I do not think that the 350 diesel had much to do with peoples negative opinions about diesels. It was primarily used in cars and was only used for a couple of years in 1/2 ton 2wd Chevy pickups. It is very rare to see a pickup with a 5.7 diesel. The engine was not merely a converted 350, but the general block design was taken from a 350 gas engine. The 350 diesel block is strengthened.

The 6.2-6.5L GM diesels, as well as the 6.9-7.3 IDI Navistar engines are more likely a reason for many people's distrust in diesel engines. I realise that some people have had good luck with these engines, but they were nothing to brag about. Aside from maybe the 6.2, none of these engines made good mileage. All had glow plug and cold start issues. The 6.2 and 6.5 did not seem to be built heavily enough for alot of hauling, and many were replaced with low mileage on them. The 6.9-7.3 diesels could develop cavitation, and that was the end of an engine. The big block gas engines of the time could pull much better and did not make considerably worse mileage. The 350 could outpull a 6.2 diesel.

Really, the most likely reason that many people still shy away from a diesel is the price. It may make better mileage and provide a better resale value, but it will probably need to be driven many miles to make it pay.

 

There may not have been many 350 diesels in pickups where you were but the coal fields of Virginia and West Virginia were full of them and most weren't 2wd. I may be because the coal miners and operators thought they would get the performance with the diesels like they got with the ones they used every day to mine and haul coal. The failure was not with the engine block itself but mainly because of blown head gaskets because there were not enough head bolts as well as many and multiple failures of the injection pumps. It is rare to see a 5.7 diesel pickup because they died years ago and were easily converted to gas and replacement 350 gas engines were readily available and easy to change (direct bolt in and no computer to worry about).

 

The 6.9 and 7.3 IDIs don't get good mileage? I'm going to disagree with that one. I can see how people would think about them, and think all diesels are slow, like an ignorant person would, but to say they had bad fuel mileage is outrageous.

 

The 350 deisel was a converted 350 olds engine with different crank, pistons and heads. Most problems I saw when forced to work on the things were injector pump govenor rings breaking, blowing head gaskets, and melting glow plugs(if they worked at all). Not to mention the life expectancy of the engines were similar to the gas engines chevy was building at the time -lucky to see 100000 miles.

 

10-13 mpg is as good as an honest person will probably get with either engine. I know two people with 7.3L 3/4 ton 4X4s that average 13 mpg (they drive slow), a person who gets 10 mpg with a 1 ton 4X4(he drives slow too), and a person who gets 12 mpg with a 2wd dually (he pushes it a little ). At least twop of the pickups have had the engine replaced in under 200,000 miles, one went throught two in 150,000 miles. I also know of at least a half dozen other 7.3 powered pickups that needed an engine replacement with low mileage. It costed them about $6000 to replace the engines. Do the math. Why would it make any sense to get one of these engines?

I like the 6.9 much more than the 7.3. Cavitation did not seem to be much of an issue. Glow plug may be more of a problem, but at least that can be fixed reasonably cheap. I know of a few with 300,000 miles. The mileage isn't that great, but most came with a 4-speed or C6, so no overdrive.

 

I have a 2000 F350 with a 7.3 psd, I avg 70 mph on my way to work every day and get 19 mpg in the warmer months, around 16 in winter.. Everyone that I have talked to that has this motor tells me they are getting pretty much the same fuel economy, and nobody I have met has had to replace thier motors,
met a guy the other day with 275K miles on his F350, original motor and tranny, and this truck was abused, work truck. A smaller diesel in a F150 if engineered properly would get at least 23 MPG, probably higher..

 

I'm talking the 7.3 IDI, not the 7.3 Powerstroke. The PSD was a vast improvement. It got much better in 1999 when it was fitted with an intercooler. I have heard mileage figures around 10 mpg pulling and 15 empty from a Superduty. That is probably not much if any worse than a pre-03 24v Cummins would get.

I doubt that I could manage 19 mpg with a 7.3 PSD, myself. More like 13-14. Course, I like to use the power the engine's got. I have only saw one 7.3 PSD that failed. It developed a pinhole in the piston sleeve due to electrolisis. These types of problems were not entirely eliminated along with the 7.3 IDI, but much less common. A local mechanic bought it this way and rebuilt the engine.

 

sorry for the misunderstanding MJD should have read more closely, not making up the figures avg'ing about 18-19 mpg right now.. Stock except K&N.

 

Our company has a 1986 F-350 Crew Cab 2WD dually with a 6.9. The truck has a body on it (instead of a bed) and averages 10 mpg at it's max GVWR of 10,000 lbs. It had 3.73 gears and we swapped them back to the factory 4.10s. It is low in the power department, but does well in the mileage department. The truck and engine have 235,000 miles on both of them with out the engine having a rebuild. The steering box has been replaced twice though.

 

I hope I don't get in to trouble for injecting a political element into this thread, but it's there, and it's major factor concerning the viability of a light duty diesel truck in the USA, and needs to be pointed out. The enviromentalist movement in the US is dead set against the proliferation of diesel powered daily drivers. There's two main reasons for this. One is that they don't want people to switch to any alternative's to gasoline, that are also a fossil fuel. It set's precedent, and that makes it that much more difficult to force people into little electric go-carts, or what ever they envision. The second is the wide spread (but mistaken)belief that diesels are more "dirty". It not really true, but this minority is not the most scientificly informed group. They think they are so much smarter than the average Joe though. They are a minority, but they have a lot of political power through the media and the courts. What can be portrayed in the media as non-politically correct may get handicaped in the US market. These are they same people that will not buy an American made vehicle, because they think that Asian imports are "cleaner"(both in operation and in production), and they don't want to support the evil American " corporations" that polute so much(or so they think), and that they hate so much.

 

I agree, I am down farther in the tip of Virginia, where it's absolutely nothing but coal mines and mountains, and I saw the same issues. For the most part, people stayed with gas engines, because until around 99, nobody made a diesel that was worth having here, I guess we just stress our trucks more in this part of the country than other parts.

 

Till '99? When the first gen. Powerstroke came out, it outpulled anything else.
MJD-I have heard of some rare occasions that the IDIs were worthless like this, but never witnessed it. Just last week, a guy posted his 6.9, with a E4OD, and got 24 highway MPG. Only slight modifications, nothing to vastly increase really anything. The '96 Powerstroke with mods sitting in my driveway(crewcab short box) gets a regular mixed city/highway at 19 or so MPG. 4.10 gearing. Same as the truck that got 24.

 

Toyota will also be putting a diesel engine in the new Tundra when it comes out in '07.
Im not a fan of diesel engines and I dont drive enough miles in a year for the cost of a diesel to be worthwhile.
Also, living in Wisconsin, a diesel isnt the best option unless you have the ability to leave it plugged-in at night.
So, will I be jumping ship? Maybe. I will do as I did before I bought my F-150. I will drive a Toyota Tundra and I will drive an F-150. Whichever one I like best I will buy. In my opinion the only truck that can match or surpass the durability I currently enjoy with my Ford is a Toyota. Im not sure if Im willing to pay the higher purchase price of a Toyota though. Ford's quality gets better and better every year and the time may come very soon to where they are able to match Toyota.
Octane

 

No flames intended to the pre-SD PSDs...They were still new at the time, and while they really sold people on diesels, it was a slow porcess...I didn't mean they weren't worth anything...Sorry y'all!

 

If I remember right the 2005 ford F-150 was going to get a diesel engine. It is rumored they did all of the testing. However, they could not reach a deal and it was shelved.

One of the problems is that they were worried that new F-150’s higher capacity for pulling and payload combined with a diesel engine would decrease the sells of the F-250. They were going to wait until after the redesign of the F-250 and F-350 to make a decision. A Ford F-150 with a diesel is still a future possibility.

Remember diesel engines were considered dirty because of the black smoke billowing out of them. It was not until the early 1990’s that clean burning diesel became common place. There are still two grades of diesel Low sulfur and off road grade. Off road grade is regular diesel still containing sulfur found at bulk stations and does not have road tax. It is used most often in farm tractors.

The real reason diesel engines in cars became less common was stronger pollution standards. The old 1980’s diesel cars could not pass emissions with out expensive redesigns. In truth a diesel is only as dirty as the fuel it burns.

In Europe clean burning diesel is common and the cars pollute far less.

Sorry I got a little long winded..................