The head gasket issues are even more hilarious than that. From what I've heard from others who worked on it at the time, they updated the gasket, which didn't work, they tried to harden the cylinders, which didn't work and created a tendency for them to crack. Then they put out a bulletin to drill out the head bolts to the next size up, which actually made it worse, because that block was so weak that the extra clamping force warped the deck and pulled the cam bearings out of round, resulting in the camshaft seizing. Incredible right?
Worked on Detroit 6V53 V-6 diesels in the USCG, and 3-53 diesels in skidders; we always said of Detroits, "if there's no oil under them there's no oil in them"...
The Canadian military used these 8.2l engines in our Medium logistics trucks, I was an army mechanic and worked on them a lot. They were geared so low that they would redline barely doing 55mph and would struggle to maintain that speed up the slightest of hills and risk throwing the rods out the side of the block going down the other side of the hill. All while making the crew deaf with the noise that “isn’t service related...” They worked well off road when put in low range and turning the 3 power sucking Rockwell differentials.
Totally agree I’ve never seen head gaskets fail and we drove them hard I never fixed any head gasket as a vehicle technician of the Canadian forces first and second line
my dad remembered those but his time trucks had REO 120 something horses 6 cyl that powered his 6 by but it did 11-14 mpg compared to those 8.2's maybe 6 or 7 mpg
@@paulkuras18 My experience as well. We had one in a 20 ton tow truck. The truck had a 2 speed rear. I noticed that after some people { that refused to use the 2 speed rear} drove them there would be symptoms, Also, this engine had wet sleeve liners in the exhaust port. the super hot exhaust could burn away the cast iron ports in the head, So they usd the thin steel sleeves {like injector cups} But these sleeves were sealed with rubber O-rings. I often wondered if that wasn't where thr coolant went on our truck. When it was driven by drivers that didn't "lug" the engine, we didn't have a problem.
Pretty sure the HT 4100 has the same free standing cylinder design. Incredible that they managed to put just about every bad GM idea all into one engine.
I have a 1986 Ford F700 with this engine. It was replaced with a factory rebuilt engine in the late 90’s. It’s been a good motor for the truck. Decent power.
We had several of these in ford and gmc school buses. The fuel mileage was WAY better than the alternative gas engines. We had pretty good luck with them and school bus’s were a good fit for these. I remember they used the same basic unit injector as the two stroke Detroit engines and were prone to leaking fuel into the oil. I think I still have the tune up tools for this engine somewhere in my stuff. Cool video. Thanks
It took some skill to properly set these 8.2 injectors. They weren't as simple as the old 2 stroke Detroits, or even the more modern 60 Series. I kinda liked these engines. If you treated them as a Light/Medium Duty diesel and didn't expect them to perform like a Heavy Duty, they were usually up to the task. I'm sure there's bus drivers out there that drove IH busses with the IDI 6.9 and 7.3 diesels in them. They would've been much happier with a Ford or GM bus with one of these in them ❤
It's a wonder how these engines were designed and approved for use like this, while knowing the proven reliability of the 2 stroke engine. You would think they would use some of the same diesel principles to build upon. I'm guessing it was designed as an inexpensive alternative to a gas engine, and to have a similar lifespan. This is also toward the beginning of diesel technology being used in lighter duty applications. International Harvester had similar issues with their DV550 V8 in the late 70s.
You're correct. In thier later years, the 8.2 Detroit wasn't too bad. Even the early ones were alright if the operator understood thier downfalls and worked around them. These engines DID NOT like to be lugged. They were a "high speed" diesel and were meant to be operated that way. Same with the 3208 Cat that Adam mentioned a few times, they also didn't like being lugged.
@@johneckert1365 None of the mechanical detroits like being lugged not the 2 strokes either, the problem there though was they sound like they are running twice as fast as they are so inexperienced operators were more likely to lug them.
@cusbrar1 agreed, but the later "60 Series" doesn't fit that mold, but it also wasn't mechanical. They were happy to be lugged just like a 3406 or an "N" series Cummins. Side note: The latter years DDEC 92 Series electronic engines also did not like to be lugged.
The high school I attended and then came back to work at had a Chevy activity bus with one of these engines. I rode in it and then drove it. When I came back to the school as a teacher, I got a bus license to help drive the marching band, some clubs, and tennis teams to matches. It was slow and I don't honestly know how hard the bus garage had to work to keep it running, but every single time in any weather conditions that old bus (it was a 1990 model and I started working there in the fall of '03) would crank, get us to where we were going and get us back. They finally got rid of it about 8 years ago.
@3:30…Penske is widely regarded as “saving” Detroit Diesel, but he just bought in at a time when GM had finished development of the Series 60 engine (codenamed the “tech 80”). S60 was a fantastic, reliable, fuel efficient engine that was a profit generator all thru the ‘90s. Penske had nothing to do with the S60 development. Penske bought in at just the right time, then sold DDC at just the right time, having spent almost nothing in product development and just as new emissions standards were coming along. Somehow he convinced Daimler to buy the company for a good amount of money; they soon realized it was smoke-and-mirrors and Daimler were pissed off (haha). The company had been under-invested the entire time Penske was in charge-the factory was old, the designs were old, and the engineering department was weak.
There is some industry lore, that the series 60 was the child of a joint venture between John Deere at Detroit Diesel. Supposedly Deere wanted to get into the on road Diesel market to compete with Caterpillar. The early 80s economic down turn scared Deere so they gave up the s60 design to Detroit. Like I said this is lore, I've heard this story several times, I don't know if it's 100% true or not
We still love Roger Penske here in Detrot. The main Detroit Diesel plant is just under 2 miles from my house right here on Telegraph Rd. Everyone I've ever talked to who worked there loved their job. In the mid 1970s Roger owned Michigan International Speedway out in small town Brooklyn MI. Dad and I went to a race once, plans to camp in the infield. Who was out there directing traffic? Roger himself! Dad hollered to him out the window and the man came over, introduced himself and wished us a very good time over the weekend. He didn't disappoint. Just showed us the guy had a great business sense about him. Every company he touched in the area did well at least very well most often.
@@williamstamper442 : sure, Penske was 100% a BS artist. I was working there…there was zero investment in the plant or engineering during the Penske years, and he somehow hoodwinked Daimler to pay top dollar for it, even though everything was dilapidated. Penske was a salesman, that’s it.
Hey...If I had a chance to sell an old turd for $500,000,000..I probably would...Daimler knew they had a one trick pony that was aging fast...Daimler did well..As of a few years ago they had 34% market share with their DD powered Freightshakers...They just rebranded their European OM574 as the DD15..They had an ace up their sleeve..They just needed the name that overshadowed them in the trucks they already built with them..If anyone knew there sales numbers it was Daimler.
Actually the only reason for an open deck is low cost. They are much cheaper because there is no need for complicated and expensive cores to form the water jacket while casting. The downside is a lack of cylinder stability which leads to head gasket failure. Modern car engines which use open deck are still notorious for head gasket issues - think Ford EcoBoost and Subaru.
Volvo used an open deck on their 5 cylinder and to my knowledge never had issues, even on the turbo models. Presumably they engineered their design a bit better. Worth noting however that people generally consider the 2.3L model the best one to boost for added performance, largely because the 2.3L has thicker cylinder walls compared to later 2.5L versions.
@@JollyGiant19The 2.3L EcoBoost. My wife's friend has a 2016 Escape that's on it's second engine. Ford replaced the head gasket on the first engine twice before they finally replaced the engine with an updated short block.
4 месяца назад
I drove a 70 series GMC tractor with a fuel pincher and it was a great little truck
As an employee of a certain energy services company, I saw many of these in medium duty trucks. It was a throwaway engine. Rebuilding was limited to out of frame work. The head gaskets only failed on the higher hp engines. At the time they didn’t seem that bad.
I kind of figured it was a naturally aspirated engine 'only' just like the 5.7. Turbocharging a 10 head bolt liner engine like that is asking for trouble.
@@misterhipster9509Parent metal block ie. not sleeved. I suppose that also means there is not much metal left if you do bore something like that out and sleeve it.
The HT4100 had the same design with the liners. In fact, you couldn't order a typical 'short block'. They only sold the replacement engines in Long Block form. Strange they didn't learn the lessons of the 5.7 diesel on the 8.2 using a lousy 10 bolts per head. I had a number of the 5.7 Diesel cars and got to be pretty good working on them. They weren't all that bad once you got the bugs ironed out, however, NOT powerhouses by any means. Stinky, weak, leaked oil, Burned oil, didn't really generate the heat an IDI needed for good combustion, head gasket changes were considered fairly routine. I got to where I could change a head gasket in 90 minutes. Rebuilt the stanadyne DB2 pumps and put the solid agricultural governor weight cage in. The cars I had would top 75 MAYBE 80mph balls out top speed, but I got nearly 31mpg once. Funniest story is I had an '83 Olds 98 Regency, super nice car, I went through the engine, beefed it up and ran duals with turbo mufflers. The exhaust was pretty foul. Visible and stunk. I was in the fast lane on the interstate going maybe 70mph and some dude in a Prius crawls up right on my bumper. After a mile or so I move over, didn't really 'smoke' him or anything and he speeds past and flips me off! I laughed my ass off! Made ALL the head gasket changes and nuisance worth it. I miss my Olds Diesel!
Seems no one ever mentions the old GMC 60° V6 torro-flow and torro-flow II engines. These were not detroit's. They were a 4 stroke diesel's theoretically based on the big block GMC 60° V6 gas motors.
Am familiar with the Toro flo. Great engines based on the rugged V6 4 ,stroke heavy duty gas truck engine. Very good medium duty truck engine. Excellent cold weather starting and as the name turo flow indicates head design made for vortex swirl thus excellent economy. Some cheap bastards would they two use them in tandam axel semi tractors trying to pull fully, loaded semi trailers. That was two much.
We were running 366's and 427's in our grain trucks at that time and tried one of these fuel pinchers, we ran it one day and took it back, it was gutless, the gas burners would kick its ass pulling combines on trailers, the answer to our problem was going to GMC Brigadiers with 6V 92's in them, they were bad ass.
We have a couple of old C70’s with these engines. One Is a service truck, and it has 350k miles and an innumerable amount of hours from running the pumps, compressor, and generator. We’ve never had any problems with it except we have to use canned glow plugs on a 90 degree day. The other one was in a dump truck and it was terrible. We actually replaced it with a 366 industrial gas engine around 1996.
We had one in a boom truck . Never had problems. Not sure where this reputation comes from Other motors far worse . Cummins V8 505 ,555 ,CaT 3208 had issues.
@@MitzvosGolem1 Ol triple nickel trash 😂 haha I worked on one an old timer at work was working on and he told me all the horror stories. He was like I was hoping I'd never see one again 😂
When I was highschool, my school still had 1 GMC bus with I believe this engine left in service until 2012 or 2013? It seemed to run okay but was by far the slowest bus they had and really struggled in a town full of steep hills.
That Cleveland Diesel has a very very interesting history. That’s the remnants of the Winton motor car company, who invented not only the term automobile in this country (adapted from the French) but also the steering wheel and other innovations.
Worked for school as mechanic , we had over 100 of them. About 150,000 miles and then problems. But that was the life of a school bus in the area northeastern US. I'm old enough to remember the Toroflow. Another Gem. The cycle 238,318,and v12's along with the 92 series were great for reliability but would never make emissions today
I got a million miles on GMC medium trucks with the Fuel Pincher, 3208 and toroflow . They were meant to be a light weight and cheaper option to the 3208. But compared to the international S series with IH DT or V8 diesel options as well as IH gas engines and Cat or Cummins options ..GM and the rest of the truck industry never could seem to grab enough market share and compete. Driving international trucks with a international inline 6 or V8. They were much more reliable and decent power for the time. You should take some time to look at GM's late attempts to merge Detroit with Deere and how they experimented with John Deere engines in some medium duty trucks
I used to work for one of the largest US corporations. The executive administration used the word “challenges” in every other sentence! It was maddening given all the failed or failing initiatives. I left. Gleefully.
Check out RU-vid for Waylon Wires Old Iron, he's building a rat rod with a GMC V12, out in Washington State. Check his older videos m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7QnSCQsC1VA.html
Lived two houses down from a small town FD that had a truck with one of the 702's. It had a very distinctive sound, and the couple of VFD's I talked to about it said "It would shit and get".
We had a truck that had the Detroit Diesel 4-53T engine, a reliable, noisy, slightly underpowered engine. But what do you expect from a 4-banger pulling 30,000 lbs? This engine was later replaced by the Fuel Pincher, but I didn't realize it was even more underpowered. Good video!
@kleetus92 8-9 MPG, which wasn't bad for running heavy so much of the time. Not quite half the fuel consumption of the gas truck it replaced. And back then diesel was much cheaper than gas.
I only drove a Detroit 4-53T (turbo) in a late ‘70s GMC 6000 or 7000 with a 20’ box and no power steering one time on a hot day in Aug ‘87 in downtown Toronto. GMC should have kept the 4-53T through the ‘80s instead of replacing it with the 8.2L V8. Would a Cat 3208 fit in a regular GMC 7000 or Chevy 70 without switching to the Top Kick/Kodiak hood?
The Fuel Pincher was a means to an end…they needed a diesel that was good on fuel that could be used in medium duty applications under low loads like in school buses and small dump trucks…and it did just that!..I drove one years ago and it was quiet compared to many other engines and it was no ball of fire but it was certainly very good on fuel!..I suspect if GM hadn’t used the cylinder design they did, the engine would have been much more successful and they could have pulled far more power out of the engine but that was not possible because the two major hurdles they wanted to overcome was low fuel consumption and low upfront costs…and in that regard they accomplished what they set out to do…
I volunteer at a small farm/school. We have an older F700/750 dump-truck with one of these boys. It was a previous USAF truck, and we have no real history other than I started it for the first time in about 15 years when I got it running so we could use the truck. This thing is nothing special, but it runs like a champ. Whoever had it for many years at the least didn't abuse it, and probably took pretty good care of it. I hope to keep this boy running for many more years.
Great video! Brings back some memories. I worked for a GMC dealer for a few years back in the 80's. When these engines started coming back with head gasket problems we found out that to the best of my memory you could only resurface the cylinder head .002 thousands max. Almost all the heads and the decks were warped worse than that. After a while you just dumpstered the old engines and put new or reman ones in.
I'm a mechanic and my worst engine ever is 1982-1985 Volvo V6. That engine had more problems than the Middle East and Africa combined and was the engine fitted to the DeLorean. That engine makes this look engine like a success story.
The PRV V6 is considered very reliable in Europe and in general has many accolades. Though it was never impressive in US smog form but unreliable it was not.
@@rinkk8126 mmm like the 4cyl peugeot motors in the 60's and 70's very very very reliable.. but open block design... i wonder why reliable here but design is unreliable there?
@@mattploij2673 I don't think there's much of an opinion for the Peugeot inline 4s in the US. Even then, most Honda engines are open deck, and so are a lot of GM engines and it's never really been a problem.
If noise could translate to hp, I still remember when my grandpa disced with his Oliver 1900 with that Screamin' Jimmy 4-71!! Holy Toledo...I don't think there was a redline or a torque curve to it!
Replaced my high mileage 81 8. 2 diesel, in my 81 F700, dump truck, with an 87 , came with a perfect school bus ( surplus. ) Swapped out perfect , been around 20 yrs ago, no cold start system at all, fires up and runs great, in 10 degree weather. This engine is amazing. Great torque , slow truck, who cares?
I know this engine well. I was just getting into trucking when it was introduced and I was also in the army reserves here in Canada at the time and our license built version of the M35 2 1/2 ton military truck had this engine so I've got a lot of hours operating this thing. If you got the turbocharged version, it wasn't too bad but the NA versions were absolute dogs. The 3208 Cat was the gold standard in that class at the time and very common. I remember quite a few companies were attempting to bring competitors to it onto the market because there was a big push for a diesel option in medium duty trucks. IHC produced the DT466 which was an excellent engine but most of the others in the range weren't that good.
The IH DT466 was actually used in tractors and other equipment before it was used in trucks. IH (like the others) rushed to answer the Cat 3208 (1150-1160 originally) and produced thier 9.0L V8 diesel. It wasn't a "bad" engine, but wasn't exactly a "good" engine either. Cummins also answered with thier "triple nickel" 555cid V8 diesel. That Cummins 555 ended up going into more off-road equipment than it did into highway trucks. There was even a short lived V6 derived from that 555, I saw one in an old Clark front end loader at an auction once.
I know a boater running twin fuel pinchers and they’re turbocharged. The previous owner dropped at least $30,000 US into those two diesels to make them perform reliably. Which my friend, Ty, greatly appreciated once he bought the boat.
I remember these from when I rode, drove and worked on school buses. I don't remember them having head gasket issues, but they where indeed low on power. They were ok for the Ford and Chevy school buses and county fuel truck, but I couldn't see them being in anything heavier. What I do remember was what a nightmare it was replacing those water pumps.
Had one in my 82 chevy c 70. It had an 8 yd dump body on it. Spent alot of time pulling a case 580 series backhoe on an equipment trailer. It was a pig but it always got the job done. I miss that truck. Had it for 18 years and only needed basic maintenance the entire time.
Good video. Do not miss working on these engines. Worked at the GM dealer. Can't count how many I worked on. Especially difficult in a alligator hood GM.
I’m shocked that these had a bad reputation. I remember these being in a bunch of school buses that were purchased new in the early 80s, and at least some of them were put into Fords. The one I rode in was a Ford, and I remember being surprised that a GM engine was in a Ford at the time. That bus was available every day though, and it was rare to see a substitute bus in any of the bus routes in our school district….most of which were GM, and a couple of old Internationals. There were a couple of Caterpillar powered pusher diesels, that were used for long field trips and such. I got a little long-winded there, but one thing I wanted to say was that I never saw one of these fuel pincher, diesels break down, so I thought they were probably pretty good. I graduated in the spring of ‘84, went into the Air Force, and never went back home (except to visit). That was the last I saw of those buses.
Those engines did a marvelous job in the school buses, except that they were loud. For some reason, they had more get-up and go in the Fords than GM’s.
Sounds like a good experience, bet GM could've used your testimony! Yes they were in fact so bad that an entire THIRD of engine production was for complete spares. They anticipated replacing roughly half the engines sold. And that doesn't include all the parts...
Ford was no better with head bolts. Years ago when torque-to-yield bolts came out I was in tech school and the auto tech guys bought a set over to see what made them so outrageously expensive. We in the machining labs had every testing tool known so we ran them through the tests. Turns out torque-to-yield bolts are a generic grade 3 crap bolt with an outrageous price. Hardless, ~ same. Torsion yield, ~same Stretch yield, ~ same Price, 10X! To this day whenever I work on an engine with those bolts I replace them with grade 8 or similar metic-rated bolts and I have never had a head gasket issue come back.
@@illbeyourmonster3591 who said that they didn't? The topic of this video was GM. They all have flaws (including Toyota and Honda). I will note that I don't recall a particular famous engine failure directly resulting from engine bolts as we have with a number of GM engine families (I am not saying that it doesn't exist just not recalling one or that it was a repeating problem). The common head gasket weakness I recall on say the Essex 3.8 was due to a composite head gasket which was not sufficient largely due to the spacing of the coolant and oil lines in the head being harder to seal. The 6.0 and 6.4 were Navistar designs not truly Ford Am I understanding that was that and my understanding why those had head gasket problems was due to the insufficient quantity of bolts. Most of the other Ford problems that I can think of such as the spark plugs on the 2 valve 5.4, long list of issues on the three valve 5.4, the wandering cams on the 3.4 SHO, the chain driven water pumps on the fwd cyclone V6, etc. were usually limited to that engine ( and any direct variants from that engine family). Again Ford has plenty of their own faults, but it doesn't seem like they kept making the same mistake over and over again at least as far as I'm aware outside of turbocharging.
@@colinschmitz8297 I wasn't really saying anything. I was just telling a now funny story from my life of how too often some 'new tech' turns out to be nothing but rebranded and overpriced junk. As you are also obviously aware.
Saw one in a truck once. My line of work was marine diesels. I had a friend and customer that had a pair of marinized 8.2L Detroits in a Tollycraft with V-drives. Despite their bad rep, they gave him less problems than the v-drives did.
After the early years, word got out to boaters: don’t ever push it to redline for long, or at all. Every one of those still running in boats has been so reworked and improved just to get to basic reliability.
@@wallacegrommet9343 that can be your story....but the folks that run them know more than you most likely. Most mechanics are pushing to deinstall them for something else now, because parts are getting scarce....but I've talked with several boat owners that aren't looking forward to the increased hourly fuel consumption.
We had a half dozen school buses in our fleet with 8.2's. They actually drove out pretty nice. Two of them had head bolts and gaskets done under warranty. We had two in Ford chassis, and they were trouble prone in a couple of areas. The electrical connector interface wasn't well thought out and would create intermittent problems. Once I figured out the issue and bypassed the plugs with for-sure soldering, problem solved. The other thing that plagued these was sealing of the radiator caps and coolant recovery management. Turned out they had a fair amount of left over core sand in the castings. I tried all sorts of flushing, but it just kept coming back. Finally installed coolant filter kits from my local NAPA store and - poof - no more issues.
The fuel pincher diesel was horrible. You can still find some of them in Barth motorhomes today. If you do run don't walk the other way unless you plan on a repower. GM had rocks in their heads with that engine much like they seem to currently have with the amount of recent recalls. GM is currently creating another 10 years of video material for Adam. Always been a GM guy myself but currently have no desire to own one new. They also have a dealership quality issue for years now on accurate reputable work. It's bad when the service advisors have to ask you respond in a positive manner to some questions and practically fill out the form for you. Having said that I will keep my Duramax LBZ new from 2006 another 18 years still very happy with it.
I had a 1986 GMC 6500 that had this engine and my was great, drove it for 18 years, never ever gave me a problem, never broke down, when it passed 200,000 miles it did smoke a bit till it was warmed up, but just dead reliable for me, also averaged 14 MPG with the 4 speed Allison automatic.
Just stop it with the truth here...your facts dont support the Narrative that were crappy motors an deserve shame....lol Lots of them were fine motors...lots still out there doing the medium lifting.👍
They did work fine for what they were intended for. "Medium duty" trucks and fuel economy. At the same time I had an 1984 GMC 7000 with a flatbed and it had the Gas 366 which was an awesome engine, very tourquey but used twice the fuel the Detroit 8.2 did.@@danielkingery2894
I have an 1986 c7000 chipper truck with 8.2 Turbo. Runs great, starts every time. 280k miles plus countless idle hours for the chilper bed/pto. It has been so dead reliable to me, I decided to recently replace every water hose, belt and water pump (very hard to find an OEM pump). The school county owned and tbey but a brand new clarck 5speed and clutch right before I got it. I guess the person I am replying to is the ONE and I am the second!
Did anyone ever sell or install block guards? I had one in my old Civic. Honda's are also open deck, a block guard was inserted into the water jacket to stabilize the cylinders while boosted.
@pietmondrianstudent6984 because it wouldn't address any issue but cylinder walk. You still have the asymmetrical/low clamping force issue. It also subjects a block element to stresses outside of design specs. If just "fill the deck" would fix it, simply sinking the head over the cylinders (ala air cooled vw) would be a simple solution. But you still only have 66% of the head bolts per cylinder you need for a diesel. Bossing the intercylinder rib and extending it to front and rear walls would offer adequate bolting, but would increase mass not touched by coolant, and offer asymmetrical cylinder cooling compared to a decked design. There really wasn't a "fix" for the engine, besides redesign to "conventional". Had they said "let's just deck and 6 bolt it", it probably would have been an awesome block, but open and 4 made it barely adequate for low demand duties.
It worked for my Civic to make 250+whp on an engine that made 92chp from the factory. I guess idk for sure if the cylinders would have walked, but other people had that issue, & mine didn't. Sure, fixing the weakest link exposes a new weakest link, but you need to fix the weak link to see if the next one will be weak enough to matter. The heads could have been o-ringed, instead, maybe. I almost went that way. A small circular groove is cut in the cylinder head, slightly bigger than the bore (the "O"). Then a steel wire, just barely thicker than the groove, is placed in the groove (the "ring"). this compresses the gasket slightly more around the cylinder. I didn't go this way because I don't see how it prevents walk, but it did help engines that made way more power (than I did) stay together & sealed.
My Cousin ran a Fuel Pincher for years and years over 300,000 miles much off road miles in a Tandem axle C-65 Chevy Truck .. It did not have a much torque ...
We had a 1986 GMC 8000 E-One pumper in my volunteer fire department with that engine. Had no issues. Local Detroit dealer serviced it annually. Tech told me the engine was an Oldsmobile design, not Detroit Diesel. Told me it was a siamese block and that it would cost too much to do a recall campaign that GM just dumped it. He told me all of its issues could have been addressed and it would have good longevity.
Well that tech was full of shit...... The 8.2 had absolutely nothing to do with Oldsmobile, and frankly has nothing in common with any of the Oldsmobile diesels.
I had a ford school bus that I used to flea market with. Pulled a trailer and loaded it down way too heavy . Drove it from the east coat to Arizona and all,over for years. Went 58 mph uphill or down hill and never left me stranded. Actually , from what I remember , other than routine maintenance it never broke down .
But, but, but...they were terrible engines...The Worst in fact...lol Reading the comments is one story like yours after another on any 8.2L video...the Narrative falls apart in reality.... Glad you enjoyed your bus and had good service from it. My friend has 5 of these in C-60 GMC Tree Guy trucks...its funny how they roll up on a job in a 35yo truck an it's the star when there might be 2 or 3 brand new trucks there too.😉
Actually the Caterpillar 3208 was not much better . The Chevrolet Vega piston wall was part of the aluminum block . 6 quart A / F cooling system . Great Video !
Thanks Adam. I drove heavy duty trucks and tractor trailers and well as medium duty trucks. I drove medium duty trucks with an 8.2 Detroit as well as 3208 Caterpillars and the 9.0L International. I remember the open deck design on the 8.2, not only couldn’t it compete with the 3208, we had an 8.2 that blew. The heavier duty trucks I drove had 3406 Caterpillars and I drove one with a 3408, real hill flattener, drove the 855 Cummins, various 71 and 92 series 2 cycle Detroit’s, those engines screamed! Didn’t get to drive the later 60 series 4 cycle Detroit. Heard they were good engines.
I remember Ford having a 9 liter V8 that made it into a number of buses before the DT466's showed up. Had one of those and man it would run. It would walk anything else in the fleet.
Series 60 engines were good and were rated at 1000 lb-ft to 1850 lb-ft torque depending on displacement and model year. Treat em right and they'll reach a million miles before a (*full*) rebuild, then run em for another million miles or until the block cracks!
From 2012-2016 I called on a small regional freight company that had a mix of straight or box trucks and day cabs with dry van trailers, all old as the hills. If any of you are in the trucking industry, they still had a couple 45’ Fruehaufs getting drug around. They were all pre-emissions trucks, which made some sense but after awhile, they can only bandaged up so much. Anyways, they still had a few (maybe 6-8) straight trucks with the 8.2 Detroit, only a couple were turbo charged. I’m not sure how many miles were on them but they were rough. If I was a Statey, I’d just wait for their fleet to drive by and absolutely pick them apart. Driver retention was predictably poor at that place 😅
Drove 8v-92 in GMC 9500 in the 70's.....30 mph up hill and 80 mph downhill.....also, you froze your keyster off in the winter...idle temp was about 100 degrees....
These do have one very good quality, and that is the sound they make. Much like the IDI V8’s like Fords International 6.9 and 7.3, and GM’s Detroit Diesel 6.2 and 6.5, the 8.2 has a glorious acoustic song that it plays while you drive them. I know it’s subjective but I think these old IDI V8 diesels are the best sounding diesels ever fitted to pickup trucks and light duty trucks The old diesels in general just sound better to my ear than anything made today Take care!
Although they sound similar, the 8.2 is not an IDI diesel. The 8.2 is a Direct Injected diesel. In my opinion, the 8.2 sounds similar to both a 3208 Cat, or IH 9.0, which are also Direct Injected.
@@johneckert1365 I was just a kid when riding to school with the 8.2 in most of the buses we had at the time, and never knew they were direct injection. I know the good ol screaming two strokes were direct injection but always thought the 8.2 was IDI Thanks, learn something new every day
@@dragon81heart An easy giveaway is to look at the pistons. Did you notice the pistons in Adam's video here? If not go back and watch again if you have time. The pistons have a cute little dish in them, almost like a crater. That dish also has a mound with a point on it, kinda looks like a smooth mountain. That point is the hottest spot on the piston, and the injector sprays it's fuel directly onto that point. They're called DI because the fuel is sprayed "directly" into the cylinder. That little dish in the piston is the actual combustion chamber. Now on an IDI diesel the pistons are flat without any dishes or mounds other than maybe some valve clearance reliefs. The heads have a "precombustion chamber" in them. That's like a little cave where all the hot compressed air goes on the compression stroke. The injector sprays it's fuel into the precombustion chamber, rather than directly into the cylinder. The glow plugs also go into the precombustion chamber to preheat them for easier starting. The explosion that starts in the precombustion chamber then has to fart out of a fairly small hole to get into the cylinder to push the piston down. That one of the biggest reasons IDI engines make less power than similar sized DI diesels. IDI engines also require much higher compression ratios to run, which hurts thier efficiency and durability.
@@johneckert1365 oh I’m quite familiar with the 6.9, and 7.3 IDI’s as we have a few in the family Even had one of the sort of rare factory turbo 7.3 IDI in a 93 F-350 dually that we towed office trailers, campers, etc with. That thing was a TANK! I’d absolutely love to have one again. I learned to drive standard trans in it and an 84 F-150 with the 300 and 4 speed OD (with a big gap between 2nd and 3rd, like a more modern 5 speed just driving it without 3rd gear lol) So many great memories in that 93. Was the only diesel on the market that when loaded could run with the old 12 valve Cummins Dodges in the mountains, and would walk away from them on the highway. Was a highly overlooked engine in Fords history as the DI 7.3 Powerstroke came out just a year later. Definitely appreciate the lil lesson on the workings of them as it’s been a long time since I was around them and am admittedly a little rusty lol Thanks!
@@dragon81heart You bet. I never drove an IDI 7.3 with a turbo before, but plenty of them without. I have a wrecker and a rollback with IDI 7.3 in them.
I inherited a 1980 GMC two-ton truck with a grain hauling bed that I believe has the 8.2l diesel engine shown here. Sure looks like it. It's certainly no 'fuel pincher' but it's always ran well and unbelievably starts in cold weather without any challenges. In fact I just started it in 34 degree weather to warm it up after a 2 week super cold streak. It calls for two batteries but a single battery has always been sufficient. Very much agree that the horsepower could be better.
Worked on these engines at a school bus garage. Dare i say, they were the most reliable buses we had. They were so reliable we had buses from the 1980s still in service in 2013 and as back up buses if a newer bus broke down. For school bus duty these engines made a mechanics job pretty easy. Just gear them relitively high (3.55), keep the rpms pretty low, and keep up on the service. They run forever. Lower gears at higher rpms is where you find trouble with these engines.
I worked at an independent truck repair shop when these first came out. A couple of our customers had bought them and they were reliable at first. After a few years they all had block problems. One had cracked through the oil passage to the head and the other came in with a "slight miss". Investigating the miss, we found that the block had split lengthwise along the cam bearings almost the entire length of the block. We had removed a main bearing cap and a chunk of the block fell out when the cap was removed. And this truck had DRIVEN IN with a slight miss.
My dad bought a new Chevy truck back in the day and it had that worthless 5.7 diesel in it. It blew up almost instantly and the dealership took it back and replaced the diesel with a 350 gas free of charge! 🤣
All problems with the 5.7 diesel were because GM decided not to install a fuel/water separator. Water in fuel causes rust. Rust in injection pump causes overfueling. Overfueling causes cylinder overpressure. Cylinder overpressure causes head gasket leaks. Head gasket leaks lead to divorce.
@@erikkovacs3097Water does more than just that. It is not a lubricant, meaning the fuel system (which relies on lubrication from diesel fuel) sees periods of poor to no lubrication, wearing it out faster. Water also increases cylinder pressure during combustion, which contributed significantly to the head gasket issues these engines already had. The lack of a water separator was an enormous part of the problem. The engines are honestly fine with modern knowledge and techniques of ownership. Many of the 5.7’s left on the road are owned by people who understand them.
@@erikkovacs3097 LOLOLOL Divorce, even? That wasn’t the only problem. Another problem was people would not allow the engine to warm-up a bit, and drive it a little more gently until it was fully warmed-up. People would start it and take off. I remember a neighbor having one of these, and he would do just that. Get in, fire it up, and take off. He would stomp on it, heading down the road. Diesels don’t like that shit.
The fuel pincher was a Pinske (owner of Detroit diesel) along with the 6.2 used in pickups. It was used to go up against the Cat 3208 engine. (Cat didn't last very long either) (also Cummins put out a small V8, the triple nickle we called it) We had an Olds come into our shop that had the diesel that had 480,000 miles on it, pretty much all highway. We did not do any work on it as we were the Detroit/Allison dealer but couldn't believe this guy had that many miles on it! The state had lots of the GM trucks with the 8.2 and we saw them regularly.
Yeah, I never had heard of this engine. As much of a failure as it may have been, it's still fascinating and very interesting, specially from an engineering stand point. 👏🏻😁
The early ones were bad...something like 48% were replaced under warranty...but the later ones with bigger head bolts, etc were not bad motors....not an HD motor, but for 5yrds of gravel or a busload of kids...they were perfect an miserly.
I run a engine machine shop in Rhode Island back in the 90's and rebuilt a 8.2 in a Johnson 4 wheel street sweeper.Engine ran well and was good on fuel.Run it at 1800 RPM for hours and would burn less than 20 gallons for 14 hours of work.Sweeper had a hydasatic trans.
You are being very diplomatic by using the word "challenges." These were problems and design problems. Let's not sugar coat things. I am very familiar with the marine version of this engine. They were know in the industry as diesel powered hand grenades. Many boat owners found themselves in a real pickle given that very few shops would rebuild them and 3208s were considerably larger and heavier.
I remember when they came out, we had high expectations. After about a year or two, every one I saw was either leaking compression/combustion gasses into the cooling system, or they were totally blown up
Peugeot developed a wet-sleeve aluminum block V6 in the mid 70s that was also sold to Volvo. This engine was notorious for blowing head gaskets for the same reasons you mentioned for the fuel pincher diesel. As a mechanic at that time, I hated working on these engines and felt sorry for the customer who got stuck with such a terrible engine.
I can remember getting stuck behind one of these diesel powered vehicles choking on the exhaust they put out. I worked in a diesel truck garage and the 8.2 litre was referred to a boat anchor
Open deck diesel good lord. GM's failures are so predictably obvious it always looks like deliberate. These are all problems shared with olds pass car diesels as well as HT4100 as well as northstar as well as Ed Cole's dumb Vega engine.
The Olds 5.7’s issues were mostly due to the lack of a water separator, which was unbelievably stupid on GM’s part. Water in diesel not only wears the fuel system down, it also increases cylinder pressure significantly. Without water in the fuel, a 5.7 is often fine. Not a stellar performer, but an efficient grocery getter. Unfortunately, diesel often had lots of water in it in those days, and without a water separator failure was simply inevitable
With the head off it just looks like a disaster waiting to happen. I liked the picture of the "wavy" connecting rod, though. Something to hang on a "wall of shame".
I had one of these 8.2L’s it was a good reliable engine that was good on fuel, up until it wasn’t, coolant in the oil sent it to an engine builder because when it was running it really was good on fuel and pretty reliable, we spent more than the truck was worth, and once we got it back it didn’t make it a week and it once again was filling the crankcase with coolant, we had it sleeved, injectors rebuilt, new heads, all new bearings and gaskets, and were right back were we started. So we pulled it out a second time and replaced it with a ZZ4 small block and at the cost of fuel economy it was once again reliable.
I remember driving school buses with the fuel pincher amd was it totally gutless. Couldn't make the posted speed limit on the highway and and slowed to a crawl on hills. Standing on the accelerator pedal for extended periods of time was very tiring.
LOL that sounds possibly worse than an N/A 350 gasoline V8 on a big school bus! Even the bus that I remember being in, would regularly hit 60-65 MPH, IIRC. Sadly, I think engine failure occurred in 1997 one day, IIRC. It most likely failed when going up the hill to the campus. It didn't help that the transmission kept hunting and sound like it jamming up like a big honkin' printer! I was in that bus before that incident, when going up the same hill, and it sounded like a chance of the transmission breaking! I wasn't in that bus during that incident. Unless it was the transmission that failed and they didn't feel like getting it back on the road. It also didn't help that it was mostly just driven on the campus.
@@RJARRRPCGP I drove an 1972 vintage school bus with a Chevrolet 366 big block. Had a hard time doing 60 and tended to max out around 58 or so. I cheated a little and could beat the governor of I inched the chock out a little bit. Things worked out well untill I was ripping along at 62 when without warning the whole bottom end dropped out. I was on the clutch and coasted to the shoulder and wondered what happened. I believe the extra fuel from using the choke washed the cylinders and stuck some pistons. That broke the bottom end and my luck. I swore I didn't know what happened when asked.
The free standing liners allowed the liners to move/vibrate along the major/minor thrust directions. I worked on these at a Detroit dealership and they had continual head gasket updates. If they had cast the top of the block solid like most engines the head gaskets would have lasted. Detroit tried drilling and taping the block for 15mm head bolts instead of 14mm. Another issue was breaking the cup on the top of the pushrods. Not all would fail. Those that failed showed a witness mark around the top of the cup instead of down at the bottom. Tuneup was a tricky pain to get right.
I worked at a GMC dealer when the 8.2L came out.Went for overhaul training on it.For GM it replaced the 4 53T Detroit in the 5 ton series.To do head gaskets on it in non tilt hood GMC we had to take the whole front sheet metal off complete.Did it smoke on startup on a cold morning or what.
I had one of those fuel Pinchers in it GMC single axle tractor. It was the turbo version had decent power and ran well but it was a low mileage truck only about 32,000 miles and had been owned by the Indiana Department of natural resources and had been properly maintained. I'll agree that without a turbo they were absolute dogs but they were good on fuel while they ran. They also have an overly complicated fuel injection system that uses push rods and the valve lash on the injector rockers to set the pump timing and not fun to work on.
I used to drive for an armored car company. We had mid 80's F600 with a 5 speed and a 500 detroit in it. Loaded up with 8,000 pounds of coins, the truck was probably 20,000 pounds, we got 65 for a flank speed. Anything that looked like a hill, and you'd be downshifting and going 30.
I knew a dude in the 80s that used an 8.2L in a medium duty truck and he used to haul around trailer homes with it. It definitely needed all 10 gears to do the work and very slowly but, it worked for him.
As retired GM tech, the 8.2 Detroit and to this day the Duramax is the worst engine. General Motors has a lot of quality issues with everything they build.
Ford went with the Caterpillar 3208 V8 diesel engines. in many of their medium and many medium heavy duty trucks buses. these GM engines are also known Siamese cylinder engines. and the Cadillac 4100 series gasoline engines. were included in these type of engines. and were also aluminum block cast iron head engines. like the Chevrolet Vega four cylinder engines. and they were well known for head gasket failures.
Some of the Ford Ecoboost 4 cylinders (2015-ish to ?) have open decks and are known for blowing head gaskets. The Focus RS is a great example with 350hp out of a 2.3L engine with a lot of boost to do that. As you mentioned, studs with insufficient clamping force was a large part, but I'm sure the open deck with the forces being applied to the cylinder sure didn't help.
Most modern gas engines are open deck, works fine for NA and can handle turbo if you design it right (i.e. reinforcing the right areas), totally unsuitable for diesels though. Some of the early ecoboost 4 cylinders were known for a weak area between the cylinders where a head gasket blowout could happen.
Ford put them in alot of thier medium duty trucks. Eventually Ford started using thier 6.6 and 7.8 inline 6 built in Brazil (excellent engines) until they later started using "B" and "C" series Cummins engines.
That short piston skirt thing goes across the board for GM, short deck heights. Makes for short rods and skirts for crank clearance at bdc. All cost saving.. They did help the bbc truck engine by raising the deck. Those old truck 427 blocks made great race engines for many reasons.
