My family briefly owned a 83 Cadillac Seville with one of these "engines" in it. Nice car, great bodystyle, was nice when everything worked, but when the factory shop manual identifies poor casting quality as a problem which leads to a porous engine block which leaks oil then you know the engine sucks.

If we handn't gotten rid of it I would have found a late 70s eldorado with a 472 or 500 and swapped it in. Direct bolt in baby!

My folks had an 84 Coupe de Vile (<- intentional spelling) with a 4100. I always had fantasies of sticking a 5.9 Magnum/A518 out of a Ram in it It was actually a REALLY comortable car as long as you didn't get stuck in the back seat like my wife and I usually did when we rode with my folks- that was like sitting in a cave. But I digress.

They got over 140,000 miles out of that crappy engine and sold it still running well, believe it or not, thanks to good maintenance. And words fail me when I think how hard some of that maintenance was and for no good reason. That's the only engine I've ever worked on that required you to buy a puller to remove the PS pump pulley in order to access the bolts behind the pulley which had to come out in order to remove the PS pump or water pump. SHEESH I still get mad at GM when I think about that! All it would have taken was using a pulley with a spoked hub instead of a solid disk! My '69 Coronet has a spoked disk on the SAME basic power steering pump that the Cad used. Its not like it was a big deal.

As for the block porosity, GM still hasn't figured that one out. I don't know why everyone else in the world could build a tight aluminum block back in the 60s, but the Northstar (despite its many really wonderful features) STILL leaks coolant through porous block metal in many engines. I haven't seen it, but people tell me that a DexCool-colored crust and little stalactites will form on the sides of some of the blocks. <shaking head in amazement>.

_________________

This from a guy who actually owns a Volvo. With a sunshade. And once owned an upside-down bathtub Caprice. If you're not ashamed of that, I'm not ashamed to be fascinated by diesels...

OK, so the Volvo is actually very cool. I still say
All v8 diesels sound like that to me.... but yeah, some more than others. And the 6.2 in particular. I think it was the fact that they gave it a non-crossover dual exhaust system. I always got a kick out of driving behind one away from a stoplight as the black smoke-signals alternated between the left and right pipes in rhythm to the rattling from under the hood.
Now now, the Navistar diesel is undeniably a brick. About as exciting as a brick, but about as unlikely to spontaneously break, too. As evidenced by the fact that I DO still see them running around. OK, more like walking around.... slowly....



I think all 3 have very nice diesel trucks now, all of which put the first round of diesels to shame. Of course the Cummins Ram is my pick, but its really hard to find a lot of faults with either the Navistroke or the Durasuzu.

_________________

Naw, I used to own a Volvo. Now I just own an expensive build-a-Volvo kit
It's true folks, proof is Here.
I hated that Crapiece. One of the poorer automotive buys I've made. Another such poor buy was my 2nd '85 245Ti, which I also hated.
You're assuming I'm not ashamed to have bought that stupid Crapiece!
Well...maybe someday I hope it will be...if they're still selling gasoline and I'm still allowed to drive by then.
Yeah, or at least from the two right-side or two left-side tailpipes, which was almost as silly as GM's spark-arrestor tailpipes on Caprice (etc.) station wagons of the '70s and early '80s.
My understanding is that most variants of it are essentially unrebuildable. Use 'em up, throw 'em away.
Except to get the not-as-bad-as-it-used-to-be Ford diesel engine, you have to buy a Ford.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

What years did GM use the 6.2 Detroit? My buddy has a Chevy with a diesel that sounds like it is about to fall apart at idle. Glack-Glack-Glack-Glacka- Glack. I like Detroits though, especially the two stroke 71 series. Very good engines.

I have never heard of a Ford Navistar diesel.

Spark arrestor tailpipes? Tell me more

_________________
82 D150-225/727
02 Dakota-3.9/5 speed
87 GMC C7000-8.2 Detroit Diesel/5+2

They still use the 6.2 in the AM General Humvee ( and I think the GM H1).

I know wayyyyyyy too much about them in that chassis. My favorite common problem was the glow plugs going bad, and mushrooming in the head if you hit the preheater more than once. If it didn't start after the first preheating cycle, you were suppose to wait 5-7 minutes, and then try again. How many 19 year old soldiers do you think followed that rule?

I have a vivid recollection of watching one of my Humvees getting its engine overhauled on the floor of a dairy plant in Sarajevo, Bosnia, by a bunch of chainsmoking Bosniak mechanics. No shop safety, none of them could read the US manuals, and they had a brave Indian gentleman as their supervisor. I would ask him when it would be ready, and he would give me some story about how they were waiting on parts to be shipped over. It was quite an experience.

And don't get me started on aircooled diesel generators.......I really have some stories about how we kept those running.

Greg

I stand corrected. The new Humvees are using the 6.5 http://www.optimizer6500.com/.

190 horsepower at the flywheel for the turbo version. Ugh. Add a bunch of armor, guys with their gear, and you are talking slow.

I know this is not Slant related but has anybody put the Dodge Cummins diesel in a 1985 short wheel-base D-100. I think it would be too heavy but then I don't know the weight of the Cummins. I did find a couple of sites that talked about the Cummins 4B motor which is supposed to be a little brother to the 6B currently used by Dodge.

Why not buy a diesel and convert it to run on waste vegetable oil. Waste vegetable oil you can usually get free. That is how I started my shop. There are a few diesels I would not convert due to fuel injection pump reliability issues. Most diesels work better on this stuff than on diesel. Originally it was what they where designed to do.

The engine runs quieter, smoother and with a slight increase in torque because the oil seals and lubricates the pistons. And for the green thumbs out there it is very environmentaly friendly less emissions than diesel. I also belive there is less of a soot discharge although I will not swear by it(could be driving style).

A conversion is only a modificaton to the fuel system and not to difficult to do. I charge $1500 for an installed conversion and I would say a do it your selfer could build everything they needed for $500. and only pay for maybe $100 of diesel a year from then on.

P.S. I highly suggest no one try to turn their slant six block into a diesel unless they really know what they are doing. I would never recomend that anyone buy a 350 diesel, although converting it and making it run on gas seems like a fun way to die/fly?

_________________
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/1635801

I forget the years for the 6.2, but it was roughly the late 80s through the late 90s. The 6.5 is very similar. It may have been made by Detroit diesel, but it had nothing really in common with any of the well-known Detroit Diesels.

All the Ford diesels are made by Navistar (the parent company of International, formerly International Harvester). The older "big" 7.2L Powerchoke is almost identical to the engine Navistar sells as the "T444E," badging for which can be seen on a few million school busses and wreckers and similar sized trucks. All of that engine family is descended from an International Harvester industrial engine. When someone says they're "not rebuildable," that's only in the sense of a true heavy duty industrial diesel like the Navistar DT466E, where all the wear components can be replaced in-chassis. Pop the head, drop the crank out the bottom, push out the liners and pistons (in some cases as a unit), reverse, and voila, new engine. The Powerstroke/T444E is just like any automotive gasoline engine- its a parent-bore block so that no liners are used and you have to bore and hone the block to get a "new" engine. The blocks are reportedly fairly thin, but then again so are all modern GASOLINE engines.The days of going 20, 30, 40, and then 60-over are long gone. The Cummins B5.9 is between- its a liner block, but its not "in-chassis" rebuildable IIRC.

Spark arrestor tailpipes... for some reason unknown to rational beings, GM decided that sparks from tailpipes were a hazard and put perforated spark-arrestor plates in the tailpipes of most of their 1970s pickups. They're identifiable by the oval cross-section of the pipe, and visible if you shine a light up the pipe. Of course these promptly clogged with carbon, hence many a Chevy pickup accelerating slooooowly away from a traffic light with the exhaust hissing "FFFIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!" like the mother of all angry cats.

_________________

Could be they weren't worried about sparks so much as they were worried about hot beads from those idiotic pellet-type catalytic converters they used in the '70s and early '80s. Not sure why trucks and station wagons got the spark arrestors and sedans didn't, unless it's because those stupid pellet catalysts overheated even worse in heavy-duty service than in normal service.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

I knew a guy that converted one of those Olds diesels over to gasoline, sucker ran like a bat outta hell and never broke. Was real fast, even in that 85 Olds he drove it in.


Redneck: I had looked at the diesel into an older Ram conversion before and was told the frames in the older Rams are too weak and twist under the weight/torque. I say box the frame and give it a a go! If I didn't have so many A body projects I would have picked up an old 79 stepside I saw at a swap meet a couple weeks ago, man was that truck hacked together though.

_________________
70 Dart, 360, 727

Redneck: I had looked at the diesel into an older Ram conversion before and was told the frames in the older Rams are too weak and twist under the weight/torque. I say box the frame and give it a a go! If I didn't have so many A body projects I would have picked up an old 79 stepside I saw at a swap meet a couple weeks ago, man was that truck hacked together though.[/quote]

I figured that might be a problem, the frame is a lot thinner on the D-100 series plus the Cummins 6B has more power than I need. The Cummins 4B may work but I don't have any figures on the weigh but if it will pull a cargo van around it should have plenty of power for my purpose which is light duty only. There are a couple of Cummins 4B's on e-bay, one with a GM 400 turbo that makes me think the 4B is a possibility but I would like to see some mileage figures since that is the purpose of the conversion, I'm shooting for 40mpg but anything over 30 would be OK.
I have given up thinking about a Slant diesel but I plan to look at the turbo conversion as in a 170 CID version that should get reasonable gas mileage and have enough power to climb a hill when needed. Of the two thoughts I would rather keep the Slant but if the diesel will prove cost effective then who knows.

It's true folks, proof is Here.

That car's been in my driveway! Actually my old driveway and before it had the shade or fancy head lamps.

_________________
Joshua

I figured that might be a problem, the frame is a lot thinner on the D-100 series plus the Cummins 6B has more power than I need. The Cummins 4B may work but I don't have any figures on the weigh but if it will pull a cargo van around it should have plenty of power for my purpose which is light duty only. There are a couple of Cummins 4B's on e-bay, one with a GM 400 turbo that makes me think the 4B is a possibility but I would like to see some mileage figures since that is the purpose of the conversion, I'm shooting for 40mpg but anything over 30 would be OK.
I have given up thinking about a Slant diesel but I plan to look at the turbo conversion as in a 170 CID version that should get reasonable gas mileage and have enough power to climb a hill when needed. Of the two thoughts I would rather keep the Slant but if the diesel will prove cost effective then who knows.[/quote]

There is a guy on Moparts with a Cummins in Lil' Red Express truck. His screen name is CumminsExpress. He posted some picutres of it yesterday.

One of the all time crappiest GM diesels was not mentioned here that I see. They converted the 3.8 V-6 to doesel for the Regal/Gutless/Gran Prix chassis. I think Chevy tried a turbo 3.7 and that wonderful 262 instead.

_________________
Official Cookie and Mater Tormentor.