scubastever

its a 'nice price or crack pipe' article..

i dont mean to incite a riot lol

heres the link

http://jalopnik.com/5847171/for-1089...n-olds-gutless

J-(Chicago)

Crack pipe.

72 cutlass455

The lf-9 was rush into production when gm wanted a diesel engine oldsmobile had one they were developing it got the nod be for it was ready to be used. Never a huge selling engine as american's didn't embrace the diesel engine like the european's did. The engine had many issues and the folks who bought them were not educated on what to do if water got in the fuel. Many put in alcohol based water removers for gas engines that ate up the engine insides.

gearheads78

The price is crack pipe but for 4-5K that would be a killer street / strip sleeper project.

MDchanic

Wish I could smoke whatever they smoked.

- Eric

rocketraider

That was the single biggest issue with the Diesel. GM promoted it as "low-maintenance" which people unfamilar with Diesels took to mean "no maintenance". The poor little engines suffered mightily because of that.

Everyone I've known who got good service from their Diesel used the best fuel and oil they could get, added water separating filters, and drove them so that the engines got completely warmed up. Granted, the engines did have some manufacturing and materials issues, but they were not the pariah the unknowing made them out to be.

Also- Olds did not have the Diesel "under development". They were tasked with producing it and thanks to bean counters were told to use as much existing engine architecture as possible. Considering none of the engine team had any experience with Diesels, and GM would not let them collaborate with its own Detroit Diesel Division to design the Oldsmobile Diesel, amazing they did as well as they did.

Just another example of GM upper-level arrogance and stupidity, which we all know when combined produce nothing but trouble. That Diesel could have been engineered right and made them a killing. Between under-engineered Diesels and Chevrolet engines, I'm convinced someone in GM had it in for Oldsmobile at least as far back as 1975.

Aceshigh

lol.....

Oldsmobiles own design fails, and it's GM's fault because they didn't share.
But GM puts a Chevy in an Olds and it's GM's fault they didn't keep an Olds in them.

I get a kick out of the loyalty logic. I think Post #3 covers it better.
It wasn't a strong design, and it wasn't a strong reception as a result.

America SHOULD embrace diesel options alot more now instead of Hybrid BS, but unfortunately
the fuel providers IMO don't want too many of them here like the Accord and Fiesta Diesel.
We have more refinery layouts for gasoline, so they limit the options and the initial big 3
failed at designing quality options in pass cars in years past.

Hell Ford just sued the crap out of Navistar for their 2003-2005 6.0L and 6.4L powerchoke crap
Now Ford is making it's own 6.7L and selling like crazy.

garys 68

On the plus side, these cars provided a lot of clean parts and body panels for non-diesel cars......

a64olz

Another GM attempt at a diesel for the general public was not all that great either, the early 6.2 Detroit/GM diesel was a huge pile of steaming, stinking crap. I had one with a Banks Turbo in a 82 4x4 (60,000 miles) the thing would not even pull itself up a driveway, people call the Olds diesel gutlass, they should drive a long bed 4x4 with an early 6.2, they will then understand gutless money pit.

Chevy dealer did not even know how to get it to run or keep running, nor could a slew of diesel experts. The only guy that was any help was an ex US Army mechanic that had worked on these things, who advised that I sell it before it was to late, the cost of converting it to gas in a smog test city was way too much. The thing had band-aids all over it. I don't think Detroit Diesel would have been any help to Olds in the early days of diesel development.

MDchanic

I dunno. Mine's still going strong at 280,000 badly abused miles.

True it's not a powerhouse, but I can tow a 7,000 pound trailer with it, and how many people do you know with full sized GM pickups that get a consistent 20mpg? (Alright, only 13 with that trailer )

- Eric

gearheads78

There is actually a pretty stong following for the old 6.2. They get increadible mileage for a big truck. I thinking about using one for a driver project I have going together.

rustyroger

Always struck me as strange that GM could make acceptable diesels in Europe yet couldn't translate it into making one suitable for the US market.
It's fair to say that diesels in 1978 weren't very good, Mercedes Benz and Peugeot/Citroen were the only makers which much R&D into them.
However by the early '80s Ford and GM Europe as well as Volkswagon, Fiat & Renault were making acceptable diesel engines.

The market was always open for economy cars in Europe, the price of fuel has always been much higher than in America, and people were prepared to accept noisy slower cars for high fuel economy, low gas prices in America in the early '80s also helped kill enthusuasm for diesel power.
The mk6 Lincoln was offered with a 2.5 liter BMW turbo diesel for a brief period, not many buyers opted for this, hardly surprising after the Olds debacle.

The Japanese took a long time to come up with good diesels, possibly because their main market was North America.
Imo the best diesels are made by Peugeot/Citroen. The other makers all make good diesels nowadays and they are available in most cars in Europe.
Diesel power is an option in BMW, Saab, Jaguar and Volvos in Europe, as well as more mundane vehicles. Cadillac offered a stick shift diesel car in Europe for a while.

Modern diesels are quantum jumps away from the offering of thirty years ago, my gf uses a diesel Peugeot for her work as a cab driver. It always starts with a flick of the key, and has ample power to keep up with traffic. You would be hard pressed to tell there is an oil burner under the hood unless it is idling and it returns 33mpg (US gallons) in mostly urban driving. With its particulate filter and common rail injection system the exhaust is probably cleaner than the air coming in.
Full size US trucks are fairly popular over here, most of them are diesel powered.

It may well turn out the latest technology in engine design will eclipse diesels for economy, however it is in its infancy and will need a lot more R&D to catch up with the 100+ years work gas & diesel has under its belt.

Roger.

DeltaPace77

Most automotive Diesels weren't much to brag about back then. The main thing missing was a turbo. Not only for power, but fuel milage too. Good reason most modern Diesels use them. Knew some guys with 5.7 Olds Diesels that were mostly ok with decent low end torque, but forget about highway passing. These were thick wall blocks, and make for good over bore gas performance engines. VW's got the new TDI Diesel figured pretty good, but with gas cars like the Chevy Cruze Eco at 42 highway, why bother. Know a couple guys with Eco's, and they really do get the advertised 42 mpg.

oldsmobum

I once heard someone say about the 6.2: "It couldn't pull a greased string out of a cat's ***."

rocketraider

It's not so much a loyalty thing as it is finally seeing thru the pure arrogance and incompetence in GM's upper management- the same thing that finally came around to bite them in the *** and force them to accept the guvmink bailout. They had mismanaged the Corporation and gotten away with it for so long they were convinced they couldn't fail, even when they foisted underengineered and badly designed products on the car-buying public. Then when the public would no longer put up with it and went elsewhere for new cars (and the accompanying dealer service) they had the stones to be surprised.

Do you think that, prior to the late 70s, GM would have allowed such things as the underengineered Diesel, the early attempts at digital fuel injection, or the cylinder cutout management systems to be installed on a Cadillac before they had been proven absolutely foolproof? Then when these things nearly killed off Cadillac all the money Olds and Pontiac made for GM got diverted to rescuing Cadillac. And yes, both those Divisions were making money for GM until they stopped developing their products and turned them into badge-engineered Chevrolets. People saw thru that **** too and realised there was no point in buying an Olds or Pontiac when Chevrolet dealer had the same car cheaper right across the street. Then Olds/Pontiac sales went in the crapper and GM says, oh, these Divisions are not performing. Of course not- GM wasn't giving them anything worth a hoot to sell.

GM had been building successful Diesels since the 30s. There was absolutely no excuse for not allowing the Olds Diesel design team access to Detroit Diesel's knowledge and experience. Granted DD wasn't on a par with Cat or Cummins, but they did know how to build reliable Diesel engines.

But in the GM Corporate world, I guess what they did made perfect sense to them.

They got what they had coming.

WhatIf

Only 20 may have been made with a diesel, no a/c, and a 5-speed manual. Obviously, the original buyer was looking for the most gas mileage possible when they ordered this beast. Rarity doesn't always translate to desirability. I love the line in this article:

"Of course the rarity promoted at auctions is typically that which is tickling the ***** of high-end exclusivity, not scratching behind the ears of a bottom feeder like this."

Now THAT was funny.

nonhog

I spend too much time bench racing/day dreaming in my head.
What if someone made free flowing heads for the diesel 5.7. Would that not make a fun sleeper. Big turbo, propane inj. fun.

Just never going to happen, would make for an interesting powerplant.
In a car as clean as that Cutlass.