Rust In Peace - GM's Dreadful Engines Gave Diesel A Bad Name - NYT

[hatrack]

EDIT

THE POINT WAS? The second energy crisis that came with the Iranian revolution put the heat on Detroit to improve its corporate fuel economy numbers. The diesel was seen as a way of having one’s cake and eating it, too — good fuel economy without sacrificing the size and cushy ride that American luxury car buyers expected.

REALITY CHECK G.M.’s 5.7-liter diesel V-8 was a train wreck, having come to market dreadfully under-engineered. Offered by Oldsmobile in the downsized Delta 88 sedan, it spread like a virus through Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac and Chevrolet. While it was the same size as a G.M.’s gasoline V-8 of the time, the engines shared almost no common parts. Blocks and cylinder heads had to be upgraded to handle the more than 20:1 compression ratio of the diesels. The cars also required different fuel injection systems.

THE ADS SAID Oldsmobile asked, “Can We Build One For You?” In light of the diesel’s ghastly repair record, “Can We Rebuild One For You” would have been more appropriate.

EDIT

WHAT ARE THEY WORTH? Although G.M. eventually improved the 5.7-liter diesel before killing it, and aftermarket parts are available that will cure the most egregious design faults, few buyers are willing to take the chance on some of the worst automobiles of all time. A 1981 Cadillac DeVille diesel recently sold on eBay for $979.

EDIT/END

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/automobiles/collectibles/18RUST.html?em&ex=1211169600&en=82a2f3668d47632f&ei=5087%0A

[Systematic Chaos]

1. I'd love to get my hands on either one of these old things, or another VW Rabbit Diesel.

The Rabbit I used to have was so critically rusted it was dangerous so I just quit driving it. Damn thing had over 200k miles on it and all it needed mechanically was having the glow plugs and injectors serviced, and even that wasn't a major thing when I just quit driving the car. The extra mileage more than makes up for the more expensive diesel fuel.

[Fenris]

2. Terrible, terrible, terrible...

Awful engines, and that's being generous. Even in it's later, fixed state it was still a nightmare. It would have been a much more cost-effective plan to borrow diesel designs from GM Europe (Opel had a pretty durable diesel engine) or build them using a joint venture with a heavy engine manufacturer, which is what they do with Isuzu for their heavy-duty truck engines now.

For another really awful engine, but one that was ahead of its time, check out the Cadillac V8-6-4. As its name implies it used cylinder deactivation to save fuel while cruising at highway speeds. A dash indicator told you how many cylinders were in use. Extremely high tech and an example of forward-thinking engine design, but it was an electrical and mechanical disaster. The industry has only recently realized how beneficial cylinder deactivation is.

[regnaD kciN]

3. And what two letter do those engines have in common...?

G.M.

Which is why I can't help but be skeptical when I hear about the great new turnaround G.M. has had with the new Malibu, Tahoe hybrid, etc. I've lived through several decades of these "turnarounds" from G.M. (anyone remember the X-Car?) and, in virtually every case, the trumpeted "breakthroughs" turned out, several years later, to have been utter disasters. From what I've seen, G.M. cars are consistently the shoddiest around, and that's been true for at least forty years.

[kristopher]

4. I liked the X cars.

They got a bad rap in my opinion. The problems in the first year were corrected, and the rest of the production run was solid. It was never accepted though. Maybe that's why I liked them; a 1 year old Citation was the best buy on the lot.

[Psephos]

5. My Saturn and I politely disagree

10 yrs old, 40 mpg, 209,000 miles, drives straight and smooth and the paint's still shiny like when it was new. Synthetic oil changed regularly, no major repairs. This car is awesome.