Article on GM 1/2 ton diesels

[HNelson]

I don't know if this link will work if you don't have a subscription to Wards. But it talks about the under 8600lbs diesel market. They seem to have some of their facts backwards about GM's earlier attempts at 1/2ton diesels, but they're usually pretty good about future stuff.



Another article they have on their site says Toyota currently has no plans for a 1/2ton diesel, but views one as mandatory for the 3/4 - 1 ton market. Though they claim to be "very responsive" if the big 3 do well with their 1/2 ton diesels.



http://subscribers.wardsauto.com/ar/gm_diesel_pickups/

 

[HNelson]

Evidently GM's 1/2 ton diesel is now a "go" for 09 introduction. It is NOT an Isuzu developed engine, GM says it's an in house development (I can confirm that statement as well). DOHC with 4 valves per cylinder, common rail injection, aluminum heads, and CGI block. They claim it will fit anywhere a small block gas engine currently resides. Diesel Vette anyone? :-laf

 

[RyanB]

Evidently GM's 1/2 ton diesel is now a "go" for 09 introduction. It is NOT an Isuzu developed engine, GM says it's an in house development (I can confirm that statement as well). DOHC with 4 valves per cylinder, common rail injection, aluminum heads, and CGI block. They claim it will fit anywhere a small block gas engine currently resides. Diesel Vette anyone? :-laf

If thats the case count me in on a 2009 Camaro with the diesel option!!!!



Yenko diesel Camaro anyone :--) :--)

 

[nickleinonen]

DOHC with 4 valves per cylinder, common rail injection, aluminum heads, and CGI block.

cgi block???

 

[HNelson]

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS99/60824015



I'm getting all giddy picturing a 600+ horsepower diesel Z06 Oo.



CGI = compacted graphite iron. It's some wicked good stuff.



http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/tooling/archives/0903/0903iron.asp

 

[DWest]

1/2 ton Diesel

GM had a 1/2 ton diesel from 94 to 97 with the 6. 5. Before everyone starts in the 6. 5 was a very good diesel in the 1/2 ton market but GM never pushed it because the 350 was a cash cow. The 6. 5 would out pull any 350 and get better mileage especially when towing. Putting it in heavy duty trucks was a mistake. My 1/2 ton was fun to drive and sounded great. DW

 

[litespeed]

GM had a 1/2 ton diesel from 94 to 97 with the 6. 5. Before everyone starts in the 6. 5 was a very good diesel in the 1/2 ton market but GM never pushed it because the 350 was a cash cow. The 6. 5 would out pull any 350 and get better mileage especially when towing. Putting it in heavy duty trucks was a mistake. My 1/2 ton was fun to drive and sounded great. DW

I agree..... I had one.



The problem was the lack of people with the knowledge to work on that system! Back when it came out no one knew squat about that platform. Especially after it went to electronic control. The whole "PMD" fiasco... If you know those 3 letters... . You know what I am talking about.



That was actually a pretty good truck. Smooth, quiet, comfortable and powerful.



It did have a unique sound.....

 

[MChildress]

If you go back a little futher GM had a 6. 2 just before the 6. 5 and little further, early 80's the 350 gas engine converted to run on diesel. I had a relative with one on these wonders of enginering. It was an 80 model and GM voided his warranty for pulling a bass boat with it. The engine was junk nothing but problems. I spoke with a GM rep. when they were looking to get back in the diesel business mid 80's and asked why they did'nt go with a known diesel engine like Catipilar,International,or Cummins. He stated they would build their own. I shook my head and told him then you would loose my business and bought an 83 Ford with the 6. 9 International. It's sad it took GM over 20 years to go with a company that builds diesel engines.

 

[DennyDay]

6. 2 goes back to 1977 or 1978 in 1/2 ton pickups - - - we had a 1980, towed a small travel trailer over 100k miles - - a little slow on the up take but never had a problem with it- - - maybe just lucky. Started buying GMC 3/4 ton diesel Suburbans with 6. 2 and a banks turbo put on after makret, and other than a dropped valve lifter in a 1987 at 140K miles they were never a problem - - - wish I could say the same about the transmission - - - never got over 90k miles out of one.



Denny

 

[nickleinonen]

CGI = compacted graphite iron. It's some wicked good stuff.

like powdered metal?? navistar used powdered metal conrods in the psd/t444e and had failures at above stock power levels. .

 

[surfbeetle]

GM had a 1/2 ton diesel from 94 to 97 with the 6. 5. Before everyone starts in the 6. 5 was a very good diesel in the 1/2 ton market but GM never pushed it because the 350 was a cash cow. The 6. 5 would out pull any 350 and get better mileage especially when towing. Putting it in heavy duty trucks was a mistake. My 1/2 ton was fun to drive and sounded great. DW

I have one in my 1500 suburban (and my brother in law has one also) which is really a 3/4 ton truck with a higher geared rear end. That's the only difference. As for it being a "very good diesel" I don't think so! Try having SEVEN, yes SEVEN injection pumps in 150000 miles and having to change the FSD or having to get an FSD cooler and relocation kit. I also had to add an extra water separator filter to the fuel system. The 6. 5 was good with the standadyne mechanical injection pump, but a Pain in the A>> with the electronic pump. I would stuff a cummins into that truck in a heartbeat just to get rid of all of the problems with a 6. 5.

 

[CUMMINS01]

If you go back a little futher GM had a 6. 2 just before the 6. 5 and little further, early 80's the 350 gas engine converted to run on diesel. I had a relative with one on these wonders of enginering. It was an 80 model and GM voided his warranty for pulling a bass boat with it. The engine was junk nothing but problems. I spoke with a GM rep. when they were looking to get back in the diesel business mid 80's and asked why they did'nt go with a known diesel engine like Catipilar,International,or Cummins. He stated they would build their own. I shook my head and told him then you would loose my business and bought an 83 Ford with the 6. 9 International. It's sad it took GM over 20 years to go with a company that builds diesel engines.

6. 2 was not a 350 converted to diesel,and was a decent motor. are old farm truck is a 6. 2 with 300k never touched. They had a 5. 7 diesel which was a flop,not the 6. 2.

 

[Yo Hoot]

No GM diesel was converted from a gasser. The 5. 7 block was designed specifically for diesel. Some common parts were used but it was not a gas block converted to a diesel.

 

[fox]

I actually had one of the 5. 7 diesels in a 80 chevy 1/2 ton.

Bought it cheap!! It had 20,000 miles on it , two years and three teardowns later with 57,000 miles I sold it.

The only good thing I have to say about it, is it could get 27 MPG.

It kept breaking the compression ring on #7 cyl.

The third time it was apart, I asked to see it. You could see how far out of place the cylinder was!!!!! Not centered.

Quality control issues.

Few people could see the differences in the blocks compared to a gas version IF you hid the valley.

GM and the idea of building a SHORT stroke diesel, WOW!!!! And 4 bolts sealing each combustion chamber.

 

[CUMMINS01]

No GM diesel was converted from a gasser. The 5. 7 block was designed specifically for diesel. Some common parts were used but it was not a gas block converted to a diesel.

Ya the 5. 7L diesel was converted from gas not the 6. 5 or 6. 2 different block.

 

[WDixon27]

yea a bombed vette rolling coal smoking allcomers and getting high 20mpgs would be schweet

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS99/60824015



I'm getting all giddy picturing a 600+ horsepower diesel Z06 Oo.



CGI = compacted graphite iron. It's some wicked good stuff.



http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/tooling/archives/0903/0903iron.asp

 

[ShaneBoone]

I have had two 1/2 chevy Diesels. The first was 1982, first year for the 6. 2l, When I bought it as a teenager, the local chevy garage guys lifted it and installed a 454 with a low stall. Factory rears at 3. 42 would roll 35's from a stop. I won a lot of light to light races with truck in my town HAHA. I was heart broke when I sold that truck.



Next was a 1988 6. 2l ext cab, I have recently bought it back. It's up on stands with the trans ready to be rebuilt. Great truck 16-18 mph on just about any thing. red, green, black it did not matter. Going to make it a work truck for an employee. 225,000 on it as it sits, I'm sure it will see 300,000. I put 75,000 on that truck when I owned it the first time.



I ripped apart a 1982 1 ton for a gear vendors unit, I believe that engine is a non-turbo 6. 5l, it sitting in the shop. Looking for ways to tell the difference between the 6. 5l and 6. 2l.



I been running dodges for the past several year with great respect for the cummins.



I guess I wrote this to say, Chevy 6. 2l and 6. 5l had a real bad rep. from the 1978-1982 350 diesel conversion. Detroit designed the 6. 2/6. 5 1982-1997, the engines were good diesels. I hope chevy has a better understanding of diesel engine design for these new engines.



Chevy and Ford both offer good light truck diesel motors, Cummins make a great medium duty truck engine that fits well in a DODGE. :-laf

 

[MCummings]

I have one in my 1500 suburban (and my brother in law has one also) which is really a 3/4 ton truck with a higher geared rear end. That's the only difference. As for it being a "very good diesel" I don't think so! Try having SEVEN, yes SEVEN injection pumps in 150000 miles and having to change the FSD or having to get an FSD cooler and relocation kit. I also had to add an extra water separator filter to the fuel system. The 6. 5 was good with the standadyne mechanical injection pump, but a Pain in the A>> with the electronic pump. I would stuff a cummins into that truck in a heartbeat just to get rid of all of the problems with a 6. 5.

I've been through that many VP44's, and just a few less Lift Pumps.



FSD and PMD are the same?



The 6. 5 was problematic. My Grandfather had a van with one and daily (as in everyday) it would shut off once or twice, leaving him coasting down the highway, or right in the middle of an intersection. GM fiddled around long enough with him replacing cheapo parts untill he was out of warrenty, and then kindly gave him the boot.



I'm not a fan of GM's poor quality, and Ford has NO loyalty to their own customers. Just look up the name myustang, and lawsuits. That's right,, Ford is making everybody stop using the word "Mustang", even if they have filled out all teh paperwork to use it.



Ok, Ok, I will stop now. Ramble, ramble.



Merrick

 

[surfbeetle]

Merrick,

Yes, FSD and PMD are the same thing, Fuel Solenoid Driver or Pump Mounted Driver. Yes, I have had it shut off and leave me coasting. Also, GM extended the warranty until 120,000 miles. I had a pump replaced at 119,000 under warranty then it failed at 11 months and 11,000 miles later. So this was also replaced under warranty at 127,000 miles. I then added the additional water separator that has seemed to help.



At this point, this last injection pump with the addition of the additional filter is the only one to make it past 12,000 miles, and now of course, I am out of warranty...

 

[MCummings]

so, by trying to extend the life of something, it will actually cost YOU more. Sounds govermental to me, LOL.



Merrick