[hilljacknm]

Was cruising craigslist and came across a diesel Bonneville. Did not know there was such a thing. Bonnevilles are not my main interest in Pontiac, but found this interesting , none the less......

http://albuquerque.craigslist.org/cto/2109402147.html



1981 Pontiac Bonneville Station Wagon - Diesel - $1000 (ABQ)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2010-12-12, 3:43PM MST
Reply to: sale-mg7ng-2109402147@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi, I'm selling an "almost cherry" condition 1981 Pontiac Bonneville station wagon. It has the 5.7l diesel engine.
85,000 miles. This car was garaged for most of its life. Was sitting for the last couple of years unused here in NM.

Interior is MINT condition except for partially fallen headliner. Original manuals come with car.
Has rear jump seat. With both rear seats folded down, you could live in this thing.

AC needs to be worked on. Needs two new 12 volt batteries for starting. Tires hold air but you might want new ones.

The car runs PERFECT. The diesel engine is in great condition and starts up easily. Does not smoke.
You have to be easy on these original GM diesels. Can give you more info about that when you call.
If operated properly it will continue to run great. These engines get up to 18 MPG.

Take this thing on a biodiesel fueled rampage to a dry lake bed festival near you!

[ugpkgb]

Ya it was a olds 350 converted to run on diesel. Quite a few g-bodys came with the olds diesel also.

[chicagoland]

That's the last full size b body Bonneville, not the mid size G.

[elefantrider]

Wonder how much these things can tow??
Don't think the Olds 350 is known as a long lasting diesel engine, like a Cummins.
I have heard the diesel blocks are favored by the Olds drag racing crowd.

[Mr Twister]

I want that! Michigan to New mexico is probably a deal breaker though. Bummed

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by hilljacknm

Was cruising craigslist and came across a diesel Bonneville. Did not know there was such a thing. Bonnevilles are not my main interest in Pontiac, but found this interesting , none the less......

http://albuquerque.craigslist.org/cto/2109402147.html



1981 Pontiac Bonneville Station Wagon - Diesel - $1000 (ABQ)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2010-12-12, 3:43PM MST
Reply to: sale-mg7ng-2109402147@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi, I'm selling an "almost cherry" condition 1981 Pontiac Bonneville station wagon. It has the 5.7l diesel engine.
85,000 miles. This car was garaged for most of its life. Was sitting for the last couple of years unused here in NM.

Interior is MINT condition except for partially fallen headliner. Original manuals come with car.
Has rear jump seat. With both rear seats folded down, you could live in this thing.

AC needs to be worked on. Needs two new 12 volt batteries for starting. Tires hold air but you might want new ones.

The car runs PERFECT. The diesel engine is in great condition and starts up easily. Does not smoke.
You have to be easy on these original GM diesels. Can give you more info about that when you call.
If operated properly it will continue to run great. These engines get up to 18 MPG.

Take this thing on a biodiesel fueled rampage to a dry lake bed festival near you!

Up to 18 ? lol, my 81 Bonnie usually returned 30 mpg with the a/c on. Id grab that thing if it were closer -

Originally Posted by ugpkgb

Ya it was a olds 350 converted to run on diesel. Quite a few g-bodys came with the olds diesel also.

No, the Olds 350 diesel was a completely different engine; only the timing chain cover, waterpump, and valvecovers were the same.
The crank, rods, block & heads were completely different.
They did use much of the same tooling, though to reduce costs. By 83 it was a decent engine once they put the better headbolts and main bolts in (drilled & tapped deeper)

Originally Posted by elefantrider

Wonder how much these things can tow??
Don't think the Olds 350 is known as a long lasting diesel engine, like a Cummins.
I have heard the diesel blocks are favored by the Olds drag racing crowd.

The later ones were pretty decent, but GM drug its feet to fix the problems of the earlier ones and the damage was done; few in the later years when it was a better engine sold.
The real hot one is the 4.3 V6 Olds diesel; it had 5 bolt heads/cylinder and could push 40 mpg in a Cutlass Ciera.

[Sirrotica]

I had a 81 Bonneville diesel that ran over 150,000 miles and the only reason I replaced it was the guy I sold it to didn't want anything to do with a diesel, so I put a Rocket 350 in it. They are about as much HP as a 301 so they wouldn't tow much of a trailer. The guy has something wrong with it if he's only getting 18 MPG unless it's all in town driving. I drove mine from Erie Pa. to Phoenix and got over 30 MPG round trip average, best was just under 32 MPG.

By 81 GM had the bugs ironed out of them and if properly maintained they will run quite along time. I have seen them with over 200,000 on them. One of the most overlooked problems is that GM used the stock gasoline breathers in the valve covers and the screen inside clogged with carbon particles and then the crankcase pressure would go up and push the rear main seal and the rings out, that in turn created a major oil leak and the engines were frequently run out of oil causing them to blow up. This is one reason they got the bad reputation for reliability along with the early 77-79s had inferior crankshafts and balancers which caused the crankshafts to snap.

Most but not all had that wonderful metric 200 tranny in them which was originally a chevette tranny and just about junk, some had T 350s but they were pretty rare. Don't ever get stuck in the snow and attempt to rock it or you'll be calling a wrecker for sure.

I worked in a Buick dealership and got most of the diesels to work on and by doing this I found out a bunch of the problems with them and if you knew how to take care of them (which took a number of years for GM to figure out the idiosyncrasies) and service them accordingly along with getting a good crank and balancer in the later engines they were reliable but not fast, but got good fuel mileage too.

[hilljacknm]

Cool stuff guys.

About getting 18mpg, elevation here is about 5000 feet. Could this be the reason for the lower mpg?

[Sirrotica]

I went through mountains in NM to get to Phoenix and never noticed my mileage drop, power was down some, but mileage was still great.

Pump timing if it was changed at some point and not checked can make the mileage drop.

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

By 81 GM had the bugs ironed out of them and if properly maintained they will run quite along time. I have seen them with over 200,000 on them. One of the most overlooked problems is that GM used the stock gasoline breathers in the valve covers and the screen inside clogged with carbon particles and then the crankcase pressure would go up and push the rear main seal and the rings out, that in turn created a major oil leak and the engines were frequently run out of oil causing them to blow up. This is one reason they got the bad reputation for reliability along with the early 77-79s had inferior crankshafts and balancers which caused the crankshafts to snap.

WX blocks ('81 & up) helped crank problems; the mains on the earlier were not drilled & tapped deep enough from the factory; I think they went to a bigger bolt also, but how many earlier blocks are left to see ?!?
I think in '83 they went with bigger, stronger headbolts which helped with the headgaskets.
I also think people didnt watch or maintain the fuel filters or know how to maintain a diesel, or to know they had to plug them in ? I was in Chicago in '88 in highschool and went to a yard that had a huge section of 5.7 diesels. Yard guy told me they always had tons of them come in during the winter because they would not start

[Sirrotica]

Not having a gear reduction starter meant your starting system as well as the batteries better be in almost perfect shape. Even 1 or 2 bad glow plugs would hinder starting also. The gear reduction starter in the later applications helped starting cold also.

One of the main things that killed these engines is being serviced by gas stations, dealers, etc. that never dealt with diesel power plants, hence they weren't serviced properly. No water separators to speak of didn't help and the fuel filter capacity was quite small in relation to most diesel applications and was susceptible to plugging as well as most owners didn't have a clue what fuel gelling was either and never winterized their fuel which plugged the fuel filter almost immediately upon start up. Later diesels had electric fuel heaters to minimize fuel gelling, but it was too little too late. Fuel was not in short supply any longer and no one wanted the hassle of owning them, and 85 was the last year they were available. Typically as with many GM cars by the time they got done field testing and working the bugs out the reputation of the car was so bad they wouldn't sell, coupled with the big surcharge to order a 5.7 engine. If the mercury was going to be below 20 you better have your 5.7 plugged in or your chances of it starting were reduced by a good margin.

One other thing you didn't want to do was ether the engine as it blew the prechamber out of the head and the piston would have a field day with it, most times destroying the engine.

[mike nixon]

HAd one in an 81 G/P. It routinely pulled 28-33 mpg. Took it to fla and with the cruise set against the govenor it still pulled 25 mpg. It wasn't fast but would smoke the tires with the best of them.


I replaced it with a W-30 455 Olds when the rear main started leaking and the injection pump chucked it's govenor gears.

[hilljacknm]

Guess someone snagged it. The posting has been deleted. Neat car.

[Coach]

I had one in a Cadillac Seville, hated that motor, smelled bad, smoked like a school bus, and rattled & shook till it warmed up. Replaced it with a 350 Olds gas motor and it was a great car till I blew out the CV joints. Traded it for my '74 Vette, not one of my better trades.

-H

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by mike nixon

HAd one in an 81 G/P. It routinely pulled 28-33 mpg. Took it to fla and with the cruise set against the govenor it still pulled 25 mpg. It wasn't fast but would smoke the tires with the best of them.

I'd like to find a G body with a 4.3 V6 diesel; most were thrown in Cieras which I'm not a big fan of.
Friend has a '85 98 FWD and it's much quicker then my 5.7 diesel Bonnie, and he can pull 40 mpg.
Now why the hell can't they build a reasonable size car like that does that ?

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

Not having a gear reduction starter meant your starting system as well as the batteries better be in almost perfect shape. Even 1 or 2 bad glow plugs would hinder starting also. The gear reduction starter in the later applications helped starting cold also.

One of the main things that killed these engines is being serviced by gas stations, dealers, etc. that never dealt with diesel power plants, hence they weren't serviced properly. No water separators to speak of didn't help and the fuel filter capacity was quite small in relation to most diesel applications and was susceptible to plugging as well as most owners didn't have a clue what fuel gelling was either and never winterized their fuel which plugged the fuel filter almost immediately upon start up. Later diesels had electric fuel heaters to minimize fuel gelling, but it was too little too late. Fuel was not in short supply any longer and no one wanted the hassle of owning them, and 85 was the last year they were available. Typically as with many GM cars by the time they got done field testing and working the bugs out the reputation of the car was so bad they wouldn't sell, coupled with the big surcharge to order a 5.7 engine. If the mercury was going to be below 20 you better have your 5.7 plugged in or your chances of it starting were reduced by a good margin.

One other thing you didn't want to do was ether the engine as it blew the prechamber out of the head and the piston would have a field day with it, most times destroying the engine.

Indeed. The VW's of that era had pretty big fuel filters. Just about every manufacturer was building diesels in the early 80s, but the gas prices stabized and people didnt want a slow, noisy vehicle any longer.

[BOPcollector]

Last year while going through a junkyard in Buck,Pa, there was a 1981 Buick Regal Limited 2dr with the 4.3 diesel. They said it ran. It didn't look too bad but unfortunately it ended up in the crusher. I should have bought it for the $400. they wanted for it. The idea of 30+ miles to the gallon in a G body appeals to me.

[hilljacknm]

It's back again, incase you missed it.....

http://albuquerque.craigslist.org/cto/2122174440.html

[Ragtop Man]

Had a boss with a diesel powered Electra 225 back in that time frame - he paid over sticker to get it and was happy to find one. We made a few sales calls in that car, cruising long distances in it, we got about 27 MPG if memory serves.

But, when a conventional gas-fueled 3800 powered H-Body would get a solid 30-32 on the hwy (did this numerous times in the day) it's hard to justify the expense of the diesel.

As one of the engineers explained to me from Pontiac, the first people who did get Diesel powered cars often were inexperienced with that type of engine (compared to the Mercedes and others of the era) and figured, "Diesel is Diesel".

What they didn't know is that truck stops and large commercial stations assume a better and higher level of filtration for the user. The blends sold for over the road trucking at the time had much higher levels of parrafins to lubricate the pump and (zads!) mechanical injectors. One cold snap would turn the tank to jell-o in a passenger car.

Stations in town that added the capability had a different problem. Trying to service a small population of users meant the contents of the in-ground tank did not turn over nearly as fast as regular. It was very easy for these tanks to collect condensation and pass the water through to the fuel system, which would cause havoc in a cost-contained GM engine. This did happen to the boss' Electra, before the trans started giving him fits. He dumped the Electra, bought a Town Car and never looked back.

AJ Foyt was the last guy in an Oldsmobile in NASCAR to run an Olds engine -- he had Dale Smith prepare a run of DX-Code (IIRC) 4-bolt 350 blocks for the project. (It is not out of the question to suggest these received special attention, such as acid dipping or modification of some core box elements.)

Somewhere I have the build story, but the nut of it was they used the Batten Engineering head and a Victor intake, with a Moldex crank and Crower rods. I'm freestylin' a little bit here, but the goal was to get more torque to get out of the corners better. I'll look for it to scan and post.

Some drag guys in Olds cars really love this block, the journals match the forged 425 crank, and you can burn the cutter out of a boring bar and still have more meat in the walls than a stocker. 483" from a stock-looking low deck 350 is not only possible, but easy. Doesn't take radical event timing or compression to turn your driveshaft to spaghetti.

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by Ragtop Man

Had a boss with a diesel powered Electra 225 back in that time frame - he paid over sticker to get it and was happy to find one. We made a few sales calls in that car, cruising long distances in it, we got about 27 MPG if memory serves.

But, when a conventional gas-fueled 3800 powered H-Body would get a solid 30-32 on the hwy (did this numerous times in the day) it's hard to justify the expense of the diesel.

As one of the engineers explained to me from Pontiac, the first people who did get Diesel powered cars often were inexperienced with that type of engine (compared to the Mercedes and others of the era) and figured, "Diesel is Diesel".

What they didn't know is that truck stops and large commercial stations assume a better and higher level of filtration for the user. The blends sold for over the road trucking at the time had much higher levels of parrafins to lubricate the pump and (zads!) mechanical injectors. One cold snap would turn the tank to jell-o in a passenger car.

Stations in town that added the capability had a different problem. Trying to service a small population of users meant the contents of the in-ground tank did not turn over nearly as fast as regular. It was very easy for these tanks to collect condensation and pass the water through to the fuel system, which would cause havoc in a cost-contained GM engine. This did happen to the boss' Electra, before the trans started giving him fits. He dumped the Electra, bought a Town Car and never looked back.

Yea, but 27 mpg from a big wagon is pretty good; the FWD application with the 3800 is much smaller.

Originally Posted by BOPcollector

Last year while going through a junkyard in Buck,Pa, there was a 1981 Buick Regal Limited 2dr with the 4.3 diesel. They said it ran. It didn't look too bad but unfortunately it ended up in the crusher. I should have bought it for the $400. they wanted for it. The idea of 30+ miles to the gallon in a G body appeals to me.

You found a needle in a haystack, of the few 4.3s left everyone Ive seen were in FWD applications.