So teach me about...

In reply to curtis73:

Toyman said it was "based" on the gas engine. That means the design of the gas engine was used to develop the diesel, and that is true.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to curtis73: Toyman said it was "based" on the gas engine. That means the design of the gas engine was used to develop the diesel, and that is true.

!!THIS IS MEANT IN JEST!!

And the LS9 is based on the 265 in 1955.

No, I'm serious. The similarities are obvious. The LS9 and the 265 have absolutely nothing in common, and aren't a valid analogy.

I thought GM recalled ALL of those to swap out the engines?

You might have a rare bird.

bravenrace wrote: No, I'm serious. The similarities are obvious. The LS9 and the 265 have absolutely nothing in common, and aren't a valid analogy.

They (the diesels vs gas) don't share blocks, heads or intakes. They are both V8s, and both made by GM, and share materials. I think the LS9 and the 265 also share bore spacing. Oh well, it doesn't matter, we don't agree, on with the OP's stuff...

MANY THANKS to Curtis73 for being the voice of educated opinion in this thread.

Most of the worst things about that diesel were teething problems and the solutions are known and documented.

For perspective, back in 1982 when they were making these things, most people thought the 700r4 was a pile of E36 M3 too.

Fast forward to now and with the benefit of experience, it may not be the best thing going by a long shot but it is certainly able to be upgraded to be completely acceptable.

Same deal with that diesel.

And for the record i think 30 psi on it would qualify as completely acceptable.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to curtis73: Toyman said it was "based" on the gas engine. That means the design of the gas engine was used to develop the diesel, and that is true.

To me, when you say "based on a gas engine" that means you take a gas engine and convert it to diesel. The fact that the gas architecture was kept for a completely new design block, heads, crank, rods, and pistons to me doesn't mean that its "based on" a gas engine.

If it meant what you say, nobody would use it as a reason for its crappiness.

Semantics.

Ok guys let's stop the arguing about the origins of the engine and get back to increasing its performance.

What's the general opinion keep it diesel or gas convert it?

curtis73 wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to curtis73: Toyman said it was "based" on the gas engine. That means the design of the gas engine was used to develop the diesel, and that is true.

To me, when you say "based on a gas engine" that means you take a gas engine and convert it to diesel. The fact that the gas architecture was kept for a completely new design block, heads, crank, rods, and pistons to me doesn't mean that its "based on" a gas engine. If it meant what you say, nobody would use it as a reason for its crappiness. Semantics.

If I meant that the diesel was a converted gas engine, that's what I would have said.
When I base one product design on another, I'm basing my design on the former's design, IOW using the older design as a starting point for the new one. That is the case with the Olds Diesel. What you guys are talking about is parts commonality - Two different things, but the fact that you can bolt a gas head on to a diesel block, well...

tuna55 wrote:

bravenrace wrote: No, I'm serious. The similarities are obvious. The LS9 and the 265 have absolutely nothing in common, and aren't a valid analogy.

They (the diesels vs gas) don't share blocks, heads or intakes. They are both V8s, and both made by GM, and share materials. I think the LS9 and the 265 also share bore spacing. Oh well, it doesn't matter, we don't agree, on with the OP's stuff...

Can you bolt an LS9 head on to a 265? I'm sure that somewhere along the line a Ford shared bore spacing with a mugglemobile Q12 also, but that doesn't mean one was based on the other. I've seen many Olds diesels sitting next to Olds gas engines (while I was converting them in the 80's). You can't say the diesel design didn't use the gas engine as a starting point. Hell, an Olds tech rep told me exactly that in 1981 when I was a line mechanic at an Olds dealer. A big bpart of the reason the diesels blew head gaskets was the high compression without any more head bolts than the low compression gas counterpart. The Ford 302 and 351W shared about that same amount of parts as the Olds engines, but the 351W is obviously based on the 302. I'm not sure why you guys don't get this. It's just like one car being based on another. Like a Mazda design being based on a Ford platrform. It's the exact same thing. They may not share many or any parts, but in the design process, one is used as the starting point for the other. This is done all the time in virtually every industry. It's called not reinventing the wheel. BTW, where were you in 1981?

alot of people quote that engine as ruining the diesel passenger car market in the US

FWIW

I say convert it to gas and build a monster twin turbo Olds 350 with the diesel block as the centerpiece. You will have to spend $$$ either way, whether it's to make the diesel motor kinda-sorta reliable, or to make it capable of breaking orbit and traveling to other star systems.

Travis_K wrote: I would do this http://www.isuzudieselswapper.com/

Wish I hadn't seen that - all kinds of crazy thoughts are now brewing...

This almost typical of GM. They rush something to market. Let the public develop it. They then fix it. Then they stop producing it.

In reply to SilverFleet:

Yeah that I think is the way I will be going

NICE!

I am having trouble deciding what to put it in though. I am kinda thinking a Regal body and make like a GNX on steroids kinda thing. However building the meanest Cutlass on the street could be interesting as well.

I figure I will use the 12 bolt rear beefed up but no clue on which trans I will use. This rig will definitely not be built on a challenge budget

rebelgtp wrote: Ok guys let's stop the arguing about the origins of the engine and get back to increasing its performance. What's the general opinion keep it diesel or gas convert it?

How soon do you want the project completed, and how complicated a project do you want?

The swap to a gas motor is the tried and true method, you have a 403 and two other cars to donate the supporting hardware needed.

Trying to make something good out of one of GM's darkest hours has its merits too. I'd suspect this path to take longer and be more expensive. There would be more GRM board kudos going down this path.

I vaguely remember problems with rod bearings in addition to the head gasket problems. Just something else to keep in mind.

Keep the Olds motor in an Olds. I would get a 81-88 Cutlass (like a 442) and do that up. Make it look bone stock on the outside. I like the dark blue ones with the gold 442 stripes the best.

In reply to Rob_Mopar:

Yeah I figure it is going to be more of a long term project. I want to take my time and make sure I do everything right.

I agree about putting an Olds in an Olds. I also think building the diesel block as a gas motor is a cool idea, but only if it serves some relevent purpose. Otherwise, just build an Olds engine of some sort. Just don't try to make that diesel pig run. Believe me, I've worked on literally dozens of them and they aren't worth the effort. Once a pickle always a pickle.

Well mostly the purpose would be to have an Olds motor that would actually hold up to boost without making the bottom end leave in a spectacular fashion.

One reason I was considering the GNX clone was (besides the fact I like the look) is Regal and even T Type came with the Olds 307 as one of there engines.

That or for irony sake stick it in a Monte SS. You know cause everyone sticks chevy motors in everything else.

In reply to rebelgtp:

Way back in the day I used to work on a buddy's car that he ran in the local parking lot drags. Now this guy owned a perfect '68 or '69 (can't remember which) Hurst Olds, but his usual vehicle of preference was a clapped out looking, multi-colored '69 Firebird with a built and nitrous'd 455 Olds in it. It looked like a piece of rubbish, but underneath was all business. Even the engine was dirty. But that was close to the fastest street car I've ever driven. And they think rat-rods are something new.... Back then I was really into Firebirds and Pontiace, so I of course gave him a really hard time about it, but Olds, Pontiac and Buick made some awesome street performance engines. Lotsatork.

There is a 69 firebird around this town that seems to match that description though I am not sure of what its all out performance is like. Yeah I think alot of the Chevy guys tend to underestimate the BOP engines at times.

In reply to bravenrace:

My Trans Am came with an Olds 403 from the factory.

I fixed that problem later with a nicely built Pontiac 400 (around 414ci now). I'm a big fan of the BOP stuff, but I never liked my 403. It always gave me problems.