And BBC is currently at 170k miles with the original injectors, EGR system (except a new valve at 169k), turbo, and head gaskets. Not bad for a much maligned design ...............

Maybe the proper maintenance makes a difference.

 

Maybe it does at that.

 

You know there are still some GM 350 diesels still running on the road today. Tell them that engine has design issues and you'll never hear the end of it.

 

Oldsmobile came out with the 5.7 Litre 350 cubic inch Diesel engine in 1978, and was available in almost everything from Chevy Trucks to Cadillac during its production period. They where produced mainly for fuel economy due to the gas shortage in the late 70's early 80's. They were known to be very bad engines as they arrived. Lots of Injector Pump problems, blowing head gaskets, and poor maintenence due to lack of knowledge basically killed them. Many engines were perfesionally changed out by GM mechanics, but still with many top end problems and poor maintenence, and also due to water in the fuel.The first few years of the 350 Diesel were the worst ever, as far as most people are concerned, in some people's opinions, it was the worst engine ever, but it was all due to poor knowledge and lack of maintenence as far as I'm concerned.

This statement about the GM 350 diesel sounds very familier in this forum does it!

 

I know you did that quote for brevity, however, you really have to go into more detail to see what exactly went on with that engine and the situation surrounding it. I don't know where that quote came from, who made it, or indeed to the accuracy of it. This also has similiar issues to mountaineer27's comments with regard to the 6.0. You mention injector pump issues, blowing headgaskets, and poor upkeep. There is no why to those. They may be design flaws, but there just saying that it's plagued with those problems and not stating why they are design flaws isn't proving that they are design flaws. For instances. I always use the analogy of 02-04 mustangs having a problem with headgaskets. Let's say I just stopped with that sentence, what does that prove? That it may or may not have a problem with headgaskets, why do they have a problem with it? Is it a design flaw or is it something that people are doing to it or what? Adding in that the gaskets are thinner on the passenger side goes a long way to showing that it's a design issue. Now one of the biggest differences here is that there really isn't a viable alternative to that explaination that could go against that that wouldn't be explained by design flaw. Everyone that I knew(personally knew) that drove a mustang between those years had headgasket issues, no matter how they drove it. Contrastly those that had 6.0s may or may not have had headgasket issues depending on how they drove it.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm saying that there needs to be more that comes with it

I can't even go into my own experience during that time period, because I have none during that time period, either I wasn't around or was very very little.

There are other questions that I would have to ask as well to see if that situation exactly matches up with the 6.0 experience as well. I'm not saying that it won't, I'm just saying that there needs to be more info. Here is the kicker though, don't link the fact if you may or may not prove the case of this example with rather or not the 6.0 may or may not be plagued with design issues. They may be or they may not be. Once again, reasons need to be shown why.

The difference between your quote and mine(or atleast I would think is a difference, correct me if I'm wrong) is that I give what I think to be reasons for why I believe the way I do, that quote just says "as far as I'm concerned" which makes me lean to being more opinion based believe then one with reasons that they felt good enough to post to stand to an "attack" of counter reasons.

 

If you want poor design you have to go to the 4-6-8 V-8 by GM.

By the way if I remember correctly I think Blackhat was a tech. Vloney also was a reg. tech at that time.

 

I have seen many changes but some day I might pull the plug on the Matrix and return to the simple life.

 

This was a copy from a 5.7 GM diesel guru like yourself for the 6.0 psd, however the point I'm making is this engine was a design flaw! You ask why? Because it was a gasoline engine converted to a diesel engine. My uncle who is a retired diesel tech use to work on these things, and I remember stories that these engines would litterly come apart while being diagosed for a problem in the shop. The other point is this particular individual truly believes the demise of this engine was do to poor maintenance and techs however the gasoline version of this engine was rock solid. Sounds very familiar Tex... Does it!

Also the Olds 5.7 utilized 4 head bolts/cylinder which caused head gasket failures galore.

 

I'm still not seeing why. Your not showing why the fact that it was a gas converted to diesel is that it was a design flaw. Don't mistake my saying that your wrong, I'm just not seeing the why.

Your linking the two together. You are talking about two seperate engines. Let me ask you this. Did those diesels have problems no matter what a person did to it? That's the biggest difference I'm seeing here. You have people that exhibit certain driving habits or styles and the 6.0 has issues, you have others that exhibit different ones that it doesn't have issues what so ever. I refer back to my 02-04 mustang analogy and the thin headgaskets. That happened no matter how a person handle the vehicle. I would say that's a design flaw and to my knowledge ford doesn't have an updated gasket for it either, but that I could be wrong about.

Also, you pointed out that whole early years thing. Well let me ask you this, what were the early years like for those old engines? Did you have an influx of buyers that were coming from little to no diesel experience, taking a vehicle that I would argue was already pushed to the limit of hp/tq output as that was were the market was going, adding performance enhancers that they didn't know much about on an engine with new technology(with regard to diesels)? Now you have people that have totally reliable 6.0s that with knowledge have had very little to no problems(although I realize that you have been one of unfortunate ones and I'm wondering if that is tainting your opinion here, but that is irrelevant ultimately to this discussion) that is also including problem free 03-04s that are still stock when people yoke the knowledge that is around here.

You see that's the biggest thing that I'm seeing here were what you are talking about diverges from the 6.0. You have people that have totally stock trucks that have little to no problems based only on how they take care of it. Whereis from your original quote, you have people that have issues no matter what.

What compounds your problem is that there is a rather unique environment that surrounded the diesel truck market at the time of the 6.0 release, which had a lot of people trying to "keep up with the jones" and trying to be cool and had very little knowledge about it. Oddly enough during that time period also came about during the 6.0s worst years(03-05, although 03-04 are generally regarded as the worst). I find that highly suspect and now with the later ones you hear very little in the way of the huge problems that plague these engines.

Where is the why? I have point A and point C(4 head bolts/cylinger=point A; headgasket failures galore= point C), I need the point B that connects them. Remember I know nothing about these engines you are talking about. They were before my time or for sure before my time as a driver.

 

The real point I'm making, that your not getting is there are people to this very day that don't acknowledge this engine was not properly designed for diesel duty and blame the lack of maintence and techs for all its problems (kinda like your position here). Sure... maintenance is critical for the longevity of any engine, but it takes a good solid engine design first and maintenance secondary for a long term engine sucess.

These engines were littererly throwing rods and blowing head gaskets before the first scheduled oil change. It was this engine that tarnished GM's diesel reputation for many years(Like the 6.0 has done for Ford for numerous reasons but the perception is still bad).

Sure there's still some 5.7's still on the road today and are running great, but for the masses, it was considered a complete failure.

 

If the engine isn't properly conceived, then no matter what the end customer does to it in stock form with regard to upkeep, it's going to have issues.



Are the stock or do they have a/m parts? If the engine is poorly conceived in stock form then they for sure should have non-stock parts in them to get them running right, unless those people were just lucky. You have people with 100% stock trucks, some are the original owners, and have had zero problems. From the way you are posting about the GM vehicle, it would seem that there isn't a stock one out there unless it's by sheer divine intervention.

Wrong two engines. I'm talking about the GM engine with the 6.0 engine. The GM engine may very well have had design flaws, the jury is still out on the 6.0. The reason I didn't want you to link the two is because you may very well be correct with regard to the GM engine, that doesn't mean in of itself you are correct about the 6.0 engine.

 

MAN do you guys love to disagree with each other! I agree with Troy on the designs flaws for a 6.0. The jury has long gone home in that case, Tex can you check your PM S plz

 

I never got a PM from you, just a conversation on my profile, which I already responded to. Awhile ago.

 

Yeah... I maybe treading thin ice with Tex. I'm trying to avoid my name making it under Moantaineer27 in this signature.

 

No. I could care less if you agree with me or not as long as you give me reasons why you do or don't. I'll respect your judgement either way. I may or may not agree with it, but that's fine.

Mountaineer27 didn't approach the discussion in the same manner and resulted to his reply to my posts are just "ignorant and crappy". There is a huge difference between what you are doing and what he did. I added that caveat as fair warning to people, don't want them to take my advice and have it back fire on them(I'm still waiting on that to happen though, but I added that caveat for full disclosure).