Re: Allan et. al. should double-check facts

Posted by jdemaris on March 20, 2006 at 17:49:56 from (69.67.232.100):

In Reply to: Re: Allan et. al. should double-check facts posted by Allan In NE on March 20, 2006 at 12:57:33:

Well, in regard to the 5.7 diesel - I didn't want to believe the stuff I was hearing after it first came out. I've been a Chevy fan my whole life. When GM first introduced it, it was kind of exciting. I worked or knew several tractor mechanics and farmers that went out and bought one - just about everybody wanted a diesel pickup. If antyhing, I was envious. I moved here to a rural area, making less than half the money I was accustomed to, four kids, mortgage, etc. I had no money to spend. At the time, believe it or not, my family car was a 1964 Chevelle SS and I drove it summer and winter. Nice car, but not for around here, or with four kids. In my situation, from the people I knew, nothing but headaches with those 350 engines - as I've already decribed. A preacher who still lives near me, however, had a car with a V-6 diesel, and he got 150K miles out of it before it blew. And, just recently, I heard the actress - who played the mermaid in the movie Splash- Daryl Hanna (spelled wrong?) bragging about her 80 El Camino with a 350 diesel that she runs on biofuel and gets 60 MPG. I don't think I believe her entire story, but my ears perked up when I heard her mention the 350 diesel.
One good thing the 350 diesel did for me. When in 82, GM introduced the Detroit Diesel designed 6.2, I started hearing the same stories about it as were told about the 350. In fact, many thought it was the same engine just doctored up some more. That stigma lives on today! In fact, that's how I got involved in this post. Somebody claimed the 6.2/6.5s were "converted gassers" and I disagreed. Anyway, I've got MANY 6.2 powered trucks - mainly because I find them cheap and like them. Part of the reason they are cheap is the reputation they inherited from the 350 era. GM didn't help by introducing the electronically controlled injection system in the 6.5s around 94. That was another disaster - and from what I've experienced, it was Stanadyne/Roosamaster at fault, not GM. Many of the horror stories of complete $1000 pumps being replaced every 50K miles are true. For a while, that was all the dealers would do. It was NEVER necessary, but was often done. I suspect that is part of the reason why GM gave up on their own engine and started using the Isuzu "Power Max" diesel. My ex-Ford engineer father-in-law told me that GM found it too expensive to meet the newer emmission standards with the 6.5 without sacrificing reliability - and Isuzu was a more profitable way to go. Who knows?

Replies:

Add a Reply Name: E-Mail: Subject: Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL: Email Notification: If you check this box, email will be sent to you whenever someone replies to this message. Your email address must be entered above to receive notification. This notification will be cancelled automatically after 2 weeks.

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]