(first posted 4/4/2013. It’s an example of CC offering alternate points of view, in this case to our Olds 5.7 L V8 Diesel Deadly Sin Post)
My Grand Dad always had a beater, for everyday driving, and a good car, which he bought new and brought out only on special occasions. Once, he said he’d buy a new car when he retired and give his current garage queen, a 1966 Chrysler sedan, to my Dad. In 1977, Grand Dad did retire, and Dad held him to his word. To replace the Chrysler, he headed down to Carter Chevrolet-Olds and placed an order for what is oft regarded today as one of General Motors’ biggest blunders: a 1978 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with the then-new 350 cid LF9 V8 diesel engine.
The Delta 88 4-door sedan was the most popular 1978 Olds to be ordered with the LF9 diesel. Much like the base-model 1966 Chrysler, the 1978 Oldsmobile Delta 88 was advertised as more car for not much more money than “lesser” automobiles. Undoubtedly this appealed to Grand Dad’s innate frugality, as it still allowed him to have an upscale, but not ostentatious, full-size automobile.
Aside from the special engine, Grand Dad had ordered his Olds equipped in pretty much the same way as his Chrysler. Both were finished in metallic maroon, his favorite color. Inside, both had an AM radio but no other optional power or comfort accessories. The Olds came with a rear window defroster, which I believe was part of the upgrade to the larger alternator that was mandatory with the diesel.
At the time, rising gas prices were certainly of concern, as were the Rube Goldberg-style emissions controls that strangled the gasoline engines of the day. On paper, the diesel engine looked to be a godsend: Advertised fuel economy for the LF9 was head-and-shoulders above the other engine choices, even with a three-speed, non-lockup automatic transmission. Today, the performance figures of the LF9 (rated at 120 hp) would be considered laughable, but at the time they bested the contemporary European diesels on the market.
(Image source: Popular Mechanics, Sept. 1978, via Google Books)
Early buyers were initially very pleased with their purchase. A survey of 1,000 Olds diesel buyers, published by Popular Mechanics in September 1978, reported that 97.4% said they would buy another Olds diesel! Also, owners were actually getting fuel mileage that came close to the EPA numbers. Then came the inevitable breakdowns. The engine quickly garnered a bad reputation as a lemon, and eventually became the poster child for why America ultimately rejected diesel passenger vehicles. So what went wrong?
It’s a common misconception that the Oldsmobile LF9 diesel was simply a 350 small block hastily jerry-rigged to run on diesel fuel. This misconception came about because the locations of cylinder-head bolts and some other critical dimensions were identical to the gas-fed small block so that both blocks could be machined on the same equipment during manufacture.
(Image source: http://www.robertpowersmotorsports.com)
The LF9 engine block was a unique casting with extra reinforcement; the entire reciprocating assembly also was unique, with all its components heavy-duty. The larger, 3-inch-diameter main bearing journals it used in place of the normal 2.5″ journals were the same as in a big block; however, its commonalities with the garden-variety small block made it possible to bolt gasoline-engine heads onto the LF9 block, and (along with other modifications) convert it into a gas engine.
While some industrious engine builders have overcome the technical hurdles to accomplish this, the rework costs make it impractical for all but maximum-performance applications. A converted LF9 can be generously over-bored and built for higher power than a regular small block without grenading in racing applications.
Diesels are very sensitive to water contamination in the fuel system. Diesel fuel contaminated with water results in much higher-than-normal combustion pressure–high enough to blow head gaskets and snap head bolts. It is true that the LF9 head bolts were under-designed, especially on those built prior to MY 1981. The problem was exacerbated by improperly trained dealership mechanics who had to service this engine. When changing a blown head gasket, they typically would just replace any snapped head bolts, just as they would on a gas-powered GM V8. However, the diesel used “torque-to-yield” head bolts that required the entire set to be replaced when changing a head gasket. Otherwise, more head bolts were bound to fail, and the vehicle would soon be back in the shop in need of another head gasket.
Unfortunately, as a cost-cutting measure GM did not outfit their diesel cars with a proper water-separating fuel filter. A “water in fuel” (WIF) sensor was installed in the fuel tank, as well as a warning light on the dashboard. In the Delta 88 the WIF lamp would have been located in the panel above the HVAC controls. The WIF warning lamp was GM’s work-around for the lack of a proper filter. Owners ignored this warning light at their (and their vehicles’) peril. Compounding the problem, some well-meaning owners simply added “dry gas” (alcohol) to the fuel tank when the WIF light came on instead of having the fuel tank drained. Alcohol is incompatible with diesel fuel-injection systems and ruins the seals in the injection pump.
In my memory, the only times Grand Dad actually drove his Olds were on the way to my brother’s birthday party every August, to his annual summer visit to his brother in Maine, and (begrudgingly) during a short stint one winter, when his beater needed repairs. I remember him keeping the block heater plugged in to ensure there wouldn’t be any starting problems in the cold weather. It was the only time that block heater was used.
I also recall Grand Dad briefly putting the Olds up for sale. He had somehow convinced himself that he wanted a Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. It wasn’t for sale very long, either because the only interested parties were tire-kickers that wanted to lowball him on price, or because after my Dad informed him that the turbo-bird drank premium gas, he didn’t want one after all.
After Grand Dad passed away, in 1989, my Dad inherited the Olds. It became a regular summer driver in our household, but remained stored safely away from winter weather and the ensuing road salt. I’ve personally logged a fair bit of time in the driver’s seat. In 1999, the year I graduated from school and started my full-time career, I borrowed the Olds for most of the driving season. Defying the odds (considering its poor reputation and the over 130,000 miles on the odometer), the original power plant still resides underhood in relatively original condition (including head gaskets!) That this car is still with us today, and hasn’t exhibited most of the usual maladies these engines were known for, can be credited to a combination of good maintenance practices and good fortune.
Early production cars didn’t even get the water-in-fuel sensor, so a recall was issued to retrofit it. Some time after receiving his new car, Grand Dad was notified of the recall notice. When he went to the dealer to have the WIF sensor recall applied, he was told that it was no longer being performed, and instead they would install a fuel filter. In reality, they were probably being lazy; the recall procedure involved draining and removing the fuel tank to install the sensor and disassembling a fair amount of the dashboard to install the WIF warning lamp.
What the shop actually installed–a big blue canister visible in the engine compartment–is the kind of large diesel-fuel filter typically found on commercial trucks. There is a petcock at the bottom for periodically draining off any water it has collected. I attribute the uncharacteristic longevity of our Olds to this filter as much as anything else.
Another common problem with these engines involved their propensity to eat camshafts and crankshafts. In both cases, that could be avoided by using the correct diesel-rated crankcase oil and changing it promptly at the prescribed 3,000 mile intervals (or preferably sooner). The first-gen used a flat tappet camshaft, but the valve spring pressures were considerably higher than would be typical for stock gasoline engines. Additionally, the crankshaft bearing material was designed for use with diesel-rated oil only. If you slacked off on the oil change interval, and trusted your car to whatever oil the local monkey-lube installed, valve train and/or bearing failure was inevitable. Ultimately, GM made the engine more tolerant of typical owners’ maintenance habits: The second-gen LF9 diesels received roller cams and revised bearings, which extended their service interval to 5,000 miles and permitted the use of non-diesel-rated oil.
This particular car has enjoyed every-2,000-miles oil changes with diesel-rated 30W oil since it was new. The rockers wore out and needed replacement once, but the rest of the valve train is original. Naturally, there have been other repairs over the years. For instance, one of the cylinder heads developed an external crack in the water jacket and my dad, who figured he had nothing to lose, simply welded the crack shut, with the head still on the car. It worked!
Another time, one of the plastic T-fittings on the fuel return lines cracked. Diesel fuel spraying on the exhaust manifold resulted in billowing white smoke from under the hood; fortunately, it didn’t ignite. The Stanadyne fuel injection pump has required two overhauls, and the injectors one. Presently, the car has a small fuel-system leak somewhere, probably just a cracked rubber fuel line, that causes the pump to lose prime after sitting. It requires lots of cranking to re-prime the system before the engine clatters to life.
In typical fashion, GM rushed the LF9 engine to market with a combination of underdevelopment, beancounterism, and lack of dealership-mechanic training. After weathering a barrage of bad press from reviewers and purchasers during the engine’s first few years, they cancelled production despite finally having gotten most of the bugs worked out. Of course, by the mid-80s, gas prices had fallen, there were government threats to more closely regulate diesel passenger-car emissions and the LF9 had developed a bad and seemingly unshakable reputation. It had basically become unsalable.
If only GM had installed a proper fuel filter, made some of the second-gen improvements up front, and taken the time to properly train their dealership mechanics in servicing the engine. No, they’re not for everybody–the LF9 was still an old-school diesel with no turbo to give it more power, nor electronic fuel injection to quiet it down–both of which are ubiquitous on moderns diesels–but still, I think diesels could have had a future in full-size American sedans. There was already an established niche market for them among European-car buyers, who were turned off only by the lack of dealer support for their imports.
Based partly on our own favorable experience with Grand Dad’s Olds, my family got hooked on the economy and low maintenance costs of diesel power. We’ve since owned several VW diesels, GM 6.2-liter diesels, a Cummins-powered Dodge and a Chevy Duramax. If diesel power had continued to be an option in domestic full-size sedans, this list probably would be even longer.
(Most pictures for this article not taken by my Dad were sourced from oldcarbrochures.com)
Related reading:
Automotive History: 1978 Oldsmobile 5.7L Diesel V8 – GM’s Deadly Sin #34 – Premature Injeculation
I encountered a couple of these diesels back in 1978 when I visited the Transport Canada certification lab on a cold January morning. It was well below 0 deg. Farenheit (-18 deg. C).
The technician told me they had been unable to start either car for many days due to the cold, and that they would probably have to bring them inside for a couple of days to have any chance of starting them.
Extreme cold causes diesel fuel to gel to the point where it’s very difficult to pump. Add a battery weakened by the cold, and a bit of water in the fuel, and you may as well wait for spring.
I’m guessing that the Transport Canada lab in question is in Ottawa. I would probably have a different opinion of diesels if I lived in Ottawa. I was working there for 4 months one winter. The office building where I worked had no outside plug for the block heater in my VW. During a cold snap (-40 degrees!) I burned out all 4 glow plugs trying to start it. I had to take the bus until my dad paid me a visit with some tools and a new set of glowplugs so I could change them.
The Olds diesels actually had two batteries, one in each front corner. In the winter months, the refineries produce a different “winter blend” of diesel that is more resistant to gelling. It sounds like the Transport Canada guys weren’t running winter diesel and/or didn’t plug in the block heater.
We have never driven our Olds when it was cold enough to need it, but I always plug in my vehicle if the weather forecast is for -15C or colder. I have once started my Cummins at -40 dead cold, but it was very hard on it.
Back in the early 80s, my brother in law would warn people against buying diesel from little neighborhood gas stations, but to go to truckstops where they sold large volumes of diesel. The reason being the winter/summer blending that you mention. The refineries start delivering winter blend in the fall, but for a sleepy low-diesel-volume station, you have no idea how old the fuel might be that you are actually pumping into your tank.
If in doubt, you can make your own “winter” diesel by adding about 15% K1 kerosene to regular diesel fuel.
During the approximately seventeen minutes my parents considered buying a Mercedes, the salesman waved away cold-start concerns by saying to just add a gallon of regular gasoline. That advice sounds ungood to me, though I don’t know just how ungood it is.
Adding up to 20% premium gasoline (“super benzine”, leaded), that’s what I remember from my younger years.
I notice that you didn’t specify Fahrenheit or Celsius, but -40 is the one temperature for which you don’t need to! 🙂
Ottawa is the second coldest national capital. Coldest: Ulan Bator, Mongolia.
Yep, here in Minnesota diesels of all sorts were notoriously unreliable starters in the winter. Things have improved a lot over the years, but even today when it gets really cold it’s common to see diesels stalled alongside the road.
I’m sorry. This has nothing to do with diesel Oldsmobiles. I am asking if anyone can give me some info about my 1978 Oldsmobile Delta 88 Royale. I have owned 4 Oldsmobiles from the ’70’s. On every Olds, I was able to remove the key from the ignition with the engine running. My Olds has under 50,000 original miles. I was stopped by Canada’s Finest (RCMP). The second the officer asked for my insurance, I pulled my key out to unlock the glovebox. With that, the officer snatched my keys from me and impounded my car for “Faulty Ignition”. That cost almost $400. That was my son and myselfs grocery money for the entire month. Now, there is a complete mechanical inspection ordered on my car just because I can take the key out while running.
I contacted GM, and they were no help. They claim that they have thrown out all records/data sheets for all Oldsmobiles. I need someone to point me to someone who can verify that my car was indeed designed to take the key out while running.
I have Googled this for 3 weeks, and the closest I can come is some 1999-2003 models had a factory defect that allowed a person to take the key out while engine is “on”. I came across many articles with people saying they could take the key out on their 1970’s Olds. Problem is, I need factory documentation to fight this in court.
I cannot believe GM “Threw out” all Oldsmobile data. I cannot afford the inspection the nice officer gave me. I am fighting this tooth and nail, but why is there no info anywhere on “1978 Oldsmobile Key Pull-out option”? I talked with other classic Olds owners, and they could all take the key out while running. They believe it was an option offered by GM called “Courtesy Ignition”.
Why can I find absoutely no data on this? Google seems to only give results for 2000+ models.
I will lose this beauty to the scrapyard if I cannot come up with documentation saying my car was designed to take the key out while running. Can anyone point me in a direction to get some data on my car? I cannot afford a lawyer, so I will be representing myself in court.
Any help or tips would be greatly appreciated!
Dave Linge: I’ve turned your question into a post asking our readers. It and all the comments to it are here (click on this following link): https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/qotd-should-the-ignition-key-to-my-1978-olds-88-be-removable-while-the-engine-is-running/
There’s already over 40 comments there.
An excellent piece on a rare car. It’s a shame that Grandad did not choose a 78 Newport, then we would know if your family’s great care and maintenance practices could have kept a Lean Burn running well. 🙂
I have read stories like this before, of certain people who really watched and maintained these Olds diesels, and who swore by them as being great cars. Unfortunately, most owners are not like your family.
My sister is married to a farmer and they have had more diesels than I can count, including 4 or 5 VWs of various kinds, Ford and Dodge pickups, and now even a 2005 Jeep Liberty. The Jeep, unfortunately, just racked up an eye-popping bill for a new Turbo. Diesels are not for everyone, but some people try one and never go back.
I always thought that the 77-79 Olds 88 was the best looking of that whole generation of B body, by a wide margin. One like this, without the vinyl roof and all of the trim bits, looks beautiful. I have never seen one of those dashes without a/c vents. One more thing – If you will let me know where the car is, I will volunteer to come and scrub those whitewalls! 🙂
Being a typical american I have always been a fan of diesel power without actually owning one. I can see from your history here that I wouldn’t have had the patience or resources (barracks life holds you back) to own one. That doesn’t keep me from eyeballing the 6.2/6.5 and thinking there might have been a chance there.
Doubt they will ever be really popular here because, as I say, I think I behave typically. Wife upset with the good repair history of my S10. She would really flip out if I had an eye searing turbo repair.
Very good article that filled in some holes for me.
Avoid the 6.2 get a 6.5 or Duramax. Or a 4.3V6 if you want an old car.
Why not the 6.2? We have had two 6.2’s and thought they were great, just gutless. I heard lots of bad things about the 6.5 injection system, so I avoided those and bought my Cummins 12-valve instead. My dad now has a 2006 Duramax. I think the 2nd gen Duramax came out for 2005. Stay away from the 1st gen Duramax.
I should have said the 5.7 which they put in the trucks before the 6.2.
I have seen good luck with most all truck diesels, GM, Ford, Cummins with the exception of the 6.0 Ford.
http://www.62-65-dieselpage.com/
http://www.thedieselpage.com/62book.htm
That’s a good go-to site for GM truck diesels.
I know the first gen Duramax had a lot of problems with head gaskets and injectors.
The 1st gen Duramax had the injectors under the valvecovers. The injector bodies were prone to crack and leak. If they had been external to the engine the fuel would leak onto the ground, and you could see the problem and know to fix it. Being inside the engine, the leaking fuel winds-up in the crankcase, diluting the oil and leading to bearing failure. I’m not sure if they were able to redesign the injectors to stop the problem.
I would not own any Ford diesel. Every reference I’ve seen to the Powerstroke engines is in regards to something expensive breaking.
I love my Cummins 12-valve. The 24-valves are supposed to be good too, but you should install a fuel pressure gauge. If the fuel lift pump dies, it will take out the injection pump as well. That is their “Achille’s heel”.
The 7.3 Turbo Diesel Powerstrokes from the early nineties to 2003 aren’t too bad. The Cummins is the best of the lot I would agree.
That lift pump resides, get this, behind the power steering pump. A new one will set you back $2000 +.
Great article! Learned something about the Diesel, something I very much wanted in the early 80’s. A women I worked with had an 81 98 Diesel, drove it a couple of times once to take her home after a freek snowstorm hit. The power delivery to wheels was first rate with nary a slip. They moved off before the car was a year old. Later they told me they had it converted to a gas burner. They claimed the car would get 33 mpg HWY. So much better than my 79 Marquis which usually was 19 or 20 HWY.
Thank you for a very informative article. Like most people I thought GM’s diesel of that era was a gas 350 slightly reworked.
In the early eighties I caught a ride with a co-workers brother that had a Chevrolet wagon with I’m assuming the same 350 diesel engine. My memory of that ride was that the engine was quite a bit quieter that I thought it would be.
Nice article about a car I knew nothing about. A pretty unlikely result from a pretty unlikely car, if only our 1974 Vega had been as durable.
Love that fuel filter, and the old Ontario tourism sticker (I have that one on my camper trailer)
And what kind of canoe is that in the background? I’ve got plans for a curbside canoe article this year…
Thanks Doug. I figured someone would ask about the moped in the background, not the canoe. 🙂
It’s a canvas-covered wooden canoe. My grandparents bought it for my dad when he was fairly young, to dissuade him from building a speedboat from some plans he had. They were afraid he was going to kill himself with the speedboat. When I was in highschool, I spent the better part of a summer refurbishing the canoe.
I figured it was a wood-canvas, I have one as well, an early 60’s Huron/Bastien
What kind is yours?
I don’t know. My dad might remember. I’ll have to get back to you.
He says it’s a Peterborough.
Glad to finally see an article that does not damn the LF9 to hell. Well done!
Also, your Delta could use a good polishing/waxing!
“Also, your Delta could use a good polishing/waxing!”
With that soft GM lacquer paint, it is likely too late. That stuff looked beautiful in the showroom, but did not withstand age or weather as well as the enamels that everyone else used then. GM finally made the switch some time in the 80s.
Also that color is very much like that on a 78 Cadillac that an aunt and uncle owned. A little more of an oxblood than a typical maroon. The Cadillac had a leather interior that was virtually an exact match to the paint.
you’d be surprised at how well it’ll polish out. I took my weatherbeaten and faded out ’77 Chevelle from the rough as a cob paint to actually having a decent shine, just from wetsanding it with 2,000 grit paper and then buffed it out with some ever finer polishing compounds.
It even turned closer to its original metallic green than silver. I wouldn’t recommend doing it too often, as it is hell on the paint, but once every 30 years is ok and then keeping it waxed once a month/quarter helps as well.
Yes the paint is still shite compared to a BC/CC job but it is is better than you think.
I always thought the old lacquer paints buffed out nicer than modern clear coats. I buffed out a ’60 Chevy that was in worse shape than the feature car and it turned out beautiful. It was a lot harder to keep them looking nice though. I waxed at least 4 times per year back then.
On that note, I wonder if black cars now all have clear coats? My ’98 Explorer and ’00 4Runner didn’t.
Sadly the car is in desperate need of a repaint. Wax will not bring it back because that’s not just oxidized paint, there is grey primer showing through. 🙁
Speaking of paint, we noticed that the bolts that hold the front-end together are painted light blue, although our Olds is maroon. We suspect that, because this was an early production diesel, they were pulling the diesel-equipped cars off to the side to install the engines, and removing the front clip before lowering the engine into the frame. Our front-end hardware got mixed-up with a blue car that was also getting the diesel.
I never heard of the front end being removed to install diesel, AFAIK, they went down the line like every other car.
But more to the point of the blue bolts, I am almost certain that if you check, those bolts are METRIC. In the late 1970s when metric bolts started to be introduced, GM painted many of the bolts blue to differentiate.
http://books.google.com/books?id=auMDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=blue+metric+bolts+gm&source=bl&ots=0Vc1ALPPxu&sig=w2U3iW9kk_ikX76iYjpY9qhVdt8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NbFdUcaVBMi3ywGj2oGYAw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=blue%20metric%20bolts%20gm&f=false
Hopefully this article link works. It is an interview with Paul King, a GM engineer at the time that discusses the use of blue metric bolts on the B body cars. The Chevette was the first GM all metric car, but the B body became the platform for a major push to introduce metric into car systems.
This is the kind of great info that only insiders will normally know.
The link worked. Thanks! That sounds very plausible.
The bolts are blue because they are metric. When the B bodies were introduced Chev and I think Pontiac used SAE threads on body bolts while Buick and Olds used metric and the metric bolts were blue to identify them.
I’m pretty sure GM actually called that interior color “Oxblood.” My de Ville was that interior color.
A very informative article. You would think that with the input of the Detroit Diesel Division they would have got it right from the beginning.
Could you say what the usual fuel mileage is?
At the time, DD was not manufacturing anything for a passenger car/light truck application, their diesels were for commercial applications, buses, trains and the like. It probably would have made sense to have had them design it, and eventually they did develop the 6.2 and eventual diesels, but the time frame for introduction dictated the development in house. Part of the problem was the too heavily reliance on Stanadyne for design input, many of the problems that the 5.7s had were traced to poor performance of their products. As many have said, the root of the problem was the lack of a proper water filter. Installing one would have eliminated a good bit of them secondary problems as they would not have surfaced in the first place.
Mileage was pretty good, city experience was often 18-22 while highway mid 20s to upper 20s. Some of the later diesels with overdrive transmissions would cross 30.
I have to apologize somewhat for the pictures. I had wanted to get together with my dad to take some nice pictures of the car (after first taking it to the car wash!). Unfortunately that didn’t happen, and I didn’t want to put-off this article any longer waiting for pictures.
My dad took these pictures as he was prepping the car to put it away for winter storage. Since it was trapped behind their house-trailer, he couldn’t even drive it across the road to get some pictures with the lake in the background.
I enjoyed reading that Doug, thanks. Had no idea about the fuel filter or the WIF sensor and warning lamp retrofits. These stories are always so much better when there is some personal experience behind them.
I remember vividly how enthusiastic the German magazine auto, motor und sport was over this car. A big Ami, with decent fuel economy; what a revelation. They gushed over it, as well as a test of a later version. I suspect more than a few of these were sold over there.
Same thing in neighbouring France, where I remember TV journalists waxing lyrical about it: at last you could buy a fine, big US car with all the niceties attached to it (besides, the postwar myth of “la belle Américaine” was still very much alive then) without having to cry every time you drive off the gas station. Detroit iron and American glitz for a Peugeot-like gas budget, wow! Okay, a big Peugeot, but still.
At some point I even tried to talk my dad into buying one, but to no avail. I think the whole idea of buying a US car was quite simpy alien to many people in France if not in Europe at large at that time (give or take some very real differences between nations, still observable today). Yet, for a few years, you could see some of these Olds around. Never saw a wagon, though, only sedans. They did look good. Still do! Too bad they were killed by the lack of mechanical improvement and of dealership support, because the starting concept wasn’t so bad. Oh well, another tale of missed transatlantic opportunity… Great article!
I was with Oldsmobile during these years and remember them well. There is a lot of truth to the statement that the dealership personnel probably contributed significantly to the problems of the diesel. As I look back, I basically split the problem into 3 ways 1/3 GM not installing the water separator, 1/3 bad fuel in the market, 1/3 owner driven trouble. At the dealership, we were fortunate to have a tech that had experience working on RVs, we would periodically get the GMC Motorhomes in since they were Toronado drivetrains. He was also experienced with diesels and became a great resource during this time. We figured out the problems with these engines fairly early on and being proactive, we made the decision to offer water filter installations at cost to service customers, practically insisted on it, so by 1980 our warranty work on the diesels dropped by 2/3 or more. Sure GM reimbursed for warranty work (at a lesser rate than paid work) but it opened up the bays for regular paid work and made a bad situation better.
Part of the problem with all of this was of course we all know why diesels were installed in the first place for economy reasons, but also because GM wanted to minimize the diesel experience on the customer. By the late 1970s, drivers had become accustomed to the “gas and go” driving mentality and most automakers stressed the carefree driving aspects of their cars. You wonder why automakers put idiot lights instead of gauges in a lot of cars, especially higher end cars the auto makers wanted to divorce the driver from the nuisance of car management and isolate the driver in bliss. Part of the concern at GM with the diesel was public acceptance. Yes Mercedes had their diesels, but then, Mercedes was still a niche (but growing) player in the market and Mercedes owners were more accustomed to diesels and their driving habits and requirements. The idea was to sell the diesel as a seamless replacement for the gasoline motor. Everything would be so easy, not to worry, owning and driving a diesel was no more difficult than owning a regular gasoline vehicle. So there was little push to inform owners of what they were getting into beyond advertising the benefits of the diesel.
People would ignore the water in fuel light, people would ignore the WAIT light on the dashboard and try to start their cars immediately, people would not change the oil frequently enough, the usual typical laziness of the average American driver. It was a Catch-22.
Some of the problem as the cars began to accumulate mileage (usually 50K or more) was that they would develop timing chain slack that would cause the injection pump to gradually fire later and later causing the pinging and detonation problems that caused the “lifting” of the head and the gasket separation. The torque to yield bolts was a problem but more collateral damage than a primary concern. Another area that was a major concern were the glow plugs. The original pencil injectors were prone to failure and would leak sometimes contaminating the tips of the plugs. Also, when one or more glow plugs failed, owners would ruin starters and even engines with continual starting and/or lack of proper warm up. The original Roosamaster pumps were fitted with a plastic collar that was problem to failure. It was later retrofitted with a steel collar. That was a design problem from Stanadyne and a problem that showed up on non GM applications as well.
As I reflect on the whole experience, I basically look at it like this: my own design philosophy in mechanics is based on the KISS principle “KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID” as wonderfully intelligent the engineers might be, you have to remember that most people don’t care about the product at the level that you do. So you have to build in a certain idiot factor. The GM diesels suffered from various woes, it was a marginal design but in the hands of an experienced diesel operator can perform well, but a marginal design will be made worse in the hands of an ill-equipped ill-concerned owner and maintenance staff. That is a recipe for disaster, which of course occurred. Many Oldsmobile dealers eventually became the primary repair facilities for diesel cars as problems arose. Of course Oldsmobile was the launch brand for the diesel, but the motor eventually spread to every other make. Unfortunately while Oldsmobile dealers did a decent job of trying to keep up, the other makes did not. You would hear of Chevrolet dealers simply refusing to service diesel vehicles at all. It was a bad situation made worse by compounding of the problem.
The later model engines got a lot better, the pencil injectors were replaced with poppets, the glow plugs were improved, fuel was improved, the new DX block came out, but of course was too late. The later model 4.3V6 diesels were much better than the 5.7, I drove an 83 Olds Ciera coupe with the 4.3V6 diesel for some time with little or no trouble. But of course by 1983, fuel prices began to stabilize and the diesel reputation was already written on the wall.
> We figured out the problems with these engines fairly early on and being proactive, we made the decision to offer water filter installations at cost to service customers, practically insisted on it, so by 1980 our warranty work on the diesels dropped by 2/3 or more. Sure GM reimbursed for warranty work (at a lesser rate than paid work) but it opened up the bays for regular paid work and made a bad situation better.
Great insight into what the dealerships had to put up with. Hats off to you sir, for looking our for the customer’s best interest foremost. Your comment also confirms what I’ve said many times, typical consumers are LAZY about maintaining their things, then blame poor quality product when the thing breaks.
How many of these did you see come back because the shaft that drives both the oil pump and vacuum pump had failed, causing engine death from no oil pressure? I heard that was a problem for cars equipped with the vacuum pump.
I can’t remember to be honest now, it was 35 years ago.
My point was less trying to mitigate what was a marginal design, but more so that, as is often the gas in life, aggravating secondary circumstances often compound a problem causing it to snowball. Simply compare the American car owner vs. then Mercedes (diesel) car owner of the day. GM’s sin was partly developing a marginal product (but even marginal products often run well when the owner understands and compensates for the quirks like we all do with our preferences) but also marketing it as basically a gasoline-like experience. Our dealership was smaller and family owned so the interest in fixing the problem was genuine as well as having a financial benefit. As is the case with many automotive shops, a truly dedicated owner operator who works onsite will give you the best service. Truck owners with diesels are a different breed. While most truck diesels did not suffer as much as the early 5.7 Olds, they were far from trouble free and often quite expensive to maintain and repair. The difference? Well truck owners have come to expect that as a way of life of diesel ownerships and most diesel truck owners/drivers are proactive about their vehicles. Fleet vehicles often have dedicated staff that look after the vehicles, even if the operators themselves are ignorant. Mercedes diesel owners were often early adapter types back in the day. They knew what they were getting into when they bought into the experience. It is all about perception. It reminds me of the old phrase “perception is reality.” You can say the color blue and someone else may agree, but you cannot really explain what it is. What is ironic, is that a 1978 Olds Delta 88 with the 350 Rocket engine, WAS a lazy man’s vehicle, especially one that was less equipped. The Olds engine was pretty much sorted out, HEI made tune-ups less frequent, a breeze, and virtually eliminated ignition related drivability, THM350 was a stout basic transmission, and downsized RWD B Body platform was as reliably basic as it gets. Today’s car are reliable in addition to be designed and built better, but the technology has higher tolerance levels. Today’s diesels are equipped to deal with many of the problems that these early diesels experienced.
A little advice from someone who has dealt with diesels for years: don’t buy them used unless you have detailed records. Diesels require MORE, yes, MORE maintenance than gasoline engines. I’d highly suggest a new diesel and then drive it into the ground, should you actually need a diesel. As I have said before, sure, diesels are fun and can save fuel but the inevitable hit of a turbo or an CRDi pump means that any savings on fuel will vapourise instantly.
The reason this particular example even exists was that it had good service. We had many of these cars come into our shop in that era and the ones with problems had not had the oil changed at the 5000 km interval and most had gasoline engine oil in them. For this reason, most barely went beyond the warranty period. The GM mechanics across the road had obviously never read the service manual and their head gasket jobs rarely lasted long. We simply pulled the diesel and put a gas motor in. This is what most places did, in fact.
The 350 diesel was typical GM: not enough testing, nickel and diming what was basically a good design and then denying there was a problem when it happened. The later ones with the roller lifters were much better but by then it was too late. The reputation of diesels was shot in America.
CraiginNC: Thank you for your insider’s perspective on this engine. I thoroughly enjoyed your comments. In addition to the fuel oil/water separator, I kind of wonder about the quality of Number 2 diesel back in that tme period as compared to today. I’m not thinking so much the removal of sulphur so much, rather, the actual fitlering of water and other contaminants in the fuel. I’m surprised that the Olds Diesel did not 4 bolt main bearing caps in looking at that picture of the bottom end. And I’d be curious to know if Olds employed forged connecting rods or went with the cheaper cast iron rods.
BigOldChryslers: Thank you for this wonderful trip down memory lane when these cars were once to be found everywhere. One of my old Coast Guard senior bosses owned a 79 Cutlass Supreme and it too suffered from some kind of issue, which I have long forgotten what it actually was. I do recall he had the injector pump sent out to be worked on and for some reason I believe it was a local truck repair shop and not the local Olds dealer. The engine itself reminded us young boat mechanics of the Cat 3208’s that powered our 32 foot patrol boats, both engines being naturally aspirated V-8’s as compared to the bigger Cummins VT903M engines in our 41’s. In fact, they even sounded similar, although I must say the Cat’s never smoked like the Olds 350 Diesel did!
So typical of GM. Be on the cutting edge of design, but bowing to the bean counters by not sourcing the best head bolts, or skimping on the fuel filtering system. A shame, really. If GM had someone in charge as forceful and dynamic as a Ferdinand Piech, that design would have been refined to the nth degree and would have been a success. Look at what VW did with the old Rabbit diesel; first turbocharging, then intercooling it and finally adding direct injection. Who knows? Maybe Olds would have survived as GM’s Diesel Division, in competition with Germany’s best diesel auto makers…..
I remember the wording the brouchure as almost a warning like Smokey Bear:
“Only YOU can decide if a diesel is right for you”
Hey, its not like a regular car….pay attention.
Ultimately, GM underestimated (under-budgeted?) what it would take to introduce what was a new technology for most Americans. The failure was obviously at various levels, but without ragging on, it’s clear that GM was at fault for not considering more thoroughly the various aspects of what would be the undoing of the 5.7 diesel.
It tends to mirror a number of similar failures at GM during the seventies and eighties, such as the Vega engine, the V8-6-4, the HT4100, undersized metric-THMs, …need I go on?
None of the projects was given adequate time to be fully developed and proven. It gave GM a rep for introducing new technology that was junk, or had to be improved by them at the expense of the early adopters, who often fled never to buy GM again.
These are all GM Deadly Sins, that eroded the company’s image, reputation and buyer base, and all materially contributed to GM fall.
If they had done their homework, none of these needed to happen.
I had no idea you could keep one of these GM diesels going for long. The few folks I knew who bought one at the time got rid of it in short order, with one exception. I had a co-worker whose husband bought a new Olds 98 diesel for her to use for a short commute. My recollection is that it was a dark blue two-door sedan with a black vinyl top, very handsome car with a posh interior. They were meticulous in maintaining everything they owned and cars were no exception
Clearly the dealerships here in SoCal must not have had the expertise to deal with these car because the 98 began giving trouble the first week she drove it to work and from then on it was in and out of the dealership with no resolution of the problems. The car became a running joke in the office (she usually began the jokes). They persistently tried to make the car work for them – after all it was only to be driven about 10 miles a day and for some little trips on the week-ends – and kept it for a few years until the engine did a complete meltdown at very low mileage. GM offered to switch out the engine for a non-diesel but they refused, and the dealer bought it back. They promptly bought a new Cressida and were never to buy another American car.
I have a 1983 Olds Cutlass Supreme 2dr with the 4.3L diesel and 72000 original miles. Bought it in 2009 from the second owner. I do not drive it much, but when I do take her out, she doesn’t miss a beat. Out on the highway, I routinely get 35MPG. Not bad for a 31 year old car. I keep it maintained, and have an excellent diesel mechanic. The only thing I’ve done to it is replace the water pump and convert the AC to R134a. Previous owner had he injection pump rebuilt just before I bought it.
Love the “diesel” hood ornament, says it all.
I can’t remember the last time I saw any 1978 Olds diesel that still ran. The mileage estimates are interesting. The basic 105 Hp 231 V6 actually rates worse than the step up 110 Hp Olds 260 V8 for the city rating and both get the same on the highway. I’m sure this was a product of rear gearing with the 231 using a 2.73 whereas the 260 used a 2.56. The 231 also got breathing and other refinements in 1979 that improves it’s MPG some. I understand the diesel actually could get close to 30 on the open road going a steady 55 MPH.
I’ve often wondered how much of it was poor design, and how much was poor care and feeding. Looks like 2/3s is poor owner education, and a 1/3 just marginal design.
I’ve tossed around the idea of finding one and using it as my daily driver, but the cost of diesel makes it not very economical.
That is about right, based on my reflection. Adding the water separator as was done to the subject car probably would have eliminated more than half of the problems. Insisting on regular oil changes, even by offering maintenance coupons, would have brought the cars into the dealer on a regular basis and problems would have been detected and rectified. The T-2-Y bolts were a problem but were more of a byproduct of the bad environment rather than a causation. Bad fuel is going to cause problems in any vehicle to some degree. As I said above, GM sold the diesel experience as a seamless experience and went out of their way to make the owners feel that owning a diesel was no more difficult than a gasoline car. While that was good initially to build public trust in the technology, it had the unintended consequence of compounding the already laissez-faire approach to ownership that plagued many people. So you take a marginal product and it turned into a nightmare.
Hand to god, I thought the only other Olds diesel ordered this way was at “Henry Implement Company” in Continental Ohio. The owners brother (who worked as a salesman) had one like this one, same no options style, that he used for many years for sales calls out and around Putnam County. The guys in the shop did all the maintenance and being trained on diesel John Deere tractors the car did pretty well. It was finally disposed of after many years of road salt and abuse when the roof rusted to the point that you would get wet driving it in a rainstorm.
No air on a diesel, strange.
Love the diesel badge. The 406 peugeot Diesel I owned had no badging announcing its diesel engine the black smoke out the tailpipe was the only clue as to what had just overtaken you.
I wonder in hindsight if GM might better have invested in developing an automatic overdrive trans, which could’ve approached the Diesel in highway economy while imposing little on owner expectations & dealer ability.
Or they could’ve initially released the Diesels to select fleet users, like taxi companies, to shake out operational issues. But that would’ve delayed ROI (Return on Investment), which finance types would’ve objected to.
“Designed by geniuses to be used by idiots” was the maxim of Soviet weapons designers.
The diesel offered a genuine 25-30% mileage improvement, based on its intrinsic efficiency and the higher energy value of diesel fuel. The OD automatics did come soon later, but there’s no way they could approach that magnitude of improvement. And of course, the OD would also benefit the diesel further too.
Keep in mind that rear axle ratios had already been reduced (numerically) to reduce engine rpm. The OD allowed better gearing in the lower gears, but a reduced gearing in top gear will only yield so much improvement, especially with the weak gas engines then in vogue.
The 1982 GM cars offered the automatic overdrive, including my 1982 Olds 98 diesel that I drive all the time.
I’ve always wondered what the driving experience was in these compared to, say a 300 Turbo Diesel, or the Even Fire V6 at the base of the option chart.
Considering a W123 and a no frills B-body would weigh the same, and the Olds Diesel has the Torque advantage (I believe). It’s still such a weird consideration, the “Americanness” of an Olds Delta 88, with a clattering V8 underhood. I haven’t seen a running one in 20 years.
The 300 turbodiesel was lighter car than the Olds was, making pretty much the same power. It was much faster, and being much more expensive, drove a lot better. The owners tended to be very fastidious about service. There are still quite a few around.
The 231 V-6 was rough, noisy and didn’t make much torque.
Having owned a W123 Turbo diesel, I’d say they’re pretty bricky (pretty sure mine was closer to 3,700lbs with a full tank). But I would say it was pretty quick (enough to challenge my assumptions) and not as gutless as I would assume. And it was fun to learn where the turbo boost really kicked in. They feel quicker than their 13-15 second 0-60 times.
But they are cars that shine better in high speed cruising, but can be a bit tedious to drive around town, pretty sure a comparable Hydra-matic shifts better, GM Power Steering a bit more easy to manage in parallel parking, etc
There’s a lot of comparison that could come up though, was the Olds Diesel more “Lively” in the A bodies because of fewer pounds to haul? With the economy advantage over a host of the base engine options, It just makes me curious if people were satisfied with the performance of them versus the additional cost for the same-ish dreadful Malaise era performance.
What about the non-turbo versions such as the 220 and 240D?
Dear Lord. No. I’ve seen those dusted by Mid 60’s Beetles and Ford-o-Matic possibly 144 cube equipped Falcons. There’s a certain hard core fanbase for those that can put up with driving those. I ain’t one of them. Those are the moments when I have to agree with the 302 conversions in /8 benzes.
Well maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh. They’re capable cars for ambling around town, but when I was looking around for one I tested one 240D and couldn’t deal with something that dreadfully slow. The 300’s are probably similar performers to a initial Olds Diesel B-body, but the Turbo Diesel is a revelation, but not as sterling in economy either.
I averaged closer to 26-27 combined in driving, not as epic as some claim, and sounds about par for any of the GM diesels. The odd thing about the W123 Turbo Diesel is that it’s a far more relaxed highway cruiser than their gas stablemates. I think that’s the biggest reason I would pick a Diesel Benz of the era over one of their Sixes. The M110 is a pretty “present” engine for all day cruising at 80 mph.
Those are reeeeeallly slow, off the top of my head, I think a 240D has 65hp? In about a 3000 pound car, ouch…..
More like 3200-3300 lbs, depending on options.
The 0-60 for the 240Ds is in the Low/Mid 20’s I believe, for the sticks… Think 27.5 was the average for the automatics, which puts them in 1950 Chevrolet w/Powerglide glacial slowness territory.
3000-3300, I was close….
The Cutlass with the 260 Diesel was really slow too, I think those only had 85hp, though there still are some 350 diesel cars aroundthere cant be a single 260 diesel alive, they only made it 2 years and when those blew up, they replaced the engine with a 350 diesel.
I got a magzine in “the archives” somewhere from 1979 with a “diesel showdown” with 0-60 times for almost everything diesel available at the time, from the Rabbit to the 300SD, let me see if I can dig it up for the shock value.
This was fun:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/battle-of-the-diesel-beaters
In high school, I took my dad’s F100 pickup truck over the the Olds dealer which donated our pick of the dead 350 diesel engines to my high school auto shop – at some point in the 1980s, GM stopped repairing the engines at the dealership level and just started installing new (by-then-improved) long blocks. I still remember seeing the inside of the service bay where I think they had at least three diesel cars with their engine internals scattered about.
I had three long blocks and two short blocks in the back of a half-ton pickup (on passenger-car tires no less)! We took a back road home and kept the speed under 40mph.
But we only took the engines that were rebuildable. There was a mountain of them behind the service garage, and many of them had thrown a rod through the side of the block.
I still remember the Hot Rod magazine article about taking a 350 diesel block and converting it back to gasoline – it made for a bulletproof engine.
My aunt had a 1980 Eldorado diesel that I drove many times. It was a weird experience as the Eldo was such a plush, luxurious car and the diesel was such a crude, loud engine. We would often “smoke out” the people driving behind us as the diesel would emit tons of black smoke on acceleration. It never felt very powerful, and I can still remember that car with its strange vibrating sensation coming from that diesel engine under the hood. My Mom had a 1979 Riviera at the same time with the gas powered 350 V-8 and I remember her car being so much nicer to drive than the Eldo diesel. I thought it spoiled what would otherwise be a very nice vehicle.
Late to the party, just want to thank Brother BOC for an informative article on an interesting car.
Where in Maine did Grand Dad vacation? I grew up in the Canuckistani Riviera part of the Pine Tree State. And my Grampa, retired service station owner, drove C-body Mopars too. 🙂
Later still! Great article rationally explaining the facts behind the legend, thanks.
What may be equally entertaining is to hear more of the ’66 Chrysler. If it’s a sad story don’t put yourself or we readers through it.
Living in hope…
My Dad still has his Chrysler, though it’s seen better days. It should come as no surprise to readers that it’s not like my family to throw anything out. 🙂 I was thinking of doing the story of my Newport convertible next though.
Interesting article on a misunderstood engine. BC Highways had dozens of ’78-’79 GMC 1/2 tons with the 5.7. We did all the maintenance, followed all the recommended repair procedures and used the correct oil. Every one was fitted with a water separator.
They blew head gaskets, wiped out cams and cranks, ate injection pumps, burned up starter motors, filled up the EGR passage with carbon from too much idling and burned valves. Then there were the old timers who figured a little ether was the way to get a balky one started on a cold morning. This caused several fires and small explosions as well as a runaway or 2. I still wonder how “accidental” some of them were.
Eventually the policy for a 5.7 that needed more than an injection pump was to replace the engine with a rebuilt unit. I changed out so many that I could roll a dead one into my bay first thing in the morning and drive it out ready to go back into service with a new engine at the end of the shift. The later ones were a little less trouble, but all in all it was not a good engine for 98% of the people who bought them.
Glad to see one still out there though, and I hope you keep it alive for a long time to come.
This is a most interesting car and this feature is now one of my favorite CC articles. I learned a lot and want to thank a majority of the commentariat for offering additional supporting info. I hope this thing eventually ends up in a museum…or lovingly preserved as there are probably only a handful of unmolested original examples left. I find its option content fascinating and its color combo attractive.
These Oldsmobiles are my favorite post ’77 B-body GM car. Their “angular” styling exudes a rather refined masculine handsomeness to me…if that makes any sense.
When I was a child, some very nice friends my parents worked with traded their forest green ’70 Delta (when it got rear-ended around 1980) on a new Jadestone Diesel Delta 88. I was nine or ten & remember riding around in the back seat of their new car. It was a very strange experience. I remember its jade velour interior was so comfy yet contradicted the black plastic knobs of its manual window cranks.
It was the second diesel car I ever rode in: I thought all diesel cars sounded like my dad’s Rabbit so the Oldsmobile’s unique and very weird sounding drivetrain was (and still is) permanently etched into my brain. The high-to-low sound of its metric transmission slipping its way into second gear as the car accelerated reminded me of the sound our old electric organ made when I’d slide my hand across its keys from high (note) to low(note) as I walked by it.
Ironically, the second time I heard the unmistakeable weird-sounding shift was maybe fifteen years later when I took my newly-purchased-from-the-scrapyard ’77 Delta 88 sedan for a spin. It was equipped with a Chevrolet 350-4bbl engine and (oddly) the same metric transmission:)
1978 was not a great year for GM.
My Chevette was that year…30,000 miles and one connecting-rod journal failure. At speed.
And these diesels. Need I mention the plastic-fantastic THM200s, going into Caprices as well as Chevettes?
No, it was the year when hubris, contemptuousness, and sloth in engineering all came to a head…to have a crash contact with reality in the next years.
Nice little saga, of how a pampered car and a conscientious old owner can make even the most unfortunate product of the past, work…
I had 140,000 on the TH200 in my Caprice. No complaints at all.
We went through dozens of Chevettes in their hay day, buying, selling, repairing. The one thing that was never a problem were the engines. Never had or heard of a bad one. Even dragging junk Chevettes out of wrecking yards for parts cars, the engines all ran. It just depends on the circumstances.
This just in…..Chrysler Considering Diesel Option for 300.
They’ve had these in 300s for years in the export markets.
There is no such thing as an engine bearing that needs diesel oil. The difference between gas rated and diesel rated oil back in this time period was the detergent levels. The diesel oil had much higher detergent levels to combat the carbon from blow by and fuel dilution. Many of the quality brand name 30 weight oils of the era were actually high detergent and were rated SE/CC and then SF/CD so they were perfectly fine in diesel applications.
Multi grades on the other hand were a different story and if you wanted your engine to crank so it would start in really cold weather then conventional wisdom of the day said you should put 10w40 in it and many of those viscosity improvers used in that era were not that stable and could not handle the fuel dilution which lead to them acting like the base 10 weight oil.
Neither oil nor valve spring pressure was the cause of the camshaft failures that was pure GM and poor processes and quality control, tons of their gas engines of that era lost cam lobes due to improper hardening, and GM letting parts out the door that they knew way too many of did not meet spec.
Good article and comments on a car that could have been more than just another failed GM experiment. Still, my in-laws had a Ciera with the V6 diesel for many years and got a lot of use from it…but they’re truckers and have a better idea of how to drive and care for a diesel. At present they have two Chevy diesel pickups that get a lot of use for their business, and they’ve held up pretty well. My mother-in-law has an older Jetta TDI as a daily driver, and it works quite well for her. If you’re going to drive a diesel, you need to know what you’re getting into…but if you do your homework it will give you years of good service.
I just wanted to thank the writer and all the commenters. I thought I had a handle on the Olds diesel story, but I really didn’t have a clue. This is one of the most informative Curbside Classics I’ve seen. I was in high school when this car came out. My father, who is an engineer, was mildly interested until he saw the price and the horsepower. He bought a ’79 Malibu (305 and F-41) instead, which turned out to be pretty good.
My uncle bought one of these in 1980 after suffering through the gas crisis. He said the windows in the rear only went down 3/4 of the way, and being a full sized car, he just assumed they would go down all of the way, the salesman neglected to tell him this, so he got the GM headquarters from the phone book and got the President of GM at the time on the phone. How did he get past his secretary??? He said this was in reference to this weekend’s golf game. The CEO laughed after he told him how he got through and said he was sorry but there was nothing he could do to fix it.
Secondly, it had a dent in it when he picked it up at the dealership, so he went to a mechanic to show him that someone nicked it. He told my uncle that he wasn’t buying a Mercedes…I think he unloaded it within a few months. Called it the unluxurous Boat.
Max, that’s a great story and your Uncle sounds like a good guy! Sounds like a man who took another for his word and that was good enough for him. I wonder if the CEO he talked to was Roger Smith, the infamous GM CEO made famous by the film Roger and Me by Michael Moore. It sounds like your Uncle was more clever In trying to get through to the head of GM then Moore was!
Thanks, Michael. True story too. He couldn’t believe the rear windows didn’t retract all the way and that the salesman neglected to tell him that. Oddly, he bought a Rover like the one that was featured in the last few months. It was always in the shop awaiting a part but he really liked the car. He said it had a great stereo and acoustics. He ended up selling it to his mechanic in around 1989 for $75.00. Wishes the internet was around than because it would have been so much easier to get parts for that car.
Very nice Oldsmobile and still in good condition. I have 3 of those still, and they haven’t rusted yet here in the South. They have the 350 gas engines and still perform well. They are all Royales with the plush cloth interiors. I always favored the late 70s Olds and they had the last of the good engine and transmissions before computer control and metric transmissions. I still get about 23-25 mpg on the highway with them.
I had a 1979 Cadillac Eldorado with the Olds 350 diesel engine. It got a water separator very early in its life, which was relatively long…it lasted with us for fifteen years. At the end of its time here, it was running rough, which meant it needed a new fuel filter. For some reason, on the day I took it to the used car dealer to trade it toward a Ford Taurus station wagon, the engine ran smoothly. It would be up to the dealer or the next owner to buy a new $50 fuel filter for it.
But I already KNEW what was causing the engine to run rough. One real reason for getting rid of the Eldo were that we really needed a wagon or a hatchback to haul moderate-sized stuff, and the Taurus wagon was just the right size (and this one was pretty cheap). The other: the water-based enamel paint that GM foisted upon its customers that year. Over time it dried out, even though the car lived in a garage; and was starting to flake off. Pre-paint prep work at the factory was pretty poor, too; the first patch of paint that flaked off was in the shape of a human hand on the deck lid. But at least the silvery Firemist paint still looked sort of intact as I drove away from the used car lot in that new-to-us Taurus wagon. I heard later than when the dealer tried to wash the Eldo, most of the paint came off, leaving the car in bare primer.
Still have the the family’s fully loaded 1978 Delta 88 Royale with the 350 Olds V8 engine (non diesel). Interestingly, the car that replaced it in 1988 (Acura Legend) is still around, as is its 1998 successor (Lexus LS400), and its 2008 successor (Lexus LS460).
The blue shade is beautiful. I sold my silver one above but still have the 78 tan and 79 camel brougham. They were the best cars!
Intrested in your Delta 88 contact me @ 225-214-2166 ready to purchase
I still drive an Oldsmobile Diesel which is loved by me. It is an 81 Regency Sedan that I bought in 2012 and have had very little trouble with. I got the car in South Dakota and as I am retired, it was driven very little. The most expensive repair was a brake job. I drove it from South Dakota to Arizona where I now live and averaged 28 mpg @ 65 mph on the Highways. I intend to keep it as long as it runs so it gets regular maintenance, oil changes at 3000 miles with chassis lubes. I will install a filter like the one pictured. I only buy fuel at high volume stations to lessen the chance of water contamination and try to warm it up properly before driving off. It is driven so little that it took from the day I got it until march of this year to put 6000 miles on it and 1500 miles were on the trip from Sioux Falls, SD to Mesa, AZ. Thanks for the great article, I enjoyed it very much.
The engine of my Dad’s GM diesel, a 1979 Cadillac Eldorado, outlasted the extra-cost Firemist paint, which flaked off leaving dull grey primer underneath. The first area to flake was the shape and size of a man’s hand, near the middle of the trunk lid, leading us to think that some assembly line worker closed the primered trunk with an ungloved hand.
Dad thought he was generous in giving me the car when he got tired of it. He had shod it with the cheapest tires he could find, one at a time and all mismatched, and had neglected the front end which was shot, wore the tires out on one edge, and gave the steering wheel enough free play to make maneuvering a wish and a prayer. It needed $300 in repairs just to make it safe to drive, and another $300 in tires. Finally with four matched tires and a tight front end, it would drive and track straight.
Probably the reason the engine lasted was that Dad installed a water separator when the car was brand new. It still had a propensity for running rough every several thousand miles, which we could cure by replacing the expensive fuel filter.
True, it couldn’t get out of its own way. If someone behind us objected, we could always floor the accelerator, which would make the Cadillac belch a cloud of black smoke at the offender; but it wouldn’t make the car go much faster, and it sure wasn’t in a hurry to speed up.
FInally when the headiner fell in, we gave up on it and traded it on a Ford Taurus station wagon. But the engine was still going strong…or as strong as it ever could. Nobody in the family has owned a diesel ever since.
It’s great to see that people are still sharing their anecdotes in the comments, and that there are other Olds diesels still chugging away on the road. 🙂
The Netherlands – Breda – Saturday 17/02/2018
Dear Sir,
I’m looking for and Motor Head for an Oldsmobile Motor Head D3A. See picture.
It is no easy I know.
1) Also the tell me if you can’t find a D3A you can use a pair ( =2) D3B and it’s no problem for the car.
2) Is this true?????
3) Or can the D3B rebuilt to D3A?
I think more cheaper is to find a D3A then to rebuilt a D3B to D3A.
We have also a D3B.
4) What is the different between D3A and D3B ???
5) If you known who have a D3A ( = we prefer) or D3B. What is the price? ( tested for cracks too?)
6) Do you have also some information about this material??
7) Maybe there is an other oppertunity?
Hope you can help me.
Regards,
Mr. Loek Jobse
Breda – The Netherlands.
Had the 105-125 hp 5.7 Oldsmobile V8 Diesel been properly developed, is it known how much power it would have likely put out had it later been developed into a turbodiesel (with or without an intercooler)?
Hey! A friend of mine just got an ’80 Cadillac d’Elegance with a factory rebuilt LF9 (prob done under warranty). I of course forwarded her this article right away! She’s actually a diesel Mercedes mechanic so she’s excited to play with this car (and plans on making it a cross-country hauler for her pop-up trailer). I’m wondering if anyone has links to any performance / tech pages for the LF9?
Wonderful article, and even better comments! I learned to drive in my folks’ 1980 Delta 88 Diesel, which my mom to this day says was her favorite car they ever owned. Even though it left her stranded one August on the side of I-10 in Texas when the IP gave up. But that was the only issue we ever had with it. Why? First thing dad did (he was a mechanical engineer…) was install a Racor fuel filter/water separator. Changed the filter regularly. Great car. My mom’s sister and husband drove one for years also. Out of nostalgia, I found a 1981 on eBay in 2008 and drove it from Minneapolis to Texas. Eventually had the engine rebuilt because it was just so worn that it was blue-smoking an embarrassing cloud out the back. Sold it a few years later, and it’s still doing well. Wish I still had it. But a couple of weeks ago I found another. 1981 Ninety-Eight Regency with 89k original miles. How was I to pass it up?!? Well, here it sits, clattering merrily away. I drove it from Atlanta, GA back to Texas, 750 miles, at 70mph, TH200C transmission (no overdrive, but lockup TC), and got 31mpg average.
Hopefully this link will work … here it is: https://youtu.be/0ZhWxMWYzDk
I bought a Delta 88 Diesel in 2007 and it’s still running. I had to remove head gaskets in 2014 and get high tension ARP bolts after 2 of them snapped. No problems after that. Now I’m just waiting for a new exhaust after the old one fell down when I was on my way to pick up my wife from the airport.
Reminds me of the 1980 Impala I had with the diesel that lasted maybe 2 years and several injection pumps that GM couldn’t repair. I finally traded it off before the value went to $0.00.
Biggest auto mistake I ever made.
Funny, the Roosa Master Stanadyne injection pumps are used in many applications besides the Oldsmobile, Ford and International 6.9, 7.3,in particular, and even fam tractors. They have an excellent reputation. I think this was a case of an incompetent GM dealer, and not the fault of the car, pump or the diesel engine.
The interesting thing about the LF9 GM diesel is how it effectively squashed a promising new powertrain technology in the US for, seemingly, forever.
As a point of comparison, consider what will likely be the first automotive game-changer of this century, the 2004 Toyota Prius. While it was the second generation of the car, it was the one that brought everything together in a highly efficient, well thought-out package. But, more importantly, the still-new hybrid drivetrain was reliable, to the point there are still a lot of them on the road today, and with their original batteries. It’s not an understatement to say that the Prius put battery power on the map.
Imagine if the Prius had been as poorly-engineered as the Olds Diesel. There’s the high probability that there wouldn’t have been the 2011-2012 Leaf, Volt, Prius plug-in, and, yes, maybe not even the Tesla Model S. At least not in the way they all steadily increased in viability to the extent that, today, EVs are all the rage with many considering them all but an inevitability as mainstream vehicles.
If only the LF9 diesel had been built as well. It could have been the Prius of its time.
My collection of good running Oldsmobile diesels are now over 40 years old. Lets see if there are any Prius’s on the road after they’re 40 years old. Already I see far fewer Prius’s than what I used to see on our highways. Long life spans of vehicles is a sign of good engineering.
The only issue that affects the Prius long-term is degeneration of its batteries. Replacements for them are readily (and fairly cheaply) available. And the Prius can still drive even with a weak battery.
I can assure you that there’s a whole lot more 20 year old Priuses still on the road than there were 20 year old Olds diesels in about the year 2000! They were essentially gone from the streets then, except for your little fleet and a few others. But one man’s little fleet does not make for an accurate national representation.
That’s so true, one collection doesn’t represent much. There is however an active 350 diesel users group on Delphi forums of Olds diesel owners, I don’t know how many vehicles the group represents, but it shows there are a number out there. Periodically there are Olds diesel vehicles on E-BAy, currently a Toronado with bidding up to $3,000. I would guess I see 1/2 dozen show up each year, and periodically there are others on other seller forums. It’s well know that diesel engine have longer life spans than gas engines, so I would rationalize that it’s possible that surviving Olds diesel vehicles could outlive the Prius population comparatively speaking. On the side of the Prius, the factor that Prius owners are more environmentally motivated, would indicate that that group would tend to purchase newer model all electric vehicles instead of keeping their older Prius on the road.
Duane: In just the past 6 months, I’ve found exactly 4 GM sedans with the diesel. I don’t recall if they were all on Craigslist or Offerup or where. Sadly, I love to scan them all! haha. In fact there’s still one that I know of still showing on C.L. It’s a 1979 Cadillac Seville in a medium brown with tan leather. It’s not selling because 1. The pictures are terrible and 2. They are asking about 3x what it is truly worth. For me, the fact that it’s on the other side of the country (east coast) makes it impossible for me to even go look at it.
But rest assured. If the right one comes along in my general area for a fair price, it will be sitting in my garage. The basics on these cars is still something you can have worked on at many local mechanic shops with little problem. Finding parts shouldn’t be much of a problem either.
Trovit Cars, a fourth rate car finding site has 4 or more listed, but they don’t delete sold vehicles like should be done. If you can be somewhat selective, I would go for a post 1981 version, to get the DX engine, and then 1982 some models have the 4 speed overdrive transmission that I’ve found greatly helps. I haven’t found too many parts not available, but with the earlier engines and the fuel return lines with the rubber T fittings, those aren’t available with the quality to function correctly, so that’s a big issue. The Toronado on EBay right now looks like a good buy, it’s sitting at $3,000.
I did not regret that I bought my Olds Diesel.
I think the lack of the water separator in the fuel filter was an issue in the US. Europe always had clean diesel fuel. Here I think the cars were probably overstressed and driven too fast. The problem with the head bolts would be another problem no matter where you are. But that can be fixed now. No matter how bad the 350 diesel engines reputation is I’m still impressed with the fuel economy that I get with it today. (28mpg or 8.5 liters/ 100km)
There really isn’t headbolt failure with the Oldsmobile 5.7 diesel “UNLESS” water gets into the system. All diesels are likely to suffer damage if water gets in. A look at most diesel vehicles shows a fuel water separator. GM provided a water reservoir in the fuel tank with a electrical warning light system, which we all agree today wasn’t enough protection. Would have liked to hear Oldsmobile engineers arguing with accounting that it would only cost $10 to add the separator. Curiously, much cheaper GM vehicles all came with the separator, including the economy Chevette, Chevy Luv diesels.
The true comparison that can be made between an old GM diesel and an older Prius? They both bellow smoke out the tailpipes. Even then, I’d drive a 40 year old GM diesel before I’d ever drive a Prius. Worst cars ever to disgrace our roads.
Defenders of the Prius comments in 3, 2, 1………….
The problem is I will never buy a Prius but I bought an Olds Diesel and that was 15 years ago. And the car is still going. I doubt if I had a Prius that it would still be working if it was 44 years old.
This reminds me of when I used to drive a small Toyota diesel truck for work, I got some bad diesel once and it would emit an ear piercing alarm sound, you were risking hearing damage if you kept driving, so you would get out and drain the water out of the separator until that alarm stopped screaming, very effective.
I wonder how big of a role the lack of air conditioning played in this car’s longevity. At the least, it would mean lower underhood temperatures and less work for the engine when maintaining speeds.
The primary issues of the early Olds 5.7 were not caused either by heat or hard work: it was die to a number of intrinsic design shortcomings, including not enough head bolts, lack of a fuel water separator, weak timing chain, cam lobes, etc.
Diesels inherently run cooler than gas engines. Underhood temperatures were something that GM had long been able to control adequately. I seriously doubt it was a factor, whether it had a/c or not.
That and all the “downtime”.
I’ve forgotten what they charged for the diesel engine. The fuel was cheaper than gas at the time, but I wonder how many thousand miles it took to recoup the extra cost of the engine and the extra maintenance, leaving out repair costs. In ’79, you could avoid the gas lines, so there’s some non-financial benefit.
You’d think GM would have known enough by then not to make the diesel standard on the ’80 Seville, but I guess that decision was made soon after the Iranian oil embargo began.
Didn’t MB sell the S class as diesel-only in the US for a while? I know for a few years they sold more diesel engines than gas here.
The W116 and W126 S-class were always available with gasoline engines, but the smaller W123 *was* diesel-only from 1982 to 1985.
Diesel was around 30 cents but went up to over gasoline, one reason diesels were discontinued by GM and most Japanese brands. GM was committed to the diesel and certain of the concept, as to why it was standard in the 80 Seville. Remember that the bad news about the Olds diesel got all the publicity, but the good news of all the satisfied customers got no publicity at all. I could even venture that point with the Vega, not all Vega owners were unhappy customers.
The Mercedes Diesels were bullet proof and the extra cost was definately a good investment especially in Europe where gas was expensive. And the Mercedes Diesel did not require a lot of maintenance. Just oil changes every 3000 miles.
I assume you mean not a lot of extra maintenance. Here in the US, MB dealers charged quite a bit for the frequent scheduled maintenance visits of all their cars, and you couldn’t take it to your corner garage. But high ownership costs were a large part of the brand’s snob appeal, likewise for BreakMyWallet (BMW), in the days before cheap leases were available.
As I live in Germany the maintenance is a completely different story. Of course if you go to a Mercedes dealer you pay a lot. But with my 1970 Mercedes Diesel you can do all your maintenance by yourself. This is mainly oil changes and once in a while brake pads and discs. I also have a 1988 Mercedes 260E in Germany and my wife has a 1984 190E in Illinois where we live part of the year. Both of these cars are easy to maintain because you don’t need a computer to service them. The parts are a little easier to get in Germany.
At least one person in Europe bought one:
Make it two. But I bought mine from Ebay in the US and brought it over to Germany. That was in February 2007. And its still running. I have a friend who has a station wagon with the Diesel. There are still some around. And never forget, a german engineer can fix everything.
Colonel Manfred von Holstein: There is nothing a German officer cannot do.
Captain Rumpelstoss: But… how will I learn to fly, Herr Colonel?
Col. Manfred von Holstein: The way we do everything in the German army: From the book of instructions.
[Reading from flight instruction manual]
Col. Manfred von Holstein: Step one: sit down…
[Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes – 1965]
That’s exactly how it works here.
Alright, so the late-’70s/early-’80s Olds diesel was a product of its time and all. But fast-forward to a 2007 diesel, and I still don’t imagine many North Americans would willingly put up with a cold-start song and dance such as this, which begins with multiple key on/off/on cycles—I guess the guy is trying to make the glow plugs extra hot:
Daniel S: Your last line cracked me up! “extra hot”. So the video says Chrysler Voyager, so this is obviously in another country not the US. I’d love to get my hands on a diesel van like this.
As for the glow plugs, I do recall way back that they would say on cold days to cycle the glow plugs a second time to help start. But I’ve never seen or heard as many times as this guy did. I’m not even sure cycling them more than once helps. Does anyone know the answer to that?
When all is well only one glow plug cycle is needed. But myself and friends have had to cycle the glow plugs several times on very cold days with our Powerstrokes, probably because the engine has low compression or other issues.
Sometimes, cycling twice helps-I recall doing it on Ford 7.3 PSDs on cold days. My wife’s Blazer needs to be cycled twice, but that’s because it has an aftermarket controller that short-cycles them.
Why does it have an aftermarket controller that short-cycles them? What’s the advantage?
It’s somewhat easier on the glow plugs, especially in warm weather. (When it will happily fire without the glow plugs.)
I recall the one in there (I think designed for the later electronic 6.5) was incorrectly back-spec for the mechanical 6.2/6.5. Since it works fine and is easier on the plugs, we saw no reason to change it.
An excellent story in your adaptation to GM’s 350 diesel.What I find interesting is not GM’s diesel engine design incompetence. Rather it’s how only a fellow motorhead can embrace such significant design and operational challenges. A typical owner would just get frustrated, sell at loss and swear to never buy another diesel or GM product again. But we are obsessed with conquering these challenges like an OCD lawn manicurist. We are determined to persevere and prevail knowing the grass will never stop growing. That’s what makes these man versus machine story’s interesting to me. Great story.
I ordered a ’78 Delta 88 diesel back then. Three months wait to get it. When it came in my dealer offered me $1000.00 to not receive it and buy a regular gas 88 in stock! I declined, of course after a year I was kicking myself!
Yes I loved the diesel for the first year, great mpgs. But then the problems started. Injector pump went out, fuel lines deteriorated.
It was in the shop, more and more. Finally GM was offering to replace the engine at no cost.
I decided to have the engine replaced with a gas engine swap from a local engine salvage yard. I remember first driving my 88 after the swap like a new car, much better engine and transmission response. I drove it for another year then traded it in on a new Ford Taurus.
I sure regret not taking that $1000.00 offer!
It just sounds like someone didn’t know what they’re doing. The fuel lines can’t “deteriorate” as they’re mostly metal, and the rubber pieces are the same for all diesel vehicles on earth and they usually last 20-30 years. If the injector pump failed after one year, then water was pumped into the tank and either the warning system didn’t work or the owner ignored the dash warning light. Saying that a diesel engine is trouble prone is counter to the millions of diesel vehicles on the road every day. In defense of Michael, Oldsmobile was negligent to not install fuel water separators on all of these cars.