Diesel power
05-17-2007, 12:51 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-2006
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 6,050
The Olds 350 diesel is a perfect example. Contrary to popular opinion and conjecture, it was NOT based on the Chevy 350 V8 and did not share a single part with that gasoline engine. Most of the Olds engines failed because the owners did not follow proper maintenance or operating procedures and more than a few failed because their owners tried using gasoline or even off-road kerosene in the engines.
OLDSMOBILE 350 DIESEL
The GM Corporate partners shared the grief associated with its diesel debacle of the early '80s. More often considered an Oldsmobile motor, this converted gasoline engine was used throughout the GM family, and even found its way into top-of-the-line Cadillacs, with disastrous results. Failures were commonplace, often including internal engine components. At the time, mechanics and service writers referred to warrantee repair orders as "A.F.A." - or Automatic Factory Acceptance, and each respective franchise had mountains of repair orders related to the 350 cid diesel.
The GM Corporate partners shared the grief associated with its diesel debacle of the early '80s. More often considered an Oldsmobile motor, this converted gasoline engine was used throughout the GM family, and even found its way into top-of-the-line Cadillacs, with disastrous results. Failures were commonplace, often including internal engine components. At the time, mechanics and service writers referred to warrantee repair orders as "A.F.A." - or Automatic Factory Acceptance, and each respective franchise had mountains of repair orders related to the 350 cid diesel.
05-17-2007, 02:03 PM
#12
Banned
Join Date: 10-14-2005
Location: Rochester,N.Y.
Posts: 9,121
Not to sound ignorant or anything but I'm a little confused. 
I've never owned or cared about diesel vehicles before so humor me. What would the advantage be if diesel engines require more maintenance, produce higher emissions, the fuel doesn't seem burn as clean, and the fuel cost the same as gas? 
Because diesel supposedly gets more mileage to the gallon or something? The mileage per gallon difference can't be that major can it? After seeing this thread this morning I looked at the price of diesel vs. the price of regular to see if diesel was cheaper and that was the advantage or something. At the gas station where I filled up regular unleaded cost $3.09 9/10 per gallon and diesel cost the exact same $3.09 9/10 per gallon so it's definitely not cheaper fuel.
I've never owned or cared about diesel vehicles before so humor me. What would the advantage be if diesel engines require more maintenance, produce higher emissions, the fuel doesn't seem burn as clean, and the fuel cost the same as gas? Because diesel supposedly gets more mileage to the gallon or something? The mileage per gallon difference can't be that major can it? After seeing this thread this morning I looked at the price of diesel vs. the price of regular to see if diesel was cheaper and that was the advantage or something. At the gas station where I filled up regular unleaded cost $3.09 9/10 per gallon and diesel cost the exact same $3.09 9/10 per gallon so it's definitely not cheaper fuel.
05-17-2007, 02:21 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-2006
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 6,050
Diesel engine produce more power and get better mileage than gas engines. That is the big plus.
The downfall is maintenance cost can and usually are higher, but are also done less frequently.
A well built diesel will also run circles longevity wise around a gas enigne.
Diesel engine do cost $$$ though.
The downfall is maintenance cost can and usually are higher, but are also done less frequently.
A well built diesel will also run circles longevity wise around a gas enigne.
Diesel engine do cost $$$ though.
05-17-2007, 02:21 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: 10-14-2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,359
"until the diesel engine is fitted to the HHR you will always be unhappy with either LOW power or fit a larger petrol engine and complain of LOW MPG."
The ironic part of this post is that the HHR already gets great mileage!
30 Highway in a hauler just can't be beat.
The ironic part of this post is that the HHR already gets great mileage!
30 Highway in a hauler just can't be beat.
05-17-2007, 02:35 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-17-2006
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 6,050
A good diesel built the size for the HHR could easily get 35+ highway and have more HP and lot's more TQ (
). I'm sure no one would turn down more TQ........
In a FSC, a Duramax can get 19-20 highway were as a 6.0 might get lucky to see 15. Put them in a tug of war, and the 6.0 will turn into a trailer.
But it's a $5K+ option also. But in a smaller car, it can be less. If you plan on keeping for a long time, worth it. If you drive for a couple of years and sell/trade/lease, not worth it IMO.
Diesel is about 15 cents cheaper here over 87.
). I'm sure no one would turn down more TQ........ In a FSC, a Duramax can get 19-20 highway were as a 6.0 might get lucky to see 15. Put them in a tug of war, and the 6.0 will turn into a trailer.
But it's a $5K+ option also. But in a smaller car, it can be less. If you plan on keeping for a long time, worth it. If you drive for a couple of years and sell/trade/lease, not worth it IMO.
Diesel is about 15 cents cheaper here over 87.
05-17-2007, 03:30 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: 01-20-2006
Location: Centralia, Missouri
Posts: 1,707
I'm with CH on this one. I don't know a lot about diesel engines, but I do have some experience with them. I agree they may have more power and torque, but at the expense of acceleration. Yes I know they can help this by adding a turbo, but to be honest I'm quite happy with my HHR the way it is. Also, as mentioned earlier, the winters are very cold here in North Central Missouri, and I need something that will start when the temp. is 0 or below. Add to that the added maintenance and it's a no deal for me. Call me a stupid American all you wish, but I don't see that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in my case. If it works in Europe, great, doesn't necessarily mean it works here. Just my 
Last edited by mizzouHHR; 05-17-2007 at 05:14 PM.
05-17-2007, 04:04 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-10-2006
Location: Montana
Posts: 163
The arguments saying that Diesels have more power is very debatable more torque, yes for the most part but lets take a look at two GM engines a 6.6L Duramax makes 360hp and 650lbft of torque. The new 6.2L vortec in the Escalades makes 403hp and 417lbft of torque. So we have a smaller naturaly aspirated gas making more power than the bigger forced air diesel. In my experience gas engines almost always have more HP than Diesels turbo or not. Both the 6.2 and the 6.6 get about the same mpg from what I've seen and heard from customers here at the dealership. No arguments about longevity though a diesel can out last a gas engine a couple times over although gas engines seem to last a lot longer these days.
to the site thegrot!!!
05-17-2007, 06:53 PM
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: 12-30-2006
Location: Lower Alabama
Posts: 661
Reply to Honestblues
"maybe GM think you Americans are ALL stupid" This was NOT a personal derogatory comment against Americans but a sarcastic slight at GM for NOT considering using a good diesel in the "very nice " HHR ,I think you looked at the comment and didnt see it in the context it was meant (easy done) I run a PT cruiser 2.2 CRD Turbo (service interval every 12,000 miles) at the moment but would change it in a jiff if a RHD diesel HHR was available in Europe, now Chrysler has been sold on.
I have just got back from Las Vegas where there was more HHRs than PT Cruisers being driven, so maybe there is even more people who prefer retro vehicle shape, although I think the guy that designed the PT Cruiser also had a hand in the HHR planning as well?????????
"maybe GM think you Americans are ALL stupid" This was NOT a personal derogatory comment against Americans but a sarcastic slight at GM for NOT considering using a good diesel in the "very nice " HHR ,I think you looked at the comment and didnt see it in the context it was meant (easy done) I run a PT cruiser 2.2 CRD Turbo (service interval every 12,000 miles) at the moment but would change it in a jiff if a RHD diesel HHR was available in Europe, now Chrysler has been sold on.
I have just got back from Las Vegas where there was more HHRs than PT Cruisers being driven, so maybe there is even more people who prefer retro vehicle shape, although I think the guy that designed the PT Cruiser also had a hand in the HHR planning as well?????????
