New small diesel for GM

[Anon]

Originally Posted by doorgunner

So what do you guys think of puttin this new setup in an old Argosy Moho with a 454? Just wondering out loud - or even replacing the 454 in my 93 burb?

They will be pretty hard to come by for the first year or two of production.
I work on GM Powertrain projects at the plant level. I write a lot of the code for the automation and machining.
Whenever a new engine or transmission comes out it is hard to get a new one that does not have a new vehicle wrapped around it.
I think it is a shame that they do not sell these sooner but then again, they want to sell cars and engines; not just engines.
I would love to slap one in an older Silverado 1500! That would be so totally cool! Imagine the new tow rating!

[CanoeStream]

Originally Posted by pattersontoo

I would love to slap one in an older Silverado 1500! That would be so totally cool! Imagine the new tow rating!

Add some more spring leafs and you'd really have something. Reminds me of the Johnny Cash song, "One Piece at a Time."

The transmission was a '53
And the motor turned out to be a '73
And when we tried to put in the bolts all the holes were gone.

So we drilled it out so that it would fit
And with a little bit of help with an A-daptor kit
We had that engine runnin' just like a song

[Goin camping]

Originally Posted by doorgunner

So what do you guys think of puttin this new setup in an old Argosy Moho with a 454? Just wondering out loud - or even replacing the 454 in my 93 burb?

I'd imagine it would be a heckuva upgrade. Better HP & torque.

[safari57]

I sent the info to a buddy who designs injection systems for diesels for a research company and he is also a hot rodder. His response:

"I bet there'll be big line-ups if they offer a crate version. I can see the combo now: 65 GMC shortbox fleetside with a '88 crossmember (bolts in to give disk brakes etc) and one of these engines. Neat daily driver/tow vehicle that'll never die!"

Or for some of those with 60's suburbans it would make a tremendous swap.

Now, if I start asking my friend in the old home town about his truck sitting out back, by the time these engines are available over the counter or through wrecking yards, he'll be so tired of me asking he'll sell it to me real cheap .

Barry

[Goin camping]

Any reason I could not use one of these "little" diesels to repower a full size sedan?

[lundfog]

GM has to overcome the reputation of SORRY DIESELS they produced in 60's, 70's etc.

GM figured (Probably some bean counter) they could convert the old 350 and it turned out to really suck! Unfortunately Americans acquired a very sore spot for diesels from that episode.

I hope Ford can put together a decent engine they need a good product or they are gonna go under. The Europeans really like 'em, about 40% of vehicles sold are diesels.

Fog

[Silvertwinkie]

Originally Posted by Goin camping

Any reason I could not use one of these "little" diesels to repower a full size sedan?

You could, but what folks don't sometimes realize, is that typically there are several things in the driveline that need to be looked at and maybe upgraded as well. For example, transmission, driveshaft, rear axles, etc. My sedan, which is a bit higher performance than most, has about 350ft/lbs of torque. Putting an engine in that can put out 520ft/lbs of torque and most likely at fairly low RPMs is a significant upgrade and may require beefing up along the drivetrain as a result of said motor being installed.

[Silvertwinkie]

Originally Posted by lundfog

GM has to overcome the reputation of SORRY DIESELS they produced in 60's, 70's etc.

GM figured (Probably some bean counter) they could convert the old 350 and it turned out to really suck! Unfortunately Americans acquired a very sore spot for diesels from that episode.

I would agree on the passenger car side, but they have had some real great diesels on the truck side, and I'm sure they learned their lesson back in the 80s from the 350 convert.

One thing I would wholeheartedly agree with is that Ford needs some hits or they will be in a real pickle. GM isn't too far behind. I think they finally realized the Asians are at the door and about to put diesels in their 1/2 tonners. I think between that and the fleet MPG averages needing to go up, this really hits two birds with one stone....and long overdue IMHO.

[Sundance]

All these car companies currently manufacture and sell a complete line of diesel cars in Europe. They have for decades. Ford, GM, all of them. It is driven by customer demand, not by engineering.

[markdoane]

Originally Posted by Goin camping

Any reason I could not use one of these "little" diesels to repower a full size sedan?

Yeah. If you look at the picture above, the engine is taller than it is wide. I think you would need a pretty deep engine compartment to fit it in.

Or just cut a hole in the hood.

[vswingfield]

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

You could, but what folks don't sometimes realize, is that typically there are several things in the driveline that need to be looked at and maybe upgraded as well. For example, transmission, driveshaft, rear axles, etc. My sedan, which is a bit higher performance than most, has about 350ft/lbs of torque. Putting an engine in that can put out 520ft/lbs of torque and most likely at fairly low RPMs is a significant upgrade and may require beefing up along the drivetrain as a result of said motor being installed.

The old hot rodders addage was "Start at the rear end and work forward."

Vaughan

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

One thing I would wholeheartedly agree with is that Ford needs some hits or they will be in a real pickle.

The Edge is selling in double digit percentage gains month after month.

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

GM isn't too far behind.

The GMC Acadia and the Saturn Outlook are performing even better than the Ford Edge.
Sometimes, on this forum, we tend to forget that the truck market is smaller than we perceive. The Big Three follow trends closely. The largest growing segment in the mid to late 90's was SUV's and trucks. They invested TONS of cash into these vehicles. Just remember, we cannot blame the automakers for making the SUVs and trucks. We asked for them. We bought them in MASS quantities. If you remember, GM made an electric car back in the early 90's. I still see several of them on the road here in Detroit. They did not sell. We would not buy them. Why would a company want to make something that no one wants to buy?
Now that gas has hit 3.40/gallon, (here in Detroit), we all want to blame the corporate giants that fed our appetite for big, bulky SUVs for not having a crystal ball to see that gas prices were going to go up 300%.
It still irks me when the media blasts the Big Three for making gas guzzling SUVs. If we did not want them, (with all the power that they put in them), then we should not have bought them. Plain and simple.
Do you know how long it takes to COMPLETELY retool a powertrain facility? On average, it takes three years from the start until the first engine or transmission rolls off of the line. This is JUST to retool the plant. It takes even more to design the new powertrain product, test it, redesign and retest. This new stuff does not just appear on the market. It takes a lot of time, manpower and, most of all, money.
Now, if you take a close look, you will see that GM, DCX and Ford are following the trend. Gas prices have soared. SUV sales has gone in the dumper. They are making great strides in powertrain technology.
I would absolutely love to have one of these diesels. If I have to wait for a crate version then I will go out and plunk down the cabbage to get it in the new, cool looking, GMC Sierra! The Duramax diesels are awesome! Match it with an Allison tranny and VIOLA! A perfect light duty heavy hauler!

[markdoane]

Originally Posted by pattersontoo

. . . VIOLA! A perfect light duty heavy hauler!

Lou, you just created a new oxymoronism.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by markdoane

Lou, you just created a new oxymoronism.

LOL!
Ya like that?
HEHEHEHEHE!

[bhayden]

Originally Posted by pattersontoo

Just remember, we cannot blame the automakers for making the SUVs and trucks. We asked for them. We bought them in MASS quantities.

Now that gas has hit 3.40/gallon, (here in Detroit), we all want to blame the corporate giants that fed our appetite for big, bulky SUVs for not having a crystal ball to see that gas prices were going to go up 300%.

True to some extent but with the development cycle on new products being at least three years out any company that hopes to survive had better have a pretty good crystal ball. Toyota for example launched the highly sucessful Prius before gas prices skyrocketed.

True that the "Big Three" have been producing diesels in Europe and are quite capable. However, designing for the US market can be very different. Daimler saw the value in bringing the Sprinter to the US well before the current spike in fuel costs. I have to think that was a significant factor in GMs decision to fold up the tent with respect to the Astro/Safari which up until that point completely dominated the light duty commercial vehicle market. And if Ford had wanted to they could just have easily brought over the Transit van. A vehicle that's developed almost a cult following in the UK.

I think the slam on the US makers is they are always focused short term and when market conditions change they are invariably the ones slowest to react

There are a couple of reasons I think we haven't seen a rush to diesel power in the US. First are the US emision requirements which adds significant costs in terms of development and to the final price. The second, which is a bit of a chicken and the egg dilemma is the availability of diesel in the US. The long haul truckers have been complaining for years about the price of diesel. Remember that before the Diesel Rabbit (and various Isuzus) diesel was significantly less than gasoline. It should be cheaper since it not nearly as refined as gasoline. However, refinery capacity in the US is barely able to keep up with current demand and changing over is not trivial.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by bhayden

True to some extent but with the development cycle on new products being at least three years out any company that hopes to survive had better have a pretty good crystal ball. Toyota for example launched the highly sucessful Prius before gas prices skyrocketed.

As I had stated, GM had the first successfully built and sold electric car. It flopped because sales sucked eggs.

Originally Posted by bhayden

I think the slam on the US makers is they are always focused short term and when market conditions change they are invariably the ones slowest to react

Explain the hybrid truck engine that is soon to be released. I would not call that slow. Making a small car hybrid is one thing. Do it with a truck. Now that is something.
Your statement of the Big Three being short-term focused is as outdated as the Pinto. This has not been true in nearly 20 years. Do the non-US based automakers have a full-sized truck hybrid yet?

Originally Posted by bhayden

I have to think that was a significant factor in GMs decision to fold up the tent with respect to the Astro/Safari which up until that point completely dominated the light duty commercial vehicle market.

Again, another one of the things that they were not selling. If people DO NOT want something why would any company keep making it? I love the Safari. I have had one for eons. They are great, reliable little vans. Heck, my tow vehicle is a Safari AWD. If they are not selling enough of them then why would they keep making something that loses money? Do you know what it takes for a final assembly plant? There is significant costs, in the millions, (even tens of millions), of dollars of overhead. It broke my heart when they stopped making the Safari/Astro. It had a good run though. 20 years is a long time for any model. They just did not sell anymore. Dominating one small market does not make a profit. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by bhayden

The second, which is a bit of a chicken and the egg dilemma is the availability of diesel in the US.

Almost every gas station in my area offers diesel now. Speedway, (Marathon), BP, and Mobil all offer diesel.

Originally Posted by bhayden

The long haul truckers have been complaining for years about the price of diesel. Remember that before the Diesel Rabbit (and various Isuzus) diesel was significantly less than gasoline. It should be cheaper since it not nearly as refined as gasoline.

Diesel is 2.859/gallon here. Gasoline is 3.329/gallon here. How is that expensive considering the mileage gains you get with a diesel?
There is another thread on here that cited an Autoweek article that the cost savings on diesel fuel over a 4.5 year period was approximately $4,200. That alone is a significant savings.

[Fyrzowt]

I agree with Pattersontoo on virtually all points. One minor variation...Here in California diesel costs close to, and sometimes more than gasoline.
Dave

[Sundance]

" As I had stated, GM had the first successfully built and sold electric car. It flopped because sales sucked eggs."

Contrare mein freund........ The EV1 was a smashing success and had customers in line. GM chose to crush them all even though a group of die hard former lease holders offered $1,900,000 for the last 75 or so. GM chose to crush them instead of taking the $1.9 million.

Only one EV1 remains in a museum, and GM removed all the works from it.

Here's a fairly balanced piece on the EV1's demiss.

EVWORLD FEATURE: Why I Think GM Killed the EV1:EV1 | SEXTON | CHELSEA | GM | KILL | DEATH | CANCEL | BATTERY | EV | ELECTRIC | DELPHI | CALIFORNIA | ZEV | MANDATE

The demise of the EV1 had nothing to do with demand.

[SlimJim]

Diesel is 2.859/gallon here. Gasoline is 3.329/gallon here. How is that expensive considering the mileage gains you get with a diesel?
There is another thread on here that cited an Autoweek article that the cost savings on diesel fuel over a 4.5 year period was approximately $4,200. That alone is a significant savings.[/quote]

Diesel is cheaper in Ga. also but the initial cost more than wipes out any savings in the first five years or so. I just purchased an '07 Duramax and the cost of $7,195 for the engine and the $1,200 for the Allison doesn't do much for a fuel savings business case. It does offer much more than just saving .15 on a gallon of fuel however. It seems to be a pretty good truck.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Sundance

" As I had stated, GM had the first successfully built and sold electric car. It flopped because sales sucked eggs."

Contrare mein freund........ The EV1 was a smashing success and had customers in line. GM chose to crush them all even though a group of die hard former lease holders offered $1,900,000 for the last 75 or so. GM chose to crush them instead of taking the $1.9 million.

The demise of the EV1 had nothing to do with demand.

The title of the article is "Why I Think GM Killed the EV". I read it. It is all conjecture and drawing conclusions. Unbelievable that people take most things they find on the Internet as fact. Where is the substance in this article? Where are the facts?
The EV was a flop for several reasons. It could have very well been a success. Marketing, tax credits... things like they are doing now because, as I keep stating, gasoline is over 3 bucks a gallon now.
Beat the dead horse of the EV all you wish. It will not bring it back.
Please give me fact next time. I am very disappointed with opinion and conjecture. Sales figures are fact. Opinion of someone is not.