By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Inside, you had to check the tach to make sure the engine was on!
The 3800 in the GP used to always to that on cold start up. For maybe a second you'd hear what sounded like the clatter of dry lifters. Sounded nasty, but never proved to be a problem.
My Expedition will do that too on occasion, but it has OHCs. What's odd about it is it doesn't do it all of the time. It can sit over night, and it will clatter for second on start up, then it can sit for a week and be chatter free. From what I've read/heard it's the variable cam timing phasers that make the chatter on the Ford 5.4.
I usually like tuned intake and exhaust noise. Valve train noise usually sounds nasty to me. Probably part of the reason I generally don't like OHV engines. They generally sound nasty to me at high rpm, well unless intake and exhaust noise properly drown it out.
The Jetta TDI I used have was like that. It was noticeably louder when cold then after it had warmed up a bit. Also it was much louder outside the car then in. Once underway it seemed quieter than a similar 4cyl gas motor. Probably due to running much lower rpm than a gasser would turn.
I know the newer diesels are much quieter. Probably the main complaint I had about the TDI was how long it took to warm up. On a sub 20 degree morning it seemed like it take forever to get heat. Thankfully it had heated seats. I don't think it could warm up at all just idling. It had to be driven to warm up enough to generate enough heat to warm the cabin.
Regards,
OW
Some like driving in library-quite, some don't. The point was the turbo GDI idles a little rough so that you feel it on start up. No noise unless you pull up the hood, of course. The upside is the added power and still getting over 30 mpg.
Regards,
OW
Too bad we don't have those here. The noise might not suit those who shop in the 80K+ territory, but the economy and overall capability was nice.
BMW has a nice 3 liter turbo diesel state side. I don't know why they don't offer it in a 5 series, might need a bit more HP for the 7 but with 425 ft-lbs of torque, it will effortlessly move about anything you'd actually want to drive.
You're right though. Cruising is where diesels shine. Effortless power is always available. Rarely is a downshift necessary with the kind of torque they produce.
I recently saw a new 335d on the road. 23city/36hwy fuel economy and a 6 flat 0-60 is impressive.
I'm curious to see how the diesel Cruze performs/sells. How long has it been since there has been a diesel car from a domestic manufacturer been available? 25 years?
Ten years ago when I told people my car was a diesel, the usual response was negative. If they were a foreign car fan (particularly German cars, they were more likely to understand, but 90% of domestic fans would look at me like I had 3 eyes.
So, will the traditional GM customer embrace a diesel and/or will those who are willing to buy a VW diesel, want a GM car?
The 335d is nice, but you pay 335i prices and get 328i performance. In fact, Car & Driver tested a 335d and 328i in the same issue and 0-60 performance was identical.
I don't doubt that, but the fuel consumption certainly wasn't identical. The 335d does have more standard equipment vs. the 328. Per BMW's website, HID, moonroof, premium seats, and dual power seats are standard on the diesel and optional on the 328. Also the 335d comes with bigger brakes. I'd guess option for option, they're still probably $5k plus apart. That's certainly not chump change.
As for the Cruze, pricing will be important for sure. I'd guess a diesel option will add at least another $1-2k to the price. IMO, a diesel isn't for everyone. If you drive a lot of short trips and don't put many miles on per year, the premium for a diesel likely isn't worth it. Unless you just like the diesel better.
GM is playing catch up, as usual, with the trend setters, afaic.
Regards,
OW
Last diesel American car...hmm. I know the diesel Tempo (and probably Escort) lived on til 86, maybe 87. When did the diesel Chevette and Lincolns die off? I think the Caddys were gone by 83 or so.
I don't have an positive feeling about the GM faithful embracing diesel. It will have conquest buyers.
At first it seemed like the new VW commercial about a diesel sedan that can get up to 795 miles on a tank of diesel fuel based on 43 mpg is pretty impressive. I did the math and got 18.5 gallons as the VW tank size. My gas Malibu will go 610 miles on that much fuel at the 33 rating but the ratio of fuel cost of 1.23 times the 610 mile range equals a 750 mile range for the same fuel cost. The result for the gas car is 94.4% of the miserlyness of the diesel with none of the side effects. If I can squeeze 2 more than 33 mpg on a trip from the 2.4 Chevy, I would exceed the VW in miles/fuel dollar. Based on 3.99 diesel and 3.25 for 87 at my exit this week.
At first it seemed like the new VW commercial about a diesel sedan that can get up to 795 miles on a tank of diesel fuel based on 43 mpg is pretty impressive. I did the math and got 18.5 gallons as the VW tank size. My gas Malibu will go 610 miles on that much fuel at the 33 rating but the ratio of fuel cost of 1.23 times the 610 mile range equals a 750 mile range for the same fuel cost.
Yeah, that is with the VW Passat TDI. Very nice car. 43mpg EPA is impressive for a car of that size. Plus, my experience with diesels is they're easier to surpass the EPA estimates vs. a gasoline powered vehicle. So if you can coax 35 out of your Malibu, I'm willing to bet 45 mpg plus would be easy from the Passat.
The Jetta TDI I had is the only vehicle I've owned that routinely beat its hwy EPA estimates. Honestly, I've never beat the hwy estimates on any of my gas vehicles w/o having a tail wind. I almost always beat the 49 hwy rating in my Jetta even while driving 70-75. Plus back then, diesel was cheaper than gas.
Over the 35k I put on the Jetta before I sold it, I averaged 46 mpg overall. Then I sold it for $2k less than I paid for it new.
Can you say "Oldsmobile"?
My BIL has a diesel Passat and its a decent car. But honestly, I still can't get over the stereotype of a smelly, sluggish beast lumbering to get up a hill like a semi truck. Then there's the huge engine and fuel price premuims to boot. So I think you're right, its going to take a lot of education and experience if Americans are going to convert to diesel. I'm thinking mild hybrid e-assist is more likely to sell in this country. Then you've got the issue of fuel distribution. Right now a lot of US distillate diesel is exported in exchange for imported gasoline. If everything went diesel it might distort the market and prices.
Yeah, I'd say 86 or so for the Tempo. According to wikipedia '86 was the last year of the Chevette diesel and only 324 were sold.
I think the GM 350 diesel was offered through 85 in Oldmobiles. Don't know if any Caddys had them in '85.
I find it odd that GM, Dodge, and Ford can sell diesel 3/4 and 1 ton trucks at huge premiums with ease, but with cars, customers have a completely different view.
But that's not how they are. Even my '00 Jetta TDI had very little diesel odor. Only on a cold start up. My BIL had a 4cyl gas '00 Jetta at the same time I had mine. The diesel had far more usable power. The the diesel had more torque at 2k rpm than the gas 4 cyl had at 6k.
The diesel Cruze will likely leave the gas model in the dust going up a mountain grade. Considering the power numbers I've read about the diesel cruze, it would be the powertrain of choice for me. It will have a lot more power than the 1.4 turbo.
Really, the only downside (granted the price of diesel today is an issue) I remember were with refueling. The pumps could be covered with diesel fuel. Not something I liked doing in a suit while on my way to a customer meeting. Granted I only filled up every 500-600 miles, but that was still once a week back then. I generally tried to fill up on the weekends when I was in jeans or shorts.
It's been 34 model years since that engine was introduced.
And GM still hasn't lost its diesel stigma.
I still remember waiting for the school bus as a kid watching a AAA tow truck come jump start our neighbors diesel Toronado on cold mornings like it was yesterday.
I guess it was his colorful commentary on the mornings his car wouldn't start.
The positives: the car was drop-dead gorgeous. It was white with a white vinyl top and a deep dark blue plush interior.
The negatives: Couldn't just turn the ignition key and start the car. Had to turn the key one click, wait a few seconds for the glow plugs to warm-up, and then start the car. The car sounded like a city bus. I drove it a bit and it was as slow as molasses in January at the North Pole. Brought the car back. Told the seller, "Sorry."
Other concerns were the availability of diesel fuel. It wasn't at every corner gas station. Come to think of it, I can't think of any local stations that now have it unless I want to drive well out of my way. I don't want to need to go to the truck stop on the turnpike to fuel my ride. Also, the much greater cost of diesel fuel trumps any fuel economy savings. I also recall my ex-girlfriend's sister's diesel VW and a fellow college student's diesel VW that gelled-up during the winter months making starting difficult.
No, I can't say that I'd buy a diesel regardless of who makes it though that 7-Series Bimmer you drove overseas seems interesting.
Yes, those early non-direct injected turbo diesels (regardless of make) were slower than tectonic plates. Indeed they were loud and smelly too.
As for fuel gelling, that shouldn't be an issue anymore. I never had an issue with it in back in '00 as additives were added to the fuel to remedy that.
In the midwest at least diesel is everywhere. Even ten years ago when I lived in Ohio, diesel pumps pumps were plentiful.
IMO, if you put low miles on per year and take a lot of short trips, I'd avoid a diesel.
Why do stuff like that? Drives me nuts. Only blind and lazy people want diesels?
I'm hoping GM avoids that trap of offering diesels only on very high-end models.
Doesn't matter, around me regular 87 octane is $3.53 and diesel costs a whopping $4.20. For me a Cruze Eco would make more sense.
The 70 cent premium for diesel is a lot to overcome.
A few years ago, well maybe 10 or so, diesel was much closer.
The ignition thing would be annoying. On the modern diesels I have driven in Europe, there is no delay, but on old MB I have driven it is the same, gotta wait for the plugs to warm up. When cold it can be a more than instant wait. My fintail is actually the same, especially when cold - as it has mechanical fuel injection, you are supposed to wait several seconds for the system to prime itself, by running the fuel pump.
Sounds like a pretty car, I wonder if it would get positive attention at your club meets. Here anyway the difference between premium and diesel is nominal - as my cars take premium anyway, it makes the price gap easy to take. The main hindrance of diesels to me is that I can't afford what I'd want.
The white Caddy I looked at was beautiful and would draw attention at one of our Cadillac-LaSalle Club meets as it would be an unusual oddity. However, I wouldn't want to own it. My own unfamiliarity with diesels would be enough to keep me away.
I only had to wait for the glow plugs if the car was sitting overnight when it was below 30 degrees out. Even then it wasn't very long. Kept in the garage the glow plugs might need 5 seconds during the winter.
As far as I know, he still has that Seville. Want me to tell him you're interested? :P He tried to put it on eBay a few times, but the bidding never got to whatever he wanted for it. Last I heard, he said he was going to put it on consignment at some classic car dealership where "a car like that would be appreciated more" or something along those lines!
That's ambitious - the new Camry hybrid starts at $26,660, and gets 43/39 (41 combined).
Malibu Eco will get 26/38. But - it should get more equipment, at least.
I still don't get eAssist - those numbers are closer regular Camry's 25/35, or the Sonata, than any hybrid.
I guess it will come down to how well it performs in reality.
LOL. Come on lemko, it's a Cadillac;)
Andre, I guess that means you shouldn't say anything to that guy on Lemko's behalf;) LOL
Regarding those Caddys, and seeing how Lincoln used BMW diesels, maybe Caddy should have sourced MB diesels for their clatterers - probably not realistic as they were competing by then, but it would have been more reliable.
Ironically, my then-girlfriend got a new silver and maroon 1982 Seville for her high school graduation present, (very wealthy family). I don't recall her having any trouble with it, but I know I would've feared that 4.1 V-8 in it's debut and worst year. I understand if you really, really, really baby them they'll be OK. I've got a friend with a very nice 1983 Cadillac DeVille with that engine, but the car only has around 23K miles on it.
A V8-6-4 can just be disconnected, right?
http://www.web2carz.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/2012-buick-lacrosse_1/2012-buick- -lacrosse-engine.jpg
I wonder if it still uses a lead-acid battery at all?
Nope, it uses lithium. Still a belt driven system. Doesn't sound like something I'd want.
I tend to do that to, just to "prime the system". But 5 seconds is a long time to wait when you want to get in and go.
Turbos that required a cool down period never appealed to me either.
GM acutally did beef up those engines, but unfortunately, they didn't go about it very thoughtfully, just slapping on extra bulk here and there, instead of re-engineering it appropriately. Supposedly though, Diesel 350's are a great starting point for building a hotrod engine, because of that extra-sturdy block.
I dunno how much a Diesel 350 weighs versus a regular one, but I've seen the 4.3/262 V-6 version (used in FWD cars and some of the G-bodies) listed at 590 lb.
Now, I've seen the Chevy 229/262 V-6 listed at 425 lb, while the 305/350 V-8 is listed at 575 lb, for your typical generic mass-produced engines. So I wonder if that same ratio would hold for the Olds 350 V-8 versus the 262 V-6? If so, that would put it around 798 pounds!
For comparison, the Mopar 426 Hemi was "only" 765 lb.
As for reliability, from what I've heard, the 1980-85 350 Diesels were much more reliable than the '78-79 models. And in that '80-85 timeframe, they made improvements, so the newer ones are better. But, in general, probably best to run, not walk away, even from a nice one.
When did they change to aluminum heads? That probably shaves 100lbs at least. I know the 305/350 v8 and drive combo for marine use is just under 1,000lbs but they still have cast iron cylinder heads. The drive itself is aluminum and can't weigh more than 150-200lbs
I dunno, but hopefully they didn't make the change until they knew how to do it reliably! That whole iron block/aluminum head thing is what did in my uncle/my/ex-wife's '88 LeBaron turbo coupe. Well, that and the fact that it got stolen and joy-ridden a few times!
That whole iron block/aluminum head thing is what did in my uncle/my/ex-wife's '88 LeBaron turbo coupe. Well, that and the fact that it got stolen and joy-ridden a few times!
Yeah I remember alum cylinder heads and iron blocks being a problem on a lot of engines in the 80's and 90's.. I had an escort and tempo that both blew head gaskets around the 100k mile mark.
Outside of some weird nostalgia, I don't know why someone would desire one of the those.
Like you mentioned, I remember the later models being better, but they still weren't great.
That's right! I remember it being a cost cutting move. My brother had oen.