@@carlachambers3771 In the late 70's I had a delivery job driving a 76 Chevy C65 with a 26 foot stake bed and a 350 2 barrel. That was the base engine and man even with the 2 speed rear axle it would sound like a NASCAR engine out on the highway! That truck would eat an engine about every 2 years and they would replace them with a GM Targetmaster engine in about a day.
@@edwardpate6128 It seemed the 366/427 engines lasted a lot longer,and actually would depending on the year,and emissions equipment, would if driven right would deliver about 6 miles to the gallon
@@chrisstromberg6527 When I was a lot younger in 79,I drove a 75 Chevy C 60,and a 72 Loadstar 1600,both flatbeds,the Loadstar had a nice pedal and steering wheel feel,but the seat was not its best feature.The Chevy was a fairly comfortable truck,the Loadstar had a better feel as far as steering wheel rake,and better pedal feel,but the seat felt better after a few hours on the road,but given the time they were built they were both fairly comfortable trucks,and they drove pretty well.
Nothing that they ever made replaced the 2 stroke Detroit Diesel V-8 Diesel engine for power, fuel efficiency, and reliability as long as it was not beaten to death and maintenance was done at 4K miles. Still have one that has 300K and I would take it to California, Canada, or Florida from Butler, PA. anytime, any weather conditions or you name it period. Great evening and enjoy your day tomorrow.
You must have gotten the only good one, everybody i knew that had a 8.2 complained it was the worst engine they ever owned, even worse than the Old 534 Ford Gas.
But they sound like shit due to ignition at every rotation. They sound too high reving for trucks while they actually dont rev high. They sound high pitched. I prefer deeper, low rpm brutal bubbling before motocross 250cc 2 stroke noises times 8. When i wanna hear 2 stroke, i start my chainsaw.
@@dom3827they revved high being only 2 strokes for combustion 2 crank revolutions...opposed to 4 strokes needing 4 strokes to 1 combustion cycle 4 crankshaft revolutions.
Had a c60, c65 and c70…all gassers, I liked them all, there were never any issues…all dumps…wish I still had them, DOT wouldn’t leave me alone as these were older units, finally had enough…sold them for well more than I paid for them…
The free standing cylinders in the open water jacket with no gussets to stabilize them was their biggest weakness…the cylinders would walk inside the block and destroy the head gaskets…they had other issues but they were actually very good on fuel!!
We here in North Carolina had Thomas Chevrolet C60 Conventional Type-C School Buses powered by the 8.2 l Detroit Fuel Pincher V8 Diesel engines and they were pretty good and reliable for us with no problem
Had one for a few years and it never gave issue and got near 20mpg loaded or not. Late model ones 85+ were good, heard bad things about the early ones which is probably everyone hating here in the comments. I would stay away from the turbo though to ensure longevity.
The GMC Top Kick and Chevy Kodiak with the Cat 3208 was a far better choice! I drove them all including the Chevy and Ford gas V8s and the DT466s in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. I drove a GMC 7000 like this one with a Cummins 6BT5.9 conversion in the summer of ‘87 and loved it. Just before Dodge introduced them in their RAM pickups. I also drove a ‘70s GMC 7000 with a 4-53T turbo Detroit 4 cylinder that time and it was a good, but noisy engine. It was the diesel option in those trucks in the ‘70s, before the Detroit 8.2L debuted in 1980.
There were other lousy diesels in the ‘70s like the Cummins 555 V8 and the International DV550 which I believe was a converted 549 gas V8. The Cat 3208 with a Roadranger RT6613 did quite well and it was so popular in the Ford LTS 8000 and LNT 8000 dump trucks back then.
When the 14mm to 15mm head bolts update came out almost half of the engines we did ended up having the block replaced because the 15mm bolts would tweak the block causing the cam to seize in the cam bearings. The 2nd 1/3 of these were the 1st replacement for the 1st 1/3 and the last 1/3 was the 2nd replacement
@@bobwilson758 GM sent out a bulletin to ream the head bolt holes from 14 to 15mm when this was done some blocks when the heads were torqued would tweak the cam tunnel so the cam bearings were no longer in line which would cause the cam bearings usually #3 to seize to the cam and spin in the block. About 3 months after that bulletin GM sent out another one saying do not increase the size of the head bolts. They never gave a reason but it was speculation that reaming the holes removed enough material to allow the block to flex when the heads were torqued. Remember it was an open deck
There was a recall back in the early 1980s on some of these engines for having a defective head gasket. The head gasket finally blew on the Detroit Diesel, 8.2 "fuel pincher" engine that was powering the railroad truck I drove. GM paid for the expensive repair that apparently included replacing all the internal journal bearings.
Head gasket recalls were continual. One involved drilling the 14mm head bolt holes and taping for 15mm head bolts. This was an attempt to get more clamp load on the gaskets.
Its crazy how GM put so much into this engine for it to be an absolute flop. I drove an old f600 tow truck several years ago that had one. Was a turbo model. That was its only saving grace in an only 26k gvw truck. I will say, it sounded sweet straight piped and got decent mileage, but it was a nightmare finding someone in this day and age to work on it when it broke down, and broke down it did. I was told even back in the early 2000’s it was still a nightmare to get someone good to repair it.
I was young and desperate, so I wrenched on a couple around 2010 and took the time to find the manuals and understand how to work on them. The owners couldn’t find anyone anywhere to touch them. Not crazy complicated, but I have no interest doing any more work on these.
@@benhart16 I am a retired truck and equipment mechanic I have done some external work on them but I had plenty of other work so I was one of those guys that did not take them on. I have heard that they used them in some marine applications, I don't know if that is true or not. I just did not have any regular customers that were running them so I didn't tool up for them.
I remember when these came out. The construction company next door to our shop bought a bunch of them in little single axle dumps and fuel tender trucks. They probably bought about 10 of them brand new. I think all ten of them had some kind of serious engine failure within two years.
I serviced a fleet of these for the highway department. Very reliable. Only real problems were the oil cooler orings and every once and a while a leaky warter pump or replace a belt or starter.
It’s hilarious seeing how much hate these engines get. They’re not as bad as people make them out to be. Most people overworked them and expected them to hold up to things they weren’t designed to do.
As a mechanic who worked on them, they were definately not the best design out of DDA. Open deck allowed the cylinders to walk around, which chewed up the head gaskets. Proper tuneup was difficult and time consuming. I thought if plates were built to press over the tops of the liners and inside the block perimeter, the cylinders would be stabilized and the head gaskets would last.
Well, these diesel engines may have been terrible, but diesel engines that actually worked in the long term were an upgrade over gasoline engines. When you have a fleet of 10 trucks doing in city work, and you make the choice of gas or diesel, going from 3 miles per gallon average per truck to 5 miles per gallon average per truck over a year is a huge deal, especially when diesel was way cheaper than gasoline on average to boot. GM was trying, but established diesel engine companies quickly did it better (mostly) in the medium duty truck segment.
Well a 8.2 with a turbo compared to a gasser or a 2 stroke gutless fuel toilet I'm sure it was cheaper dollar to the mile. LOL. Man and here I feel like my 230hp 7.3 is wimpy lol.
@@PatrickBaptist I know, diesel is always gonna get better mpg than a comparable gasser. "Fuel pincher" still seems a little hyperbolic though. Meh, it's marketing, so it gets a pass I guess. As for hp, torque is the name of the game for trucks and for diesels, so doubly so for diesel trucks!
@@Carstuff111 Detroit Diesel was very much an established diesel engine manufacturer, and these engines were not terrible. Certain people will always dog on old engines that were designed for thrift, so they pick up a bad reputation that isn’t really deserved.
I bought one that was in a 87 6500 that just about new in 1988 from a bankrupt freight line. We took the pox body off and put on a rollback and it was still running well in to 2008. Then my after my Dad died I dont know what my sister's idiot kid did, but somehow started a fire on the right side in the cab. Then took the dash apart. Otherwise the engine smoked some from running jet fuel in it in the 90s and never gave a minutes trouble. It would start cold like the video says........oh yeah, what ever happened to the truck? I bought it from my sister a few years ago so she could pay her property tax. Its still at her house in GA and I have not been able to move it to my shop in WA State.
They used so little fuel because they were always broken down and being worked on. It’s sad, all that research and testing, and the 8.2 still ended up being an absolute turd. An 8.2 is the most efficient way to turn diesel fuel into noise. Back then, the only Medium Duty diesel truck to own was an International with a DT466.
The fuel Pincher was great I had 2 of them a 81 C60 16 foot box truck like the ones in this video and 89 Brigadier C50 dump truck the 8.2 fuel Pincher has a different sound then most other diesels then or now
I had an 8.2 Fuel Pincher in my truck , backed up real fast and hit the brakes real hard , it slid out of the bed at the ScrapYard ! This engine was one step above an Oldsmobile automobile diesel engine !
Why would they have to offer a Caterpillar to customers when they are going to last just as long as it will plus be cheaper probably since it's in house built , supplied and easy to maintain the as long as you maintain it according to the builders and maybe a thousand miles less to keep it from having any issues period. I have had one of each one and at 4,000 miles complete maintenance I got over 500,000 miles and had the only Diesel engine with oil that was never black and gritty. Detroit Diesel, Cummins/Powerstroke and caterpillar in that order to run and maintain.
@10:49 No it doesn't have those things, but what it does have is 8 fuel injectors that cost more than the carb, and a fuel pump that will cost more than the dist/wires/plugs LOL. I love when they try and make it sound like it won't need maintenance when diesel maintenance costs more, oil changes alone do. The 8.2 isn't so reliable and today you basically can't make a dollar off flipping one, if I had one I'd rev it till it popped and scrap it for shreader steel.
My boss had a 8.2 in his motor home It had less than 20,000 miles on it when it started filling the crank case with coolant. After a bunch of parts changing they finally changed out the Compleat engine, The boss dumped it as soon as they got the engine fixed.
To think a diesel engine maker since 1938 and they couldn’t produce a decent smaller diesel engine. Then they gave up and let Isuzu take over…They should have just put a 4-71 in these medium duties…
@@SillyPuddy2012 I don't think that's what they are implying,I think from my point of view the engineers were taking a back seat to the corporate money people, cutting durability to save profits,and promoting a lot of disappointment and hurting goodwill of people who thought the 8.2 was on the same level as other Detroit Diesels.
Not to bad of an engine. 3208 much better but more expensive. Mixed reviews. Many hated them many said they were ok.. Better than the Toroflow before it .
Funny Story>>> Some years ago GM chucked their tried & true V8 family the 307-350-454 and replaced them with the 4.8L-5.3L-8.2L. Well, as it turns out all GM did was use the old small blocks & attach new heads, new fuel systems & new powertrain control computer/software to meet the more stringent emissions. !
It always amazes me how GM can make some of the best engines yet also make some of the worst pile of junk engines ever made. The 671 2 stroke Detroit might have been the best small diesel ever made. Then they come out with garbage like this!
Awful engine! Worked as hd big trk diesel mech in early 80's at a Ford big trk dealer. When the big cummins,cat, big detroits eng work and o'hauls got slow I got stuck working on these ... put these in every med duty and bread truck there was... no tilting hoods or easy to get to chassis. Detroit had a head gskt recall on those shi*tbox engines at the time and what a pita that was! Not when long hoods and cabovers had big sweet diesels that needed attn. Miss those days, but not that fuel pincher!!
I think My great grandpa owned one of these trucks, a 3 ton grian truck, but it has an inline engine painted black so I don’t know if someone swapped it or what.
Early models had head gasket issues, and most mechanics couldn't set the injector heights correctly so they ended up popping head gaskets again from excessive cylinder pressure.
I going to catch hell, but why didn't they refine and put the improved combustion piston cylinder swirl design and improved injectors in the turo flow diesels it would have done a lot better than the Fuel Pinchers,and would have probablylasted longer to boot.
My best bud had the very same burgundy dumptruck in this vidya. It did not have enough power to get out of its own way. Try and lift off, loaded, if the drive tires are in soft sand? Then he put a small holmes wrecker on it. Nope, still was better off with the 1 ton with a 6.2 liter. Eventually pushed the fuel pincher into the back yard and let moss grow on it. What a waste of time, effort, energy GM went through.
They certainly missed a lot of the lessons of the 5.7 liter diesel,or missed the boat on counting dimes while missing dollars,and hurting good will with the customer.
Ford bought scads of these engines for their MD trucks. Complete with the blue GM square right on the valve covers. GM probably came up with it as a way to play a dirty trick on Ford.
@@nspro931 Ford bought many more 2 stroke Detroit engines for the big trucks back in the day. I always thought that was strange seeing a GM engine in a Ford
Those 73 up GMC/Chevy medium duty squares are still a sharp looking today,and a comfortable truck, good power with the gas engines.
Our c60 had a 427 and Standard with 2 speed rear-end.
@@carlachambers3771 In the late 70's I had a delivery job driving a 76 Chevy C65 with a 26 foot stake bed and a 350 2 barrel. That was the base engine and man even with the 2 speed rear axle it would sound like a NASCAR engine out on the highway! That truck would eat an engine about every 2 years and they would replace them with a GM Targetmaster engine in about a day.
@@edwardpate6128 It seemed the 366/427 engines lasted a lot longer,and actually would depending on the year,and emissions equipment, would if driven right would deliver about 6 miles to the gallon
LOL, they were not comfortable, unless your comparing it to a wooden bench.
@@chrisstromberg6527 When I was a lot younger in 79,I drove a 75 Chevy C 60,and a 72 Loadstar 1600,both flatbeds,the Loadstar had a nice pedal and steering wheel feel,but the seat was not its best feature.The Chevy was a fairly comfortable truck,the Loadstar had a better feel as far as steering wheel rake,and better pedal feel,but the seat felt better after a few hours on the road,but given the time they were built they were both fairly comfortable trucks,and they drove pretty well.
Nothing that they ever made replaced the 2 stroke Detroit Diesel V-8 Diesel engine for power, fuel efficiency, and reliability as long as it was not beaten to death and maintenance was done at 4K miles. Still have one that has 300K and I would take it to California, Canada, or Florida from Butler, PA. anytime, any weather conditions or you name it period. Great evening and enjoy your day tomorrow.
You must have gotten the only good one, everybody i knew that had a 8.2 complained it was the worst engine they ever owned, even worse than the Old 534 Ford Gas.
@@mylanmiller9656 The 8.2 was a 4 stroke. He is talking about the 2 strokes that came before the 8.2
But they sound like shit due to ignition at every rotation.
They sound too high reving for trucks while they actually dont rev high. They sound high pitched.
I prefer deeper, low rpm brutal bubbling before motocross 250cc 2 stroke noises times 8. When i wanna hear 2 stroke, i start my chainsaw.
@@dom3827they revved high being only 2 strokes for combustion 2 crank revolutions...opposed to 4 strokes needing 4 strokes to 1 combustion cycle 4 crankshaft revolutions.
Had a c60, c65 and c70…all gassers, I liked them all, there were never any issues…all dumps…wish I still had them, DOT wouldn’t leave me alone as these were older units, finally had enough…sold them for well more than I paid for them…
Well that’s good then.
The free standing cylinders in the open water jacket with no gussets to stabilize them was their biggest weakness…the cylinders would walk inside the block and destroy the head gaskets…they had other issues but they were actually very good on fuel!!
We here in North Carolina had Thomas Chevrolet C60 Conventional Type-C School Buses powered by the 8.2 l Detroit Fuel Pincher V8 Diesel engines and they were pretty good and reliable for us with no problem
Had one for a few years and it never gave issue and got near 20mpg loaded or not. Late model ones 85+ were good, heard bad things about the early ones which is probably everyone hating here in the comments. I would stay away from the turbo though to ensure longevity.
Had a maranized one and it was flawless for somewhere above 20,000 hours
(A REAL MONEY MAKER) Shure was, especially for the mechanic! They made more than the truck did!
Just like the dd8 today
Are you saying the engine sucked?
@@MisterMikeTexas It was worse than sucked, lots of them didn't last 15 thousand miles. before they filled the crank case with Coolant.
The GMC Top Kick and Chevy Kodiak with the Cat 3208 was a far better choice! I drove them all including the Chevy and Ford gas V8s and the DT466s in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. I drove a GMC 7000 like this one with a Cummins 6BT5.9 conversion in the summer of ‘87 and loved it. Just before Dodge introduced them in their RAM pickups. I also drove a ‘70s GMC 7000 with a 4-53T turbo Detroit 4 cylinder that time and it was a good, but noisy engine. It was the diesel option in those trucks in the ‘70s, before the Detroit 8.2L debuted in 1980.
The DT466 was a great engine. But if you overheated it was done.
I'm with you. A trandem with a 3208 and a 13-under was unbeatable. Had to keep the 466 wound tight or there wasn't much there.
There are a bunch of 2 stroke detroits running today.
@@carlachambers3771 A bunch on sawmills and knuckle booms. Maybe draglines. I'm out of the loop.
There were other lousy diesels in the ‘70s like the Cummins 555 V8 and the International DV550 which I believe was a converted 549 gas V8. The Cat 3208 with a Roadranger RT6613 did quite well and it was so popular in the Ford LTS 8000 and LNT 8000 dump trucks back then.
When the 14mm to 15mm head bolts update came out almost half of the engines we did ended up having the block replaced because the 15mm bolts would tweak the block causing the cam to seize in the cam bearings. The 2nd 1/3 of these were the 1st replacement for the 1st 1/3 and the last 1/3 was the 2nd replacement
Huh ? Cam “seized “ because you screwed up on your head bolt procedure ? Huh ?
Worked on a lot of trucks in 30 + years but never heard of that ! 😅
@@bobwilson758 GM sent out a bulletin to ream the head bolt holes from 14 to 15mm when this was done some blocks when the heads were torqued would tweak the cam tunnel so the cam bearings were no longer in line which would cause the cam bearings usually #3 to seize to the cam and spin in the block. About 3 months after that bulletin GM sent out another one saying do not increase the size of the head bolts. They never gave a reason but it was speculation that reaming the holes removed enough material to allow the block to flex when the heads were torqued. Remember it was an open deck
There was a recall back in the early 1980s on some of these engines for having a defective head gasket. The head gasket finally blew on the Detroit Diesel, 8.2 "fuel pincher" engine that was powering the railroad truck I drove. GM paid for the expensive repair that apparently included replacing all the internal journal bearings.
Head gasket recalls were continual. One involved drilling the 14mm head bolt holes and taping for 15mm head bolts. This was an attempt to get more clamp load on the gaskets.
@@daledavies2334 Yes! I recall the tapping of the block for larger head bolts as being part of the fix.
Truck was fine Allison transmission was great but the engine was nothing to brag about
I got one in a 87 gmc 7000 with only 35k on it starts runs like a champ 5spd 2 speed with disk brakes .
I wish it was a two stroke
I have the 205 horsepower version in a digger derrick and it consistently delivers at least 10mpg dragging around a pole trailer.
Its crazy how GM put so much into this engine for it to be an absolute flop. I drove an old f600 tow truck several years ago that had one. Was a turbo model. That was its only saving grace in an only 26k gvw truck. I will say, it sounded sweet straight piped and got decent mileage, but it was a nightmare finding someone in this day and age to work on it when it broke down, and broke down it did. I was told even back in the early 2000’s it was still a nightmare to get someone good to repair it.
IT took special tools just to do valve and injector work they were a real oddball.
I was young and desperate, so I wrenched on a couple around 2010 and took the time to find the manuals and understand how to work on them. The owners couldn’t find anyone anywhere to touch them. Not crazy complicated, but I have no interest doing any more work on these.
@@benhart16 I am a retired truck and equipment mechanic I have done some external work on them but I had plenty of other work so I was one of those guys that did not take them on. I have heard that they used them in some marine applications, I don't know if that is true or not. I just did not have any regular customers that were running them so I didn't tool up for them.
That sounds more like a limitation of available experience and not a limitation of the engine.
@@SillyPuddy2012 I think you make a good point, I don't think they were that hard to work on.
I remember when these came out. The construction company next door to our shop bought a bunch of them in little single axle dumps and fuel tender trucks. They probably bought about 10 of them brand new. I think all ten of them had some kind of serious engine failure within two years.
I serviced a fleet of these for the highway department. Very reliable. Only real problems were the oil cooler orings and every once and a while a leaky warter pump or replace a belt or starter.
Came here for the comments saying how terrible these engines were and was not disappointed
😃😃😃😃🤩🤩🏁🏁🏁🏁💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰🏆🏆🏆🏆🏅🏅🏅🏅💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰
💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰
💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰💰
When I heard " five tiny injector nozzles," I knew where the problems would be.
Open deck, don't overlook that poor design.
Suddenly everyone in the comments is a better engineer than any Detroit Diesel ever had 50+ years ago.
@@SillyPuddy2012 possibly
It’s hilarious seeing how much hate these engines get. They’re not as bad as people make them out to be. Most people overworked them and expected them to hold up to things they weren’t designed to do.
As a mechanic who worked on them, they were definately not the best design out of DDA.
Open deck allowed the cylinders to walk around, which chewed up the head gaskets. Proper tuneup was difficult and time consuming.
I thought if plates were built to press over the tops of the liners and inside the block perimeter, the cylinders would be stabilized and the head gaskets would last.
@@daledavies2334like a honda block guard
These engines were designated for commercial duty, not for driving your grandma to church on Sunday. They did not last!
I guess 8.2 liters for trucks like this, in those days, wasn't huge. Calling it a "fuel pincher" seems like a bit of a stretch, though. 😆
Bingo 😅
Well, these diesel engines may have been terrible, but diesel engines that actually worked in the long term were an upgrade over gasoline engines. When you have a fleet of 10 trucks doing in city work, and you make the choice of gas or diesel, going from 3 miles per gallon average per truck to 5 miles per gallon average per truck over a year is a huge deal, especially when diesel was way cheaper than gasoline on average to boot. GM was trying, but established diesel engine companies quickly did it better (mostly) in the medium duty truck segment.
Well a 8.2 with a turbo compared to a gasser or a 2 stroke gutless fuel toilet I'm sure it was cheaper dollar to the mile. LOL. Man and here I feel like my 230hp 7.3 is wimpy lol.
@@PatrickBaptist I know, diesel is always gonna get better mpg than a comparable gasser. "Fuel pincher" still seems a little hyperbolic though. Meh, it's marketing, so it gets a pass I guess. As for hp, torque is the name of the game for trucks and for diesels, so doubly so for diesel trucks!
@@Carstuff111 Detroit Diesel was very much an established diesel engine manufacturer, and these engines were not terrible. Certain people will always dog on old engines that were designed for thrift, so they pick up a bad reputation that isn’t really deserved.
I bought one that was in a 87 6500 that just about new in 1988 from a bankrupt freight line. We took the pox body off and put on a rollback and it was still running well in to 2008. Then my after my Dad died I dont know what my sister's idiot kid did, but somehow started a fire on the right side in the cab. Then took the dash apart. Otherwise the engine smoked some from running jet fuel in it in the 90s and never gave a minutes trouble. It would start cold like the video says........oh yeah, what ever happened to the truck? I bought it from my sister a few years ago so she could pay her property tax. Its still at her house in GA and I have not been able to move it to my shop in WA State.
i believe this video was filmed in and around the st louis mo area
They used so little fuel because they were always broken down and being worked on. It’s sad, all that research and testing, and the 8.2 still ended up being an absolute turd. An 8.2 is the most efficient way to turn diesel fuel into noise. Back then, the only Medium Duty diesel truck to own was an International with a DT466.
OR a 3208 Cat with a 13-under
A 6v92 is better.
@@carlachambers3771 Well yeah but a 8V-92 is bvetter still or a 12V.
International .....meh.
The fuel Pincher was great I had 2 of them a 81 C60 16 foot box truck like the ones in this video and 89 Brigadier C50 dump truck the 8.2 fuel Pincher has a different sound then most other diesels then or now
So there was life before cnc manufacturing
Wilson automation tooled this factory so we could never be sure.
I had an 8.2 Fuel Pincher in my truck , backed up real fast and hit the brakes real hard , it slid out of the bed at the ScrapYard !
This engine was one step above an Oldsmobile automobile diesel engine !
What a sick intro
They probably made their money back from the new plant when they brought out the 60 series
Why would they have to offer a Caterpillar to customers when they are going to last just as long as it will plus be cheaper probably since it's in house built , supplied and easy to maintain the as long as you maintain it according to the builders and maybe a thousand miles less to keep it from having any issues period. I have had one of each one and at 4,000 miles complete maintenance I got over 500,000 miles and had the only Diesel engine with oil that was never black and gritty. Detroit Diesel, Cummins/Powerstroke and caterpillar in that order to run and maintain.
Not a big fan of open deck cylinder wall cooling ! Its hell on head gasgets !
Especially on incredibly high compression engines.... like a diesel! probably what doomed it, just like the HT4100 in the Cadillac
@10:49 No it doesn't have those things, but what it does have is 8 fuel injectors that cost more than the carb, and a fuel pump that will cost more than the dist/wires/plugs LOL. I love when they try and make it sound like it won't need maintenance when diesel maintenance costs more, oil changes alone do. The 8.2 isn't so reliable and today you basically can't make a dollar off flipping one, if I had one I'd rev it till it popped and scrap it for shreader steel.
Old is gold
I love the red one
@@sampowsun
Yes it's amazing
My boss had a 8.2 in his motor home It had less than 20,000 miles on it when it started filling the crank case with coolant. After a bunch of parts changing they finally changed out the Compleat engine, The boss dumped it as soon as they got the engine fixed.
Always blew my mind that they pushed HP when torque does almost all the work in a diesel. I guess we were brainwashed...
To think a diesel engine maker since 1938 and they couldn’t produce a decent smaller diesel engine. Then they gave up and let Isuzu take over…They should have just put a 4-71 in these medium duties…
Durability and 8.2 should never go in the same sentence
Suddenly everyone in the comments is a better engineer than any Detroit Diesel ever had 50+ years ago.
@@SillyPuddy2012 I don't think that's what they are implying,I think from my point of view the engineers were taking a back seat to the corporate money people, cutting durability to save profits,and promoting a lot of disappointment and hurting goodwill of people who thought the 8.2 was on the same level as other Detroit Diesels.
Too bad this design, testing & quality control didn’t go into the Olds 5.7 350 V8 diesel.
I wonder if any 73-4 Square Medium GMC/Chevrolet GMC V-6s equipped trucks are still around?
Not to bad of an engine. 3208 much better but more expensive.
Mixed reviews.
Many hated them many said they were ok..
Better than the Toroflow before it .
20% interest rates wow that was a while ago
Most C60 trucks I've seen were 366 gassers
Am i the only one that heard 18% intrest on the loan
That’s about the interest on a home lone back then as well.
Funny Story>>>
Some years ago GM chucked their tried & true V8 family the 307-350-454
and replaced them with the 4.8L-5.3L-8.2L. Well, as it turns out all GM did was use
the old small blocks & attach new heads, new fuel systems & new powertrain control computer/software to meet the more stringent emissions.
!
False, they are completely different architecture.
It always amazes me how GM can make some of the best engines yet also make some of the worst pile of junk engines ever made. The 671 2 stroke Detroit might have been the best small diesel ever made. Then they come out with garbage like this!
Awful engine!
Worked as hd big trk diesel mech in early 80's at a Ford big trk dealer.
When the big cummins,cat, big detroits eng work and o'hauls got slow I got stuck working on these ... put these in every med duty and bread truck there was... no tilting hoods or easy to get to chassis.
Detroit had a head gskt recall on those shi*tbox engines at the time and what a pita that was!
Not when long hoods and cabovers had big sweet diesels that needed attn.
Miss those days, but not that fuel pincher!!
I think My great grandpa owned one of these trucks, a 3 ton grian truck, but it has an inline engine painted black so I don’t know if someone swapped it or what.
Sooooo what happened? Why was that motor such a failure?
Early models had head gasket issues, and most mechanics couldn't set the injector heights correctly so they ended up popping head gaskets again from excessive cylinder pressure.
I going to catch hell, but why didn't they refine and put the improved combustion piston cylinder swirl design and improved injectors in the turo flow diesels it would have done a lot better than the Fuel Pinchers,and would have probablylasted longer to boot.
It seems well engineered....what happened?
This is like calling a Rolls Royce Merlin a hybrid because it has a starter motor. Good old days.
My best bud had the very same burgundy dumptruck in this vidya. It did not have enough power to get out of its own way. Try and lift off, loaded, if the drive tires are in soft sand? Then he put a small holmes wrecker on it. Nope, still was better off with the 1 ton with a 6.2 liter. Eventually pushed the fuel pincher into the back yard and let moss grow on it. What a waste of time, effort, energy GM went through.
They certainly missed a lot of the lessons of the 5.7 liter diesel,or missed the boat on counting dimes while missing dollars,and hurting good will with the customer.
Ford bought scads of these engines for their MD trucks. Complete with the blue GM square right on the valve covers. GM probably came up with it as a way to play a dirty trick on Ford.
@@nspro931 Ford bought many more 2 stroke Detroit engines for the big trucks back in the day. I always thought that was strange seeing a GM engine in a Ford
I think the real dirty trick was GM selling the Fuel Pincher to any one who thought they were buying a real medium duty truck engine.
Who thought it would be a good idea to get such meager torque and horsepower out of a 500+ cube diesel V8?
Modified for trucks?
What a disaster this engine was.😎
Exactly
I was thinking "it took that long to make an anchor?" 😅😅
Any vehicle is low emissions when it doesn't run!
Was this the first of the 4 cycle Detroits?
That's a good question.
Nothing but head gasket trouble and finally threw a rod
Grandpa bought one of those POS, after warranty was up, gt rid of that junk !
Would have been much cheaper to build a lemon orchard and lasted much longer 🤣
It's like listening to a Democrat telling you Every Thing is FINE!
Or a Republican that thinks they can fix everything, but they don't have any solutions to offer!?
My zx14 has more hp than these. Holy shit.
6 years and it was pure shit
The 8.2 fuel pincher was junk
What a sick intro