in 4 seconds might be fun, although I drive like grandpa. Except for trucks and industrial equipment, diesel is probably going away.

Nobody had mentioned the Dodge D50 yet. I had one with the Mitsubishi diesel. Power was pretty good and mileage was usually in the 40s.

_________________
--> Check out my FI Turbo build <--
--> And the race truck build project <--
--> The Diesel Corvette <--

Like any pursuit, MPG can be a rewarding measure of performance to pursue. But, too singular a focus on MPG can lead a man to have an uncomfortable feeling, a feeling much the same as one would get, one supposes, from pulling on a pair of Victoria's Secret panties or applying lipstick.

Some are getting more than 600 hp from the Mercedes OM606 with stock internals. These aren't as easy to find in the U.S. - were kind of pricey when new, but they are pretty good motors. For the special builds a mechanical IP from an older Mercedes is bolted on. Even at 174 hp stock, they make great torque for 3.0 liters. The modding focus isn't MPG, but something like a diesel turbo 2JZ. Motors like that are too costly for new mass market small trucks. The new GM 3.0 inline six has a rubber belt on the back of the motor that must be replaced at 150,000 miles - that design choice is getting some criticism as you would expect, you have to drop the transmission to change it but GM says its as easy of a job as can be. If having to replace that pump belt on schedule is the worse that can be said for it, it'll may be a smashing success. Often the big three chicken out when a design needs rework, typically Ford drops the entire diesel design and starts over, even when some shortcoming could be corrected. Fiat Chrysler did put the effort to upgrade their Italian 3.0 Ecodiesel. If you want a small diesel that won't leave you crying at repair costs, consider the OM606. It might be the high water of German diesel design. Cummins never could get the V8 in the Nissan Titan to get decent fuel economy, but there are hints that the aftermarket may give new life to that motor, if EPA certification of parts can happen.

I test drove a Cherokee with the 3.0 ecodiesel (whatever ecodiesel means...). It ran OK...but I didn't buy it and later heard of plenty of issues with them.

What I remember most was how the salesman kept saying how much power it had, how fast it was, etc. I was sitting there, pushing the gas pedal - no, the diesel fuel pedal - and being quite underwhelmed. It's amazing how bad car salesman are at their jobs....

Chrysler had to spend a lot of money to fix issues with the Ecodiesel. Kudos for their effort. I think its a decent motor now, but the vehicles its used in are heavy. It would be better in a '85 D100. Diesels have so much maintenance now that I don't think its work it. I think the Ford 7.3 gasser is a great choice for many for that reason.

This VW diesel is claimed to be a daily driver for 40 years. You really can swap in a later TDI
motor in these up to the late 1990s. This one has the original motor ? You couldn't sell a slow car anymore, but if the price was right diesel nerds would buy something like this. I could swap a TDI AHU in one of my Rampages, the motors are cheap now. I have two Rampages. I think a Rampage might be a decent EV conversion someday as there is adequate space under the bed for the batteries - if the hype of solid state batteries becomes reality. The Rampage could use air springs for the rear suspension. Its rated to haul 1,150 pounds but more than 500 pounds and it drags pretty low! If Mopar had waited and done the Rampage on the stetched "grand" minivan with a v6 it might have been a decent hauler.

Daily Driven Since New .... Over 40 Years !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kqyoztaJlY