By on July 18, 2013

V6-diesel

The new diesel engine that is expected to arrive in the Dodge Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee (which, we hear, has been pushed back a few times already) has had an interesting life. The 3.0L twin-turbo diesel engine never was intended for Chrysler or Fiat products, but rather, Cadillac.

As Automotive News tells it, the engine was born when GM bought 50 percent of Italian firm VM Motori in 2007. They quickly began work on a 2.9L diesel engine intended for the European market Cadillac CTS, with GM financing the venture. Cadillac’s struggling sales in Europe along with GM’s bankruptcy conspired to prevent the VM diesel from ever appearing in a GM product.

Where it did end up is with Fiat, after the firm bought 50 percent of VM Motori in 2011. The engine was reworked for use in Chrysler products, but VM is apparently free to sell it to other auto makers as well. All in all a shrewd move by Sergio Marchionne – a man who was once able to make GM pay $2 billion to Fiat for the privilege of not entering into an alliance.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

140 Comments on “How Jeep Ended Up With A GM Diesel...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    You know, asking someone to buy a Chrysler/Jeep with a brand new Italian designed/produced engine is going to scare away a lot of people.

    I feel this is going to end up like a Reatta/Allante type experience.

    • 0 avatar

      Diesel Liberty was okay and IIRC the engine came from the same VM Motori.

      • 0 avatar
        Sam P

        I can confirm this, the 2.8 liter VM Motori diesel four in my parents’ 2006 Liberty that they bought new is an excellent engine. The Jeep has over 70k miles now and the only issue they’ve had is that one of the glow plugs malfunctioned and caused hard starting when cold and a CEL. Fixed under warranty.

        There are people on the Jeep forums (lostkjs, jeepsunlimited) with close to 150k on those engines and they seem to be holding up well.

        • 0 avatar
          AMC_CJ

          2nd.

          Just returned from a 1,000mile round trip up to New England and back from vacation in my 06′ Liberty CRD. Returned a solid 28-30mpg during the entire trip completely loaded down, with some mixed driving. I can make it from MA to VA without ever stopping, but usually top it off in NJ.

          nearly 80k miles. The only significant problem I had to fix was the alternator (clutch) went out. $90 for a clutch, or $140 for a alternator. I went with the latter and it took all of 30mins to replace myself.

          A few window regulators, fixed myself, and the engine light is on due to the EGR valve. I clear it with my scanner; it’s not a problem, just a annoyance. I might get around to taking it apart and cleaning it out one day….

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            There was an extended warranty on those window lift plates, you might want to check with a dealer if your VIN is included. It does go back to ’05/’06

          • 0 avatar
            Sam P

            Despite the small production run of 15k units for the US market, there are a surprising amount of tuning options for the Liberty CRD. If the truck belonged to me and not my parents, I’d have an upgraded Suncoast torque converter and a chip tune from Green Diesel Performance.

            That having been said, I’ll probably either supplement or replace my E46 BMW sedan with a diesel Wrangler if Fiatsler decides to grace the US with one.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      It remains to be seen how well anything small-diesel is going to be accepted in the US this time around.

      There will always be niche buyers like there were for the early M-B 240D and such, but the vast majority of Americans is wedded to their gasoline-fueled ICE vehicles. You can’t beat gasoline!

      Besides, when buying diesel fuel you compete with the big rigs for their fuel and small-diesels are last at the trough. Those will be the first pumps to dry up in case of a shortage.

      If diesel cars really were a go in the US, there would be many more of them. I think the number of diesel-powered Fiatsler products in the US will be minuscule in the overall scheme of things — maybe on par with EVs and Hybrids.

      That said, diesel cars, like Golfcarts, EVs and Hybrids, should be available to anyone who wants to buy one, as long as they’re not subsidized by the tax payers.

      • 0 avatar
        Sam P

        “You can’t beat gasoline!”

        Yeah you can, the torque of a diesel is awesome and the mileage is good too.

        And where I live near Seattle, diesel costs less than mid-grade gasoline. Not much of a penalty there. My gas cars take premium.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Sam P, traditionally, small-diesels in passenger cars have been rejected by MOST Americans because this is America, not Europe.

          You fail to mention pollution with all diesels and the additional costs of anything diesel that make the ease of gasoline the overwhelming choice for most Americans.

          Diesel has been tried in the past and found to fall short of gasoline.

          I’m a fan of big Diesel. I have a CDL and once in awhile I rent a big rig with a 40ft flatbed to haul construction materials and stuff for my wife’s dad, so I know what Big Diesel can do.

          But in miniature size, diesel does nothing but add costs and pollution.

          I think small diesel should be available for those who want one, but I do not believe that the manufacturers will be able to make money off them.

          Nor do I think small diesel will ever be a big seller in these here United States.

          If small diesel is such an advantage over gasoline, Toyota would have put one in their best-selling Tacoma decades ago in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            The “stigma” against diesel is pretty strong in the US, do not know about Canada.
            Here we have the exact opposite reaction as regards SUV’s and Pickups. Cars are similar to the US though.

          • 0 avatar
            George B

            There were American consumers that fully embraced and wanted diesel engines when diesel fuel was less expensive and diesel engines were simple and rugged. Heavy-duty diesel pickup trucks and old Mercedes diesel cars have better resale value than their gasoline counterparts. However, the high pump price of low-sulfur diesel fuel plus the added cost of urea injection and pollution equipment make diesel engines significantly less attractive.

          • 0 avatar
            Sam P

            “I think small diesel should be available for those who want one, but I do not believe that the manufacturers will be able to make money off them.”

            So do you think that VW is selling all its Jetta/Golf/Beetle/Passat/Touareg TDIs at a loss in the US market?

            Please explain.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Sam P, I know nothing about VW. I have no idea what their marketing strategy is since VWs don’t sell in my area but I have seen their ads on TV.

            I owned one VW 1982 Quantum, bought new, and I don’t care to repeat that experience again, so I stay clear of VW products.

            Were I to hazard a guess, my guess would be that VW is very selective in which US regions it enters. Obviously, VW enters markets where the small-diesel aficionados reside, as opposed to M-B which sells everywhere all over America.

            There may be areas and regions that favor the VW diesels, and VW does have the economies of scale going for it since they peddle the VW diesels all over the globe.

            Conceivably, it is possible that VW makes its profits from more than just the sale of each VW vehicle, gas or diesel; leasing and financing come to mind.

            But if there’s money to be made selling small diesels, the biggies would have done it long ago, especially Toyota in their best-selling Tacoma.

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Might just be a Portland thing, but I see a *lot* of VW diesels around here.

        And of course, people with full-sized trucks *love* the diesels; I see a disproportionate (by appearances, at least) number of big diesel pickups.

        (Don’t forget that gasoline engines are also competing with every-other-gas-engine-on-the-road for fuel; if there’s a general oil shortage *nobody is safe*.

        That’s not really a worry so much these days.)

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          Sigivald, I bet you see a *lot* more gasoline-powered VWs around there.

          Diesel pickup trucks in the 3/4-ton and 1-ton class are indeed very popular. MOST of my Traveling Elks brothers use them to pull their Travel Trailers across the USA as they travel from Lodge to Lodge. Most of them are the Banks Turbo-Diesel Fords, although I have seen a couple of GM and RAM diesels.

          Diesel fuel is widely used in the transportation industry like 18-wheelers and trains, power generation, etc., that relate to the necessities of life like food, hospitals, emergency vehicles, etc.

          The necessities of life will take precedence over whatever the local gas stations hope to siphon off for the small minority who choose to drive a small-diesel vehicle.

          It’s true that it isn’t much to worry about these days except maybe in superstorm Sandy, or the Tornadoes in Oklahoma recently, and upcoming Hurricane season in the US.

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      I recommend that people read the basic VM Motori article in Wikipedia.

      VM was owned by Roger Penske’s Detroit Diesel company. He flogged 50% off to GM in 2007, the other 50% to Fiat four years later. So whether this engine was really designed for Cadillac seems moot when GM was going down the tubes 18 months after buying VM.

      How anyone can write that the final purchase of 50% of the company was to GM’s detriment obviously can’t read facts. GM could have bought the other 50% from Penske before Fiat did, but did not.

      However, Fiat did not sit on its hands after purchasing half of VM. They developed the engine with new cylinder heads using Multijet technology.

      GM still gets 50% of the profits from VM Motori, so it seems like a good deal for them.

    • 0 avatar
      Lampredi

      Why would that scare off anyone? Italians know how to make decent engines.

      • 0 avatar
        Sam P

        Maybe not gas engines as far as reliability goes but they make excellent diesel engines. Long before the Liberty CRD they currently own, my folks had a Pasquali diesel tractor that was an excellent machine.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Man the headline gave me hope that this might be a story about small Jeeps getting GMs new 2.0 turbo diesel 4…

    But this is still pretty interesting, the irony is that if GM had been the one to use the motor it likely wouldn’t have come to North America. Although a 3.0 V6 diesel in say the CTS would have been pretty interesting.

    • 0 avatar
      Rod Panhard

      But then you’d change your name, again, but this time to “Diesel Dan.”

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        I’m keeping my fingers crossed on the reliability of diesel Cruzes. I’m not one of those guys who thinks I’m going to save the planet with one but there is something cool about a small car with that much torque.

    • 0 avatar
      Mirko Reinhardt

      “GM’s new 2.0 turbo diesel 4″ is actually a version of the Fiat (not VM, in-house Fiat FPT) FamB engine, so indeed, that could be used in all kinds of Chrysler products. A 170-hp version powers the Fiat Freemont (Dodge Journey).

  • avatar
    -Nate

    As a Diesel lover , this all sounds very good to me .

    -Nate

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Looking at the hardware of this engine versus the Mercedes 3.0L diesel that it is effectively replacing in the JGC, it appears to be significantly improved for ease of maintenance at least. Annnnd…no swirl valves!

    • 0 avatar
      Numbers_Matching

      Yes – swirl motor/valve mechanism issues on OM642 was the result of a poorly fitting seal on the turbo intake – which allowed oil to seep down onto the motor casing causing it to evetually lock-up. Oil was there as a result of piping the CCV vapors back into the intake. I’m interested to see how VM handles the CCV vapors. This is a common problem with all modern diesels closed CCV systems.

      Other than that, OM642 is bulletproof. I’ve been in airport shuttle Sprinters with 400k+ miles – no way of knowing if it was all original though…

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        Yes, CC vapors in diesels can be a big problem as they can run away on them. Regen promotes oil growth. This is what does in countless 6.4L International/Ford engines. That is, if they don’t first get hydrolocked from a cracked EGR cooler, or get sludged from coolant mixing with the oil due to a front cover hole.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    Is it just me or does that engine look fiendishly complicated? It looks like somebody dropped a black-and-silver tentacled squid-monster on top of the head.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    “All in all a shrewd move by Sergio Marchionne – a man who was once able to make GM pay $2 billion to Fiat for the privilege of not entering into an alliance.”

    He may dress like an unemployed college dropout, but he sure is a shrewd CEO.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Lol he is quite frumpy eh?

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        What I’ve observed with Sergio is that he seems to be a master of long term strategy. You might not understand a move when he makes it, but several days, weeks, or months down the road it all makes sense.

        Never underestimate guys with rumpled sweaters who wear glasses. Some of them have had names like Gates and Jobs.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          Yeah, but Gates and Jobs are/were guys who knew their own business. Marchionne is a finance guy, not a car guy. He may have more respect for engineers and designers than say, Akerson, but there’s a reason Sergio’s promises are continually delayed. I’m one of those skeptics who believes it’s his insufficient understanding of car design, manufacturing and marketing, the guts of the car business.

          • 0 avatar

            Elon Musk also suffers delays in both cars and rockets constantly, and I know for a fact that he knows the rocket side of the buziness quite well. It’s just the nature of the beast.

          • 0 avatar
            SC5door

            Huh?

            This is the guy who sent the Viper team back to the table to do better. The same guy who sent the RAM truck guys back to the drawing board because he knew they could do better.

      • 0 avatar
        azmtbkr81

        Indeed, which is surprising considering most Italians, especially those in high positions, are very sharp dressers.

        • 0 avatar
          wmba

          Since he lived in Toronto from age 14, and became a lawyer and accountant, has dual Canadian and Italian citizenship, Marchionne is hardly your typical natty Italian dresser. Plus the usual disparagers of Sergio, led by the vitriolic DeLorenzo at Autoextremist who cannot bring themselves to use logic, try to put the man down for all sorts of reasons. The main one seems to be that he has too much self-confidence, the second one that he stole Chrysler which deliberately avoids any reading of the historical record. When you’re going to hate might as well go for the brass ring, I guess.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    A diesel intended to go into a European Cadillac ends up in an American Jeep? Just another day in the auto biz. Marchionne is, indeed, a shrewd player. Chrysler could have done much worse.

  • avatar
    Numbers_Matching

    Being a current ’07 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD owner, I am very interested in this new engine. I’ve had very good expereince with the CRD so far at 140,000 miles. It is a towing demon and requires very little throttle input while doing so.

    This new engine sounds even better. But I would be hesitant in trying to mass market it here. Modern diesels can be disasterous when put into the wrong hands – which would mean the average American mainstream buyer. Maintenance is a must – not an option and driving style along with tolerance for proper cool downs is a requirement for longevity.

    Keep this engine option a low volume alternative (for diesel enthusiasts) would be the best way to go.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      You’re absolutely right. Modern diesels DO NOT tolerate indifference and will punish your pocketbook accordingly if you are.

      I think the price premium of this engine and the models it’s found in will ensure it’s nowhere near the volume engine in these vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        Johannes Dutch

        So true. Maintenance, premium quality diesel fuel and the way you use/drive it are ALL crucial.

        A modern diesel engine is high tech machinery so you’ll have to treat it that way.

        Stay away from them if you mainly use it for short distances and/or drive it at low speeds all the time. They’re long distance runners, with or without freight, and reaching full operating temperature as often as possible is very important to keep it healthy.

        Injectors, glow plugs, turbocharger, the EGR valve and the DPF are the most “notorious” parts to break down due to incorrect use.
        Just after warranty, of course…

        I’m a born diesel fan, I practically grew up among all sorts of diesel equipment, but the days of the good ol’ 200D are over.

        I drive a 2002 Land Cruiser with a 3.0 ltr. turbo-intercooled diesel engine with common rail injection. So far so good (only scheduled routine service) with 232,000 km (145,000 miles) on the odometer. Not very much for a 3.0 ltr. 4 banger.

        • 0 avatar

          How do you identify a premium quality fuel? Avoiding certain chains or independent stations? Maybe a field inspection kit?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Live in a country that enforce regulations and standards is how you get good fuel.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            A hole-n-the-wall station in my town was caught dumping french fry grease in their tanks when diesel owners with damaged engines noticed they all had ‘one thing’ in common.

            Diesel engine rebuilds cost way too much, so I stay away from anything but name brand diesel.

            In the old days, it didn’t matter. Filter some used motor oil, tranny fluid or whatever. There’s no telling what “off brand” stations used to mix in their tanks, back in the day. And still may.

          • 0 avatar
            Johannes Dutch

            Over here it means diesel from the renowned oil companies like Shell, BP, Texaco etc.etc. No field inspection kit needed, not at all.

            At least no diesel with water in it.
            Happened now and then in the Balkans for example.

            And don’t add gasoline when it’s (very) cold, like they used to do in the good old days. Say bye bye to the injectors if you do that now. Switch to winter/arctic diesel instead.

          • 0 avatar
            Wheeljack

            Find the high volume stations that a lot of professional truckers use. Many truckers keep excellent records of their fuel purchases so they can identify where they got bad fuel from and who to go after for repair costs. A high volume station turns their fuel more frequently so there is less chance of water or bacteria in the fuel. They are also more likely to be more scrupulous with their tank maintenance if they have some high profile national fleets using their pumps.

            Good stations will also have visible filters on their pumps – extra bonus for those that write the date they were last changed (or when they are due again) on the filter can with a sharpie.

            Generally speaking, it’s best to avoid the small stations that don’t move a lot of fuel and are more likely to use emulsifiers in their tanks to salvage fuel with water in it. Plus, the low turn rate results in fuel that may have bacteria or asphaltines in it. The few cents you may save per gallon will ultimately not be worth it.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    This would be a nice engine in a Wrangler…

    • 0 avatar
      Johannes Dutch

      The Wrangler already has a VM Motori diesel engine, a 2.8 ltr. 4 cylinder. In Europe Chrysler has been using VM Motori diesels since the mid-nineties. The old 2.5 ltr. for example was in the Cherokee and also in the Voyager. The 2.8 ltr. is its successor.

      The 3.0 ltr. V6 is also in the Lancia Thema, a rebadged Chrysler 300C.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I got all excited when I thought you might have been mentioning the Saab 9000 related Thema – but that one had a Ferrari V8 under the hood.

        Lancia has just fallen so far. Time to kill it off. It’s the Mercury of Italian brands.

  • avatar
    Ion

    Its better off in the Jeep. Cadillac should never be allowed to offer a diesel in the US again.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      The engine was for the EU CTS, there was nothing about this engine being used by caddy in the US, now Chevy and GMC sure could use this in thier BOF truck applications. And seeing as once again GM made the mistake of paying for development while leaving the other company free to sale to whoever just put a big smile on alot of other CEOs faces.

      One of the reasons EDS accepted GM’s buyout is because they thought they would be able to resale, install and manage all of the CAD and CAM software that GM paid to have developed in the 70′s and early 80′s only to find that while GM paid for it, they didn’t own it, or have any licensing or royality rights to it ((especially the factory of the future stuff (all robotic and automated), sure failed miserably at GM, just because they tried to do to much to soon), but I can promise you every other automaker sure benefitted once the kinks were worked out and some software companies made alot of money), except for GM ofcourse)

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Ion, Agreed! I owned a used diesel Seville back in the eighties that I bought at an estate sale dirt cheap, low mileage and all.

      No one would buy it from me. I couldn’t turn it. Nobody wanted a diesel Caddy.

      After I had it converted in LA to an Olds Rocket 350, I had no problem selling it. As fas I as know, that Diesel engine is still powering a water-well pump in the San Fernando Valley to this day.

      Not only was that Olds Diesel V8 in the Seville LOUD, but it wasn’t all that fuel efficient either in mountain country. A dog if there ever was one, but the price was right.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @highdesertcat
        What a bizarre “diesel engine”. Started out as a Gas/Petrol engine then became a diesel? Strangely it had a lot of problems.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          It used the block and heads of the Olds Rocket 350 but the crank pushed up the compression ratio to 22.5 to 1.

          The early versions had blocks and/or heads that were too porous for such high compression.

          The one I had in that Caddy Seville I bought at an estate sale literally had an oil mist that emanated from the block and heads. And it only had 30K miles on it when I bought it.

          The intake throat was covered in black, oily dirt that collected on the walls of the intake. It was just a nasty engine.

          Yet, it lives on in the GM trucks and HummVees, albeit with a stronger lower end and a denser-cast block.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Wait, so the 6.5l Detroit diesel is based off of the 350 diesel from the 80s?

            I thought 6.2 and 6.5 were the only two alike Detroit diesels of that variety.
            I’ve heard that a detuned 6.2 in bread trucks was capable of 30mpg
            While the sound of a detuned 6.2 Detroit Diesel is scary, the idea of 30mpg on a Detroit 6.2l is pretty nice especially for a bread truck

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            No you would never get 30 MPG out of a 6.2 in a bread truck. When I did fleet maintenance and repair on step vans they were lucky to do half of that. Granted they were hauling something heavier than bread. People who put the 4bt out of bread trucks get in their Jeeps and Scouts get in the mid 20′s in a much lighter more aerodynamic package. The 4bt was the choice for bread trucks because it got the best MPG. I know a few people who put 6.2s in their full size internationals and they get up around 20 MPG again in a much lighter more aero vehicle.

            There is no relation between the Olds 350 diesel and the 6.2/6.5 other than the fact that they are diesels and were installed in GM vehicles. The 6.2/6.5 does share the SBC/BBC bellhousing pattern though.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I didnt think they were related

            But I had no idea on the mpg, that was just something I had read a couple years ago.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            I should have expressed differently the GM Diesel living on in GM trucks and HUMMVs.

            There is no direct descendancy from the original Olds 350 Diesel to the 6.2/6.5 that followed.

            What followed was “lessons learned” incorporated into all GM diesel engines since the Olds 350 Diesel.

            Among the lessons learned were thicker casting walls, heavier gusseting of the lower end and stouter connecting rods and wrist pins.

            Scoutdude is correct with “The 6.2/6.5 does share the SBC/BBC bellhousing pattern though”. I believe the motormounts are also identical.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @highdesertcat- Though they looked identical externally, the only commonality between the Olds diesel block and the gas block was to enable common machining of the deck surfaces and cylinder bores. The diesel block used the much larger crankshaft main journal size of the tall deck, 455 gas V8, and had 60 pounds more iron than the 350 gas V8, if memory serves.

            The crank didn’t raise the compression. That came from piston and cylinder head design. The engine only produced 120HP or so and was a slug. Diesels really need to be boosted, requiring so much induction air. It was extremely popular for a few years, as it could get 30 mpg in quite large cars. We sold nearly as many 350 Diesels in 1980 as Buick’s entire production that year, as I recall. We sold another 950,000 gas engine Oldsmobiles on top of that!
            The Olds diesel was killed in 1985 and has no commonality with any other GM engine produced since then. Sadly, all the quality issues were resolved just in time for the product to be cancelled. The later diesel may have used a similar Stanadyne Fuel Injection Pump initially, but even that was quite different (and not very robust!) in the later years.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Doc Olds, thanks for the background. It’s been awhile since I owned that 350 Diesel in the Seville. I believe it had less than 110 horses but enormous amounts of twist.

            What I do remember quite clearly is the loud clacking and knocking of that 350 Diesel, as compared to the later GM Diesels. Oh, and the water in the fuel filter. My Euro 220D never had such problems when we were in cold, clammy and damp Germany.

            Having driven both the diesel and then later the gas conversion when I had the diesel replaced with a junkyard Olds gas 350 by a shop in Bellflower, CA, was how nice the gas engine ran and how sprightly it was.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @HDC-You are welcome. I remember the first time I saw a diesel 98 running down a street next to the Engineering Building some time before they were released to production. It made the loudest racket I ever heard! Thought it was a mechanical failure at first.
            On a real tangent- this reminds me of the 2 stroke 455 V8 Olds played with briefly back in that timeframe. The prototype used a GMC blower and actually had exhaust passages bored thru the water jackets requiring some sort of o-ring seal to keep the coolant in. It sounded like the start of a snowmobile race when the fired it up! I had a lot of respect for the technicians in the experimental assembly area. A few of them were snowmobile racers and knowledgeable about 2 strokes. They provided invaluable advice to the engineers working on the project. Emissions and fuel economy demands kept 2 strokes from production.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Doc Olds, my very first exposure to the Olds 350 Diesel was in late 1978 when I was stationed in Germany with the US Military and a friend asked me to take him to Bremerhaven to pick up his Olds stationwagon he had shipped in from the US.

            It was a Custom Cruiser like mine, but it had the Diesel in it. Once we got it fired up after its ocean voyage from New Jersey to Bremerhaven, it ran alright on German Diesel fuel (which is lighter and less waxy than US diesel fuel, like Winter Grade 2 diesel fuel).

            It inspired me later, during the eighties, to pick up a used Seville at an estate sale for dirt cheap. But my experience with that Diesel Seville was not a sterling one.

            I didn’t know that Olds toyed with a 2-stroke 455. I had a 455 in my Toronado and it had plenty of grunt.

            But the 2-stroke engine that has always impressed the hell out of me was the DKW 3=6 2-stroke. At least two motorcycle manufacturers took that design and ran with it – the watercooled Suzuki 750-3 and the aircooled Yamaha 750-3.

            Much of what was going on in the States from Jun ’72 through Jan ’80 was lost on me since I was stationed in Europe at that time.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Many of these diesels were designed to be built on existing tooling rather than being gas engines with doubled compression ratios and mechanical fuel injection replacing their ignitions components. The Mercedes-Benz OM615 that did so much to help diesel’s reputation and served as the building block for many iconic diesel engines and models was similarly related to the M115 gasoline engine, easing compatibility with engine mounts, transmissions, production tooling, etc. Mercedes just did it right. VW didn’t do it much better than Oldsmobile when they made diesel versions of their gas EA827 for the early Golfs and Rabbits. Their disgrace wasn’t as sensational as Oldsmobile’s though, and they kept developing their diesels while GM just shrunk their cars.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            Thanks for the info on other engines CJ! I imagine the reason the Olds engine was such a sensational failure was the initial sensational sales success. We sold nearly as many of them as all VW brand sales in the US today!

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            Do you recall that the early buyers loved them? There’s a Popular Mechanics’ owner’s survey for the Olds Diesels, and they were the happiest American car buyers ever. At a time when Detroit brands had customer satisfaction scores in the low 60s, 97.4% of Olds Diesel buyers planned to buy another one. Until serious durability deficiencies surfaced, the Olds Diesel was the Tesla Model S of 1978.

            http://books.google.com/books?id=Uc8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA114&dq=Oldsmobile+Diesel+owner+survey+popular+mechanics&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K8LqUb-pNYTtigKwhoGIAw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Oldsmobile%20Diesel%20owner%20survey%20popular%20mechanics&f=false

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            The International 6.9 that morphed into the 7.3 was co-developed with the MV series of engines the 404 and 446 so that they had a number of commonalities for ease of production. The share the same bellhousing, rear main seal and seal carrier, water pump, engine mount bolt pattern and location. That allowed a lot of the other parts of the truck to be common so they are a direct bolt in replacement for each other. The interesting thing is that in this gas it was the gas version that earned a less than stellar reputation while once they fixed the problem with castings that were a little too thin the 6.9 had a good reputation and once the 7.3 version was introduced it became even better.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @CJ- I sure do remember how hot they were! A salesman at the biggest Olds dealer I called on had some sort of conduit to California. Was getting premium over sticker, plus shipping from Toledo. My brother in law wanted one. Another of my dealers cut him a great deal, so he drove from Long Island to pick it up. I hated the performance, but loved the economy and range. I could get to the lake and back over the weekend between company fill-ups. btw, don’t ever run out of fuel with one!!

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            I think the tip about not running out of fuel still applies to diesels. While they might have been slow from your perspective, the time was dominated by profound drive-ability issues. The diesels were not that much slower than the awful gas engines of the day, but they had better response to their accelerators, less run-on when they were keyed-off, and less hot starting problems. That was the last time GM got to introduce a new technology to a completely gullible market that had no real excuse for being duped. Sure, the first couple generations of turbocharged engines and fuel injected engines had been similarly painful for the suckers, but they didn’t sell in 6 figure numbers. Then there were the aluminum engines, but they were cheap. GM thought at the time was that you deserved to suffer for buying a small car. There wasn’t any rationalization for shafting Oldsmobile and Cadillac’s buyers.

      • 0 avatar
        Wheeljack

        I worked with a guy that had a mid-1980s Olds Vista Cruiser with the 350 diesel. Even though it was well out of warranty by the time they fixed it, he hounded GM mercilessly until they finally replaced his engine with the final iteration of these diesels at no cost to him.

        I’m not sure what GM did to fix the design issues, but he was extremely happy with the outcome and reported mileage in the high 20′s with his new engine. I do recall it had a much smoother, more rythmic idle than any other version of these diesels I had ever come across – most sounded like they were either about to stall or explode.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          @Wheeljack- The design was fixed by relatively small changes fully in place by the ’85 model year.
          The first big problem to surface was head gasket failures. It turned out that the head gaskets had a shelf life which made them susceptible to failure if allowed to age too long before installation. This cause a problem not only in production, but in dealer service stock. Simply assuring FIFO inventory control was the major fix, though I expect there were other detail improvements to which I am was not privy.

          A crank breakage problem that turned up at VERY high mileage (typically 100,000 plus)was fixed very simply by adding a larger radius fillet on the crank journals.

          The biggest improvement came from the roller lifters introduced in ’85. The prior design flat lifter cams had two serious issues. Firstly, they were so difficult to manufacture, they had an 80% scrap rate in their manufacturing process, initially at least. That really limited production volumes in the first years. Additionally, skipping one oil change, required every 3,000 miles, created a 50% probability of cam damage!

          I had the opportunity in a social gathering to chat with the Fleet Managers of Dana Corporation and Libbey-Owens-Ford. The Dana mgr. said he hated the diesels. Had worn cam problems. The LOF man said he loved them and that they were saving him $100,000 a year in car expense. I questioned him about cam problems and he replied that
          I was a District Service Manager for Olds in that time and we spent incredible sums of money in effort to satisfy owners. I remember on particular owner who thought we should buy him a new engine at 112000 miles! I had to disappoint him, 100,000 miles out of warranty. In the end, the collapse in resale value killed the market, as HDC mentioned in spite of that.

  • avatar
    drewtam

    I would love to buy a diesel minivan. This engine seems to be about perfect for such a task.

    Here’s a link to the source material.
    http://www.allpar.com/mopar/V6/VM-RA-diesel.html

    • 0 avatar
      Kamaka

      I second that! A diesel Town & Country would be awesome. I don’t think they should try it on the on the Grand Caravan because of the extra expense. The extra torque would be the best for fully loaded vans. They could also drop in in the Ram CV for extra tow and payload.

      Putting this diesel in the Wrangler is as much a no brainer as making a Wrangler with 4 doors.

      I hope they’re just ramping up by the GC and Ram with plans to expand it.

  • avatar
    Pete Kohalmi

    I think a mid-size diesel in a half-ton pickup is an idea that is a long time coming. It’s perfect for the homeowner who commutes to work 5 days a week and needs something to tow the trailer or camper or boat a few times a year. Probably good for snow plowing too with all that down-low torque. I think Chrysler’s found themselves a niche here. Just surprised no one’s tried it yet.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      It may be redundant because Ford, GM and RAM already offer a diesel version pickup truck. And lots of people already commute in them.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Sure, but those diesels get 12-15 mpg while the one that’s about to arrive sips fuel like a Prius.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done. I say the more options, the merrier.

          But there are the economies of scale and the bean counters may conclude that there simply isn’t enough demand for a small-diesel in a halfton pickup truck.

          Ford chose to go with the EcoBoost V6 instead of a small diesel, probably because gasoline is the more popular fuel.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        I don’t think it will be redundant, since as CJ mentioned the existing diesels are geared to max power mainly for heavy towing ect and aren’t offered in 1/2 trucks. Though I expect the take rate to be much lower in the 1/2 tons than in the 3/4 and 1 tons. With the heavier trucks the diesel is the most powerful option and some of the owners justify that large price premium because they are using it like intended on a regular basis, IE towing big trailers. Others of course never haul anything heavier than a 6 pack in their lifted, chipped, chromed and leathered up 3/4 tons. I doubt many those buyers are going to want to risk the potential damage to their carefully crafted image and ego by buying a wimpy 1/2 ton truck to haul their 6 pack home.

        Govt fleets on the other hand with their “alternative” fuel mandates may replace some of their 3/4 ton diesel trucks with 1/2 tons, though purchasing the flex fuel 1/2 tons already on the market meets that requirement.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I also think the take rate will be lower in 1/2-tons, like you said.

          Trucks in the 3/4-ton and 1-ton class usually retail way in excess of $40K for the 3/4-ton and $50K for the 1-ton, in their most modest trim. That’s big bucks, compared to halftons which retail anywhere from the low twenties on up.

          But that kind of HD truck is something you buy and keep for a long, long time. It’s a major investment that depreciates every day that passes until it is about 10-years old. Then it keeps its value forever, or at least until the wheels fall off.

          If small diesels were so much in demand, Toyota would have put one in their best-selling Tacoma. The Tacoma-diesel enthusiasts are still waiting.

          That said, if manufacturers want to offer small-diesels, let them go for it. I suspect that they haven’t done so in the past because they couldn’t make money on a small diesel vehicle. You have to be a fan to willingly pay the premium because you never recoup it.

          Trying to sell a small diesel to the masses in the US is a hard sell. Sure, there will be SOME fans and enthusiasts, and if they are willing to pay the premium for small-diesel, I say go for it.

          That’s what I think Sergio is doing by bringing the Grand Cherokee with the GM/Fiat small diesel to America.

          I’m sure they’ll sell a few diesel Grand Cherokees, maybe even a few small-diesel RAM 1500 pickup trucks, but I think gasoline will continue to be used for the vast majority of vehicles in the US. I don’t see that changing. At least not for the next 200 years.

          But I am a proponent of CHOICE. So I say, the more choice, the better. I remember the drab days when the only choice we had was GM, Ford or Dodge.

          I don’t ever want to go back there again.

          Which brings to mind, why can’t Toyota put a 5.7-liter diesel in the Tundra? I wouldn’t buy one, but I bet there would be a few people who would because, by any standard, that magnificent gasoline-fed Tundra 5.7-liter is a thirsty beast.

          (…not that I mind, but I can see where some Tundra owners who could, possibly. Then again, if a person has to worry about the price of fuel or fuel economy, they ought not to buy a truck)

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Highdesertcat
            “If small diesels were so much in demand, Toyota would have put one in their best-selling Tacoma. The Tacoma-diesel enthusiasts are still waiting.”

            Highdesertcat, I do know you are a gas engine diehard but I do agree with your comment on gas not in demand in the US.

            But why is the demand not there? What is impacting that demand?

            There are government instruments influencing gas over diesel demand in the US.

            Regulations, standards, taxes favour gas engines in the US. If they weren’t there the demand would be greater for these small diesels.

            I’m not saying everyone would buy diesel, as this isn’t the case here in Australia.

            We have more expensive diesel fuel like the US, but our gas regulations have evolved to support US/Japanese manufacturing in Australia and Euro type standards to support diesel standard out of the Eurozone.

            We don’t unfairly regulate or favour one type of fuel over another and look at our vehicle mix.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            “Trying to sell a small diesel to the masses in the US is a hard sell. Sure, there will be SOME fans and enthusiasts, and if they are willing to pay the premium for small-diesel, I say go for it.”

            Diesel has a bad press in the US,(GM Olds Diesels) very different to here where diesel is more expensive, but diesels are being sold at an increasing rapid rate.
            Japanese Pickups have either dropped their gas options or in Toyota’s case only offer gas engines on a few base model Hilux Pickups.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Hey, BAFO. The questions you pose have been agonizing analysts and strategists for decades in the US.

            My take is that a lot of it has to do with the disastrous attempts by the Detroit boys in the past to present an American version of diesel in passenger cars to the buying public in America.

            Who can forget such notables as the Olds 350 V8 Diesel?

            Diesel has a lot of things going for it, but I doubt that the American public will buy into diesel in any great numbers, any time soon.

            However, if manufacturers can find a way to put a small diesel into passenger and LD truck applications, and buyers are willing to pay the premium, good for them.

            Regulation and diesel taxes certainly play a big part in all of this and that might even go back to the early days of WWII when a choice was made to go with gasoline as the fuel of choice for the military, at which point the civilian market just followed.

            Who can forget gasoline-fueled Sherman tanks (aka Zippo lighters) blowing up when battling diesel-powered enemy tanks? They were expendable!

            So, bringing small diesels to the civilian mass-market is a commendable thought, but it didn’t catch on when M-B did it, and that was biggy!

            It totally blew a gasket when Olds came out with their V8 version of the diesel, a design that, ironically, lives on in GM’s diesels for 3/4-ton and up, trucks.

            The number of small-diesel enthusiasts is small in the US, judging by the number of small-diesel sales over the past 53 years in the US, as compared to the total number of cars on the road in the US, and the SAARs of the last 53 years.

            Again, market-forces will determine if there is sufficient demand for small diesels in America. There hasn’t been in the past.

            It is anyone’s guess if there will be sufficient demand in the future, since diesel fuel is easier to refine than two grades of gasoline.

            So, if diesel requires less refinery time, why does it cost so much more? Taxes!

            And because so much of the US infrastructure relies on diesel, and those who use diesel fuel can write off the cost as a business expense.

            Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker, can’t.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ Big Al there is no conspiracy against Diesel in the US. Yes the federal tax is $.06 gal more than gas and that is it. I don’t know about all states but in mine the state tax is the same for both fuels. You are just thrown off by the fact that diesel used to get favorable treatment from the EPA and was allowed to pollute at a higher rate than gas powered engines. They just closed that loophole overtime.

      • 0 avatar
        Pete Kohalmi

        Commuting say 100 miles every day in a 3/4 ton diesel pickup is pretty stupid but I know there are plenty of folks who do it. I think another group of takers on the 1/2 ton diesel trucks would be construction workers. A lot of them need a work truck while on the job but a lot of times the job site is 50 or even 100 miles from home. Anyway, I’ve never really understood the aversion that Americans seem to have toward diesels. Maybe the early 80s diesels were pretty crappy but that was 30 years ago. Technology’s come a long, long way. I guess a lot of people have an even longer memory and are just set in their ways, rhyme or reason be damned.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          What’s stupid about commuting in a diesel 3/4 getting low to mid 20s vs a 1500 getting mid to high teens?

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Today’s 3/4 ton diesels don’t get that kind of fuel economy anymore and when they did that was hwy MPG and there are V8 gassers doing 20′s on the hwy now. My buddy has a 2011 Ford and he gets 12-14 with it when not towing, not much better than the old 460 powered 97 he had before that. Now when he does hook up a really heavy trailer the diesel does do significantly better because it doesn’t drop near as much as the old 460 did.

        • 0 avatar
          Numbers_Matching

          ‘Who can forget gasoline-fueled Sherman tanks (aka Zippo lighters) blowing up when battling diesel-powered enemy tanks? They were expendable!’
          Not to be too big a nit-pick here, because you are raising some very valid points – but all axis armor (German) that would have faught against the Sherman were all gasoline powered. With the exception of a few prototypes, all German tracked fighting vehicles were running on gas.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      @Pete, I would agree especially with the death of the inline 6s that used to be popular for grunt work like snow plowing and farm work. A few of my Dad’s friends who were farmers got pretty sad about the death of the Slant 6, and GM & Ford I6s when they were phased out from 1987 to 1996.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Too bad the GMT360 4.2 inline 6 never made it into trucks

        • 0 avatar
          Wheeljack

          I never understood this. All the money blown on that engine and now it’s gone. The inline 6 would have made an excellent base engine that fleets would have loved.

          I also would have loved to see the AMC 4.0L I-6 used as the base engine in the Ram trucks. And why not? The cab, which was shared with the 3/4 & 1-ton trucks and designed around the Cummins, would have easily accomodated the old AMC engine.

          Even though it made less power on paper than the boat-anchor 3.7L, I guarantee the 4.0L would have had better pep in stop and go driving and would have easily equalled or bettered the mileage of the 3.7L. This is predicated on backing it up with a decent transmission such as the AW4 used in the Cherokees.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Exactly the 4.2 was not a bad engine by any measure, an the gas mileage wasn’t terrible either, why the newer designed i6 4.2 died instead of taking over the at-the-time long outdated 4.3 v6 I’ll never understand

            That engine put the trailblazer at the top of all the competitors in output, and that was the trailblazers base engine to boot.

            From instances I’ve seen the 4.2 i6 has achieved equal fuel economy to the frumpy 3.7 i5 which is where the 4.2 should have went, instead of wasting time making the 5 cyclinder that had the problems it did.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            The point of a fleet engine isn’t to be smooth and powerful and elegant and high tech all the other things the Atlas did better than the 4.3. The point is to be cheap which the Atlas didn’t do well at all.

            The elephant in the room which GM never seemed to be aware of through a billion dollars of the Atlas program is that they already had the world benchmark 300 ish hp truck engine in the Vortec V8. They spent that money competing with themself – and they lost.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          The engine was specifically designed to be a “truck” engine, but never saw use outside of the TrailBlazer/Envoy/… set of vehicles. The 4 and 5 cylinder versions were the sole engine choices for the small trucks and the H3, until the Alpha V8.

          It really couldn’t compete against the small blocks- a lot cheaper to build and better fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      Back in the mid 00′s Ford was set to introduce a smaller diesel in their 1/2 tons and Expedition and then the gov’t announced the future diesel emissions standards and they dropped the project. Presumably they expected too low of a take rate to justify the expense of certification. Of course in the mean technology has progressed and engineers have more experience in meeting those standards.

      • 0 avatar
        Wheeljack

        GM was also working on a light duty diesel for the Silverado and Sierra pickup trucks but abandoned the project around the time or carmageddon. I think it was supposed to be a V-6, around 4.5 liters or so…? I don’t remember exactly…

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          @Wheeljack- It was (is?) a 4.5L V8 with exhaust on the inside of the ‘V’, similar to the first Ford Indy V8. That provides a great opportunity to reduce parts and maximize turbo efficiency.It was (is?) very quiet and generates over 500 foot-pounds of torque and 300 HP or so. It will fit in vehicles that use the small block V8, but is much heavier. Here is more info, if you are interested:http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0709dp_gm_4_5l_v8_duramax_diesel_engine/

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      After reading some of the blogs under this one, there appears to be some mis-information regarding the use of small diesels. I know I own a 3.2 Mazda 4×4 dual cab ute (global Ranger).

      It is great. Cheap on fuel and is fantastic as a highway cruiser.

      1. The longevity of one of these diesels will surpass a V8 by a long shot if it is maintained. This is mainly engine oil/filter changes and air filters. You can do this yourself.

      2. If you are only driving it for less than 10-15 minutes regularly, by a gas engine. If you are using it for delivery work let the engine sit and idle, at idle most diesels have approx. a 50:1 or greater air/fuel ratio, not 15/1 like a gas engine.

      3. Diesels are not less reliable than a gas. Were I live in the Australian Outback, we only use diesel because they are reliable. Gas engine breakdown more frequently.

      4. FE on a diesel is far superior than what is being quoted on many of these North American sites. The US’s EPA uses different standards to determine diesel economy to gas economy. Why? Because they are different engines. Work that one out. I’m regularly getting well over 30mpg at 65mph. My ute weighs 4 750lbs according to another blog about the global Ranger and is turning a 4×4 setup.

      5. I have also seen article with people talking about injector cost and the short life of them. A diesel runs on torque, we have had people in Australia with the same complaints. But what do they do? They rev the shit out of them, like a small four. If you want your injectors to last don’t rev the engines out. You actually gain nothing by that in a diesel. Use the torque, there is plenty of it.

      6. Most in the US look at HD when making a comparison with diesels. Don’t do that. These 3 litre class diesel are fantastic V8 replacement engines for work or 4x4ing. They will not accelerate like a V8, but pull like a V8. If you want high performance at the expense of FE buy a V8.

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Paid for by GM, who had money to burn at the time and developed by Fiat, who are the leaders in diesel tech. This should be a good motor. It’s application in a truck and a large SUV are perfect.
    I am looking forward to how this plays out.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    I look forward to the diesel, so long as the aftermarket to delete DFE, EGR, etc comes with it.

    • 0 avatar

      You wish. There’s not even a new computer for Chrysler 3.8L, let alone Pentastar. I remember in the 90s you could buy PCM replacements like JET II easily. Not anymore.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Hmm, well that sucks.
        Granted your talking about gas, you’ll get more gains from diesel mods for less money.

        I believe you would see a bigger aftermarket for a small diesel run than an aftermarket for a high gas run.

        I’ve seen the diesels with Urea, I’m not impressed with the increased complications, the extra maintence, or the MPG

      • 0 avatar
        Power6

        Chrysler is on the forefront of encrypted ECU tech. The good part is their anti-theft features are the hardest to crack.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    After reading some of the blogs under this one, there appears to be some mis-information regarding the use of small diesels. I know I own a 3.2 Mazda 4×4 dual cab ute (global Ranger).

    It is great. Cheap on fuel and is fantastic as a highway cruiser.

    1. The longevity of one of these diesels will surpass a V8 by a long shot if it is maintained. This is mainly engine oil/filter changes and air filters. You can do this yourself.

    2. If you are only driving it for less than 10-15 minutes regularly, by a gas engine. If you are using it for delivery work let the engine sit and idle, at idle most diesels have approx. a 50:1 or greater air/fuel ratio, not 15/1 like a gas engine.

    3. Diesels are not less reliable than a gas. Were I live in the Australian Outback, we only use diesel because they are reliable. Gas engine breakdown more frequently.

    4. FE on a diesel is far superior than what is being quoted on many of these North American sites. The US’s EPA uses different standards to determine diesel economy to gas economy. Why? Because they are different engines. Work that one out. I’m regularly getting well over 30mpg at 65mph. My ute weighs 4 750lbs according to another blog about the global Ranger and is turning a 4×4 setup.

    5. I have also seen article with people talking about injector cost and the short life of them. A diesel runs on torque, we have had people in Australia with the same complaints. But what do they do? They rev the guts out of them, like a small four. If you want your injectors to last don’t rev the engines out. You actually gain nothing by that in a diesel. Use the torque, there is plenty of it.

    6. Most in the US look at HD when making a comparison with diesels. Don’t do that. These 3 litre class diesel are fantastic V8 replacement engines for work or 4x4ing. They will not accelerate like a V8, but pull like a V8. If you want high performance at the expense of FE buy a V8.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      #1 That is no longer the case, many Chevy and Ford trucks with V8 will outlast the useful life of the vehicle. Seeing 400K or more out of them is not uncommon IF they are properly maintained.

      #2 A/F ratio has nothing to do with it a diesel always gets a full cylinder of air while a gas engine is throttled, the only thing that affects the fuel economy is the amount of fuel required to maintain a self sustaining RPM and drive any engine driven accessories. But yes a diesel takes longer to achieve its most efficient operating temp.

      #3 Again that is no longer the case many of those aformentioned GM and Ford V8′s need no repairs to the actual engine in their lifetime, not even valve cover gaskets. Meanwhile failed EGR coolers, injectors, problems with the DEF systems are not that uncommon. A friend of mine is a long haul trucker and on his 2012 Freightliner he has already had a tow bill and DEF system repair that cost him over $800 and two days worth of hotel bills and lost wages waiting for it to be repaired. The only reason it was as cheap as it was is due to the fact that the engine went into the reduced power mode about 5 miles from the dealer. That is a required function of DEF equipped engines if they sense a problem with the DEF system. That means the engine will only produce enough power to get a loaded truck off of the road and to the shoulder.

      #4 Again that is no longer true on US emissions compliant engines, it has been reduced to a small advantage and the added cost of DEF along with the higher fuel cost in most areas in the US eats that up.

      #5 Diesel injector cost is high much higher than traditional port injectors. Port gas injectors usually last the life of the engine, up to 400K or more and many people have had to have their diesel injectors replaced often before 100K and they are not cheap. Rev limiters are the norm so their short life is not due to over revving the engine.

      #6 That is a fair argument since the 3/4 and 1 ton truck diesels are built for max power and not really for economy.

      You keep making arguments based on your experience with diesel engines that do not meet US standards so it is an apples to orange argument.

      Despite your perceptions I am not anti diesel, in fact the more people that buy diesels the more gas there is for me and the lower the price will be.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Scoutdud
        Yeah, mate, pull my other one. Don’t forget we are a big V8 country too. Oh, and we run many American V8s.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Oh, another thing, don’t and try and tell me about engines or fuel to air ratios or lubrication. Guess what I specialise in?

        • 0 avatar
          Power6

          Hard to say this in a nice way but I am curious…

          If you specialise in engine fuel air ratios…why do you not understand how comparing air-fuel ratio between gas and diesel is useless…your idle comparison couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Power6
            I don’t know how to say this in a nice way…………….but where are you coming from?

            I have an assignment for you.

            1.Diesels don’t have a throttle.

            2. In a diesel for more power, you just add fuel.

            3. A gas engine has a throttle, which means at idle, what is the state, or is the delta between the intake pressure and the ambient pressure?

            4. I gave you enough information to go and work this one out.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Power6
            Some more help.
            NOx is created in diesels by pressure which equals temperature.

            But also running lean creates more NOx.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Power6
            I found your answer for you.
            ——————————————–

            While a higher compression ratio is helpful in raising efficiency, diesel engines are much more efficient than gasoline (petrol) engines when at low power and at engine idle. Unlike the petrol engine, diesels lack a butterfly valve (throttle) in the inlet system, which closes at idle. This creates parasitic loss and destruction of availability of the incoming air, reducing the efficiency of petrol engines at idle.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          I don’t have to guess what you specialize in, it is obvious that you specialize in trolling.

          Yes diesels in their pure form have inherently better efficiency since they lack a throttle to create pumping losses. However there is this thing called variable valve timing used in modern gas engines that reduces that advantage by delaying the intake valve closing. The throttle then creates an advantage because the cylinder can work against it to fill the next cylinder that is due for a fresh intake charge.

          The fact is current diesels in the US don’t work in the pure form anymore, many are now equipped with throttles that are used as part of the DPF regeneration process. They also need to have an after cycle injection event to dump fuel into the exhaust as part of that regen process. The particulate build up is at it’s highest if the engine is allowed to idle. So long idle periods on a modern diesel with automatic DPF regeneration causes a significant reduction in fuel economy. Here is a PDF on the manually activated DPF regeneration process on the primitive Isuzu system. http://www.fmitrucks.com/DPFv2_slide_presentation.pdf Note if you try to delay or avoid that regen cycle you can force the engine into limp home mode meaning that you won’t be able to pull a load. You are pretty much left with the option of pulling to the side of the road and waiting for a tow truck unless you are unloaded and can drive at very slow speeds safely. Manual regen systems are no longer legal and if you let it idle too long and it enters regen mode then you are stuck letting it idle for up to 20 min to complete the cycle or risk the need to replace or send the DPF out for cleaning sooner than normal.

          Your arguments were valid in the past and that is why we had 3/4 ton diesels that could get mid 20′s MPGs and even well into the 20′s when hauling/towing moderate loads. However this is now and the fact is that in the US diesels are no longer allowed to spew out tons of NOx nor particulate matter, changing the game considerably.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            And don’t forget the Oxygen sensors on the new Cummins diesels in RAM trucks. That alone created a nightmare for many who went from the old Cummins to the new Cummins.

            Ahh, yes, regulations and mandates. Ain’t they grand?

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            I don’t mind having a debate, but when someone tries to tell me what I do for a living. Then…………..

            You see on the net you don’t who is what.

            I don’t listen to opinion based on opinion based on what you have heard from your friends.

            Also, personal observations are sometimes incorrect. Research, before you big note yourself. Or make sure you are correct.

            I have had a couple of run ins with you. But make sure you are correct and not just your opinion.

            You can bull$hit to your friends, but I’m not one.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @SD
            I will stand by my comment.

            A diesel engine whether modern, old or otherwise will use less fuel at idle or at a low power setting. Even with the throttle which is used for bypass to the particulate filter and controlling the EGR flow rates.

            What you explained will cause the diesel to use most fuel on start up until the pollution ie, particulate, EGR have warmed up.

            The throttle will still allow the diesel to run at a much higher fuel:air ratio. At idle and low power settings.

            Also, the throttle provides a vacuum to reduce ‘diesel shake’ on shutdown. That we used to get in the older diesels.

            Hence my comment on driving a diesel less than 10-15 minutes.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Well Al you don’t know what I do for a living now or in the past either. How much research have you done on US 2007 and 2010 diesel emissions, or training on how to maintain and repair them? It is obvious it is no where near what I have done. I provided you a snippet of how one of the earlier systems worked, so you can study and learn. You never know when your country will decide to enact similar legislation. If they do you’ll at least have engines that have benefited from the lessons learned when we had to deal with those regulations.

      • 0 avatar
        jaje

        #4 FE – I have an 2007 4×4 Grand Cherokee Diesel (no modifications – stock) and I normally get 24 mpg highway (26-27 sometimes) and 20 mpg combined with 50% city driving. Towing on the highway going the speed limit with a 5k trailer and my gear I get around 17 – 20 mpg. My worst ever mpg was loaded with 5 adults, gear and towing that same 5k trailer at 75 mph into a nasty head wind was 14.2 mpg.

        The Hemi v8 of the same model year (even has the same tranny and cylinder deactivation called MDS) gets on average mid teens on the highway. Their combined mpg is in the low teens.

        FE on a diesel is simply better than an equivalent gas engine. Diesel has 26% greater energy density per gallon than gasoline. Diesels make their power at much lower RPM meaning less injection cycles to make said power meaning even greater fuel savings over a gas engine where maximum torque is needed. In Jeep I make my max torque at 1,800 RPM whereas the Hemi v8 makes it at 4,800 RPM. Thus the Hemi needs 2x higher RPM to make its maximum torque (that’s 2x more injection squirts of a fuel that has 25% less energy density).

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          The Diesel Cycle- compression ignition and the Otto Cycle-spark ignition are different thermodynamic cycles, though compression ratio is a direct factor in thermodynamic efficiency for both.

          The Diesel cycle is inherently more efficient, and, as Jaje points out, diesel fuel has about 25% more energy (btu’s per gallon)than gasoline.

          Besides Oldsmobile single handedly destroying the diesel in America for decades, the two big roadblocks to diesels in America are that the fuel is typically more expensive, and the tailpipe emission standards require very costly provisions, particularly urea injection, that add to an already much more expensive engine.

          Diesels are favored by standards and taxation in many countries, in part because they emit less CO2. The converse is true in America. On top of that, Americans don’t really seem to care much about fuel economy as evidenced by their buying patterns.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    @Scoutdude
    We will have almost the same emission standards within 2 years.

    I do apologise, but I should have expressed myself better. Diesels don’t need a throttle should and would have made a better statement.

    My ute has a throttle but not to regulate the fuel air mixture. I was on a different page. I was talking stoichiometrics of gas vs diesel. But I will always state that diesel uses less fuel at idle. The throttle in a diesel isn’t used to maintain the 15:1 fuel : air mix.

    I can see we will have much fun debating each other, but don’t knock these small diesels until you get them in your pickups, we have had them for years.

    I predicted the VM Ram. I will also state that a 3.2 F-150 is around the corner.

    The US will love these new small diesels. Even if the price of diesel fuel is more. Because if you guys were that worried about fuel prices then you wouldn’t be driving V8s like HDC.

    Read up on the new Cummins ISF 2.8 diesel. SinoDiesel has some great information on them. The US will finally build competitive diesels against the Euro diesels. This has been a long time coming.

    You guys are where we were 25 years ago with diesels. Commercials first then more mainstream vehicles. Trust me.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Here is a link to a study that has been bouncing around the net when ever diesel versus gas engine debates pop up.
    http://www.dieselforum.org/files/dmfile/20130311_CD_UMTRITCOFinalReport_dd2017.pdf

    This study indicates that across the board once all factors are considered, a diesel is cheaper to own.

    @Robert Ryan – there is a better take rate in Canada on Econobox cars and on small diesels. There was a story a while back about some diesels coming to Canada that will not be available in the USA. As luck will have it, I can’t find the story.

    We must remember that from an emissions perspective diesels are where gassers were in the 70′s. Actually, more like the 80′s. The first emissions equipped gassers were gutless unreliable “pigs on gas”. Look at diesel pickups. We went through the “pigs on gas” phase and luckily skipped the gutless part. Reliability was/is an issue. MPG figures are improving for diesels and they are regaining reliability. Again like gassers in the 70′s and 80′s.

    I’d say that it is unfair to even mention those Oldsmobile 350 based diesels that GMC built. They were a joke. I did not know a guy who had any luck with them. I also do not know of a truck or car still running a diesel. All have 350 gassers.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Have you considered that the desirability of available diesels has something to do with their relative scarcity? Jetta diesels have a high take rate relative to gasoline Jettas. Jettas don’t have a high take rate relative to the Corollas, Civics, Focuses, and Cruzes that dominate their segment. F150s, Siverados, and Sierras in their half ton models dominate the sales charts. None of them are diesels. 72% of diesels sold in the US are VWs, but VWs have a 3% US market share. How big of a market share would diesels need for their scarcity to cease being an advantage come resale time? How many diesels would it take to cause diesel fuel prices to skyrocket in the US? We ship refined diesel to Europe now. If we use it all here, their prices will rise too. I’ve no clue why people outside of the US lobby for this to happen, but they do.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      @Lou BC,
      I knew your vehicle mix was very similar to what you have in the US, but there were some differences.Similar to what exists with Australia and New Zealand.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    I should of added that we will see more diesel engines in an assortment of vehicles. They can meet mpg requirements easier than gassers. Technical barriers to trade (different emission and safety standards among jurisdictions)are the real hold up. I read that different standards between the EU and USA is equivalent to a 26% tariff. That hits as hard as the chicken tax. Universalization of standards would open up the USA/Canada market to many diesel engines and vehicles. I’d rather buy a small diesel powered vehicle than a hybrid. Unfortunately, special interest groups/companies would rather all of us buy from a very restrictive group of products. I’ve started referring to them as the “Big 4″. That would be Ford, GMC, Chrysler, and the CAW/UAW.

    • 0 avatar
      Les

      Won’t happen, California is all by itself the sixth largest economy in the world and anything that fits California regs also fits US regs, and California regs are dominated by the needs/wants of Los Angelas which sits in a unique microclimate that serves as a natural smog-trap, and a culture legendary for self-absorption so why pursue regs that will inconvenience Los Angelenos and help their problems when they can pursue regulations that screw everybody over?

      • 0 avatar
        Summicron

        ++

        I’ve often dreamt of a post-earthquake America.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @Les
        Until California breaks away from the US (whether through succession or earthquake) it will still be part of the largest economy in the world.

        California can influence, but it doesn’t have as much influence that Canada has on the world and the populations are similar.

        I think when it comes to emission controls California really doesn’t impact what the UNECE is doing, or even the Japanese. More like they have influence on where California is heading.

        In a couple of years the US and UNECE regulations will be similar and I think California’s influence was there, but marginal.

        • 0 avatar
          Les

          @Big Al

          Er.. what?

          Wait, no.. I think you miss-heard me.

          I’m not talking about Canada or Australia or Japan or anything of the sort, I’m talking strictly about the US.

          California.. BY ITSELF.. is the Sixth Largest economy… In The World [/Clarkson]

          It is, in turn, part of The largest economy in the world..

          The way the Federal system in the US operates, making products that meet California’s more stringent standards produces products which by default meet the standards of the US as a whole. The Federal Government currently Can’t (Or won’t) tell California, “Your standards are unreasonable, move them more in-line to the national average.”

          (another thing we Americans take for granted people from other countries know about us, that the individual States in the US can each impose their own regulatory standards on.. EVERYTHING. If those standards are at or higher than and do not contradict the national standards then as far as our central government is concerned everything’s gravy.)

          No company is going to aim for a standard which aims to hit the US sans California and cut the world’s sixth largest economy out of the bigger pie they’re trying to get a piece of.

          It’s nothing to do with California somehow stepping in and lobbying international standards, California can and DOES set it’s Own standards within it’s state borders and the state is such a big fat hairy economic deal in the global market that those standards have much wider ranging consequence than simply within California’s state-lines.

          And that’s why we don’t do the whole ‘Diesel’ thing so much in the US.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            @Les
            In Australia it used to be the same as long as the states met the national standards.

            But we are finding out it’s cheaper and easier to manage one set of standards, hence Australia’s inclusion into the UNECE.

            Even schooling in Australia will be one standard so if a family moves the kids can slide right back into where they left off in another state. Even licencing is going to become standardised.

            I do know California has differing emission regulations or ‘harsher’ emission control. It was like that back in the 70s as well. LA sits in a hole like Sydney.

            Sydney, Tokyo and LA I think had some of the worst photo chemical pollution back in those days.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Big Al from Oz,
            “But we are finding out it’s cheaper and easier to manage one set of standards, hence Australia’s inclusion into the UNECE.”

            Standardization has made quite a few things simpler and cheaper. The same standards crossing the Tasman has made Trade with New Zealand a lot easier and cheaper for both parties.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @Les,
        This State within a State(Big Al probably would not know this) but Swcharzenegger signed an agreement on behalf of California with the State of NSW as regards some trade agreement
        I cannot see why the other 50 States do not organize a separate deal, rather than have the Tail wag the dog.

        • 0 avatar
          Les

          @RobertRyan

          Because they’re not the sixth largest economy in the world, not even close. They don’t have nearly the economic nor political clout to make their own deals, so they just stick with letting the federal government handle the whole ‘trade with other nations’ thing.

          As for automotive manufacturers, it’s just not economic sense for them to make cars that pass in 49 states when it means the wealthiest state is left out of the running, making their own deal just for that state would have all it’s own hurdles and jurisdictional challenges, when they could just aim for all 50 states compliance and the only sales they’d lose would be from poor people anyway.

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @Les,
            Sounds like a pretty distorted market.I can see why people do not like California. I noticed States in the US had differing standards for a lot of things, commonality is the exception rather than the rule.

            .

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            California has unique issues with prevailing winds from the west that sort of pile up the smog in the valleys where a huge share of the population lives. The pollution is trapped in the basins by the high, inland mountains. The LA basin is currently home to 18 million people, the SF basin another 7 million and San Diego 3 more million. LA smog levels have been so bad, our representative to the California Air Resources Board told me it sometimes has hurt to breath the air outdoors! I think pollution that severe is rare these days, though I have no current knowledge.

            As a result of unique and severe pollution concerns, the state asked for special allowance to create their own emissions standards many years ago. US regulations allow only two choices, “California” emissions, or Federal (49 state) emissions. Some systems can comply with both, and are called “National” emissions compliant. Emissions are the only motor vehicle certification requirements that do not have just one single, Federal standard. All safety and fuel economy standards are applied to all states. No other state is allowed to establish separate standards. They must choose either the 49 state, Federal standards, or they can also opt for the “California” standards. New York, Massachusetts and other states currently require “California” emissions certified vehicles also.

  • avatar
    BZ1GRN

    The darn thing followed me from one job to another.
    Who knew?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India