Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D hist

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
jdemaris

11-02-2006 07:58:47




Report to Moderator

Massey Ferguson 35 tractor that some guy built overseas. Nice job. Says he wants more power and is building a twin-injection pump setup. I envy this guy's skill and innovation - but he MUST be spending a lot of money. I thought it was only us "rich" Americans that blew money on such projects. On the subject of innovation - and G.M. diesels - I was re-reading the story of the "bored" Oldsmobile engineers that spent a winter converting a 350 Oldsmobile engine to diesel - which later got cheapened and used in Chevy cars and light trucks. This is what started the light-truck diesel use for GM. Goes as follows:

"Winter 1976 - As a winter project, the engineers at Oldsmobile took the 350 gasser block, cast it
from high nickel iron, stroked the crank, cut reliefs in the pistons, reworked the heads with a
Ricardo Comet prechamber and installed Detroit pencil injectors. Found a Roosa Master 8 cylinder
pump from the local tractor dealer and machined an adapter plate to mount the pump. Made
five copies and put them on the dyno to do the tests. Two months later, Mercedes announced that they had put a turbo on the 300 and finally had a diesel that could keep up with the traffic. With the fuel crisis still in full swing and Detroit stumbling along with their two ton lead sleds, GM marketing went looking for a solution only to find that their own engineers had a hobby. Olds was given 18 months to get the prototype into production (about 24 months shorter then normal, especially for a new engine design). January 1978 - After working many overtime hours the engineers had developed an engine, that at the time had the best power to wieght ratio of any production automotive diesel ever made, but discovered the accountants all held a deep desire to be designers. Nix the dual exhaust, heavy duty version of the Roosa Master, the hardened head studs and the high nickel block. The result was a 120 hp diesel that got almost 40 miles to the gallon (IMP) and only 70 lbs heavier then it's gasser counterpart. Unfortunately you had to drag a magnet behind the car to catch all the parts that flew out of the engine. August 1981- After almost breaking the bank with warrantee claims, and after many hours of
exhaustive testing GM introduced the "DX" block with stiffer webs, high nickel block, roller
cam, new stronger crank, 27 modifications to the Roosa Master (now made by Stanadyne) (lets face it, it started out life as a tractor pump), better cooling channels, improved injectors and a
better head design. While they were forced to de-rate this engine to 105 HP, it still gave great mileage and reasonably acceptable power for the vehicles it was installed in. None the less, the previous
three years had written paid on it's reputation and nothing Madison Avenue could do could
revive it. The engine stayed in production through the 1985 model years but was quietly laid to rest."

third party image
third party image

third party image

third party image

third party image

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Luke S

11-02-2006 15:01:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to jdemaris, 11-02-2006 07:58:47  
Nice work, but if I was going to go to that much trouble, I could think of about 10 or 20 engine's I'd use before a GM diesel. GM is lucky they now have the Duramax, because everything else before that was JUNK! I have one, a 98 3500 ext cab with a 6.5 Turbo that only has 56000 miles and has never had a gooseneck hitch in it and that engine is a really big piece of JUNK! I keep 2 Dodge/Cummins for pulling my goosenecks, and the Chevy is just for riding around in as that is all the 6.5 can take without craking a head or block, or eating a pump.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
John in Ct

11-02-2006 13:19:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to jdemaris, 11-02-2006 07:58:47  
I have a 5.7 Diesel and can tell you that the pump isn't the weak point. I have gotten over 100,000+ miles on a pump. If you have a shop that knows how to rebuild it when needed and put in everything that needs to be done you will have a good pump. How you kill a 5.7 is to drive it over 55 mph. It will blow a head gasket!!!. Back then 55 was the national speed limit. We use ours everyday around town and it is great!!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
B-maniac

11-02-2006 19:36:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to John in Ct, 11-02-2006 13:19:21  
The factory gov. ret. rings were a little suspect,but in my experience it was the junk head bolts that when weakened through hundreds of heat cycles,would either pop their heads off or just plain give up on their clamping torque and good bye head gasket seal. Heaven forbid anyone put a blower or turbo on one! wouldn't last 10,000 mi. This head bolt failure was also a big problem on anything with alum. heads for the first 10 or 15 yrs they used them. Alum. expands and contracts more and quicker than iron,and put more stretch and fatigue on the "stock" head bolts than they were ever intended to see,and they just give up. The shops used to tell customers that the head was warped or cracked and sell them a new head.If it was warped, it was because the head bolts gave up and let the gasket blow and the customer overheated the engine. If you don't overheat it,you will find that the head isn't cracked,isn't warped and a new gasket AND new bolts is all it really needs. Check the NEW bolts also,had some from Dana Corp that were warped so bad they would barely slide down through the head holes. Went back to Car-Quest and 50% of all the bolts in their stock were warped too. Went elsewhere.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

11-02-2006 18:11:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to John in Ct, 11-02-2006 13:19:21  
Yes - now. But - back in the late 70s, early 80s the pump was a b*stard of a problem. Roosamaster and GM were a little slow with the needed updates to make the pump reliable. Weight retainers, umbrella seals, etc. would not hold up. I was a bench technician authorized by Stanadyne, and I've got a pretty good memory as to what parts failed and why - and the many updates that were tried until it was done right. By 1985 - updated parts made a very reliable pump out of the DB, JDB, DB2, etc.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bob

11-02-2006 08:17:23




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to jdemaris, 11-02-2006 07:58:47  
The photos are COOL, however, the story has "facts" that are unbelievable:

"As a winter project, {{{{WINTER PROJECT at GM engineering???}}}} the engineers at Oldsmobile took the 350 gasser block, cast it
from high nickel iron, stroked the crank,{{{{WRONG... ALL Second Generation Olds 350's, including the diesel, had the SAME 3.385" stroke.}}}} cut reliefs in the pistons, reworked the heads with a Ricardo Comet prechamber and installed Detroit pencil injectors {{{{The production pencil injectors were Roosa Master/Stanadyne, as almost certainly the prototypes were. I REALLY doubt DDA had anything that small!}}}} Found a Roosa Master 8 cylinder
pump from the local tractor dealer {{{{I don't believe there would have been a SINGLE ag application for an 8-cylinder Standyne/Roosa Master pump in that era, or probably EVER. Certainly, the pump was a custom job from Stanadyne.}}}} and machined an adapter plate to mount the pump

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

11-02-2006 09:53:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to Bob, 11-02-2006 08:17:23  
Well - I offer no guarantees to the accuracy of that article. Some of the facts as stated certainly are suspect - but some of that may be due to the way the author chose his words and phrases. He might be a "non-tech" guy writing a story from a technical article. I do know that much of it is true though. But . . . in regard to your doubt about engineers having winter projects? Both my wife's parents are retired Ford Motor Co. engineers - and they told me MANY stories about such types of projects - not necessarily based on winter, though. Some sanctioned by Ford, and some not. One that I find particulary interesting is when Ford payed for a Ferrari - had it shipped to Dearborn, MI - where my father-in-law and a few other engineers disected the thing - mostly to check out, close-up, some of the assembly techniques and engineering features. One comment to me was - "what a piece of junk" it was. But, I think that judgement was based on the somewhat crude asssembly techinques - being more like a hand-built car than a Detroit mass-produced unit. They did the same with many Japanese cars and were extremely impressed with Toyotas (or Toyopet back then?). And your comment, i.e. "WRONG... ALL Second Generation . . ." - what does that all mean? The first prototype engine was just that- it wasn't even the first generation, much less the second. I don't know what they used, but I read a similar account years ago written by the head of the Oldsmobile engineering department. I was interested back when the engines were current - since me - and several other Deere grease-monkeys were doing warranty work for a nearby Chevy dealer. It was very frustrating. We'd keep getting newly updated parts from GM - e.g. head bolts, head gaskets, Roosamaster umbrella seals and new-material weight-retainer rings - and NONE of it made a difference. I've heard, that later, things improved - but I was out of the picture by then. And the other details?? Heck - I don't know. I do know that the Ricardo Brother's Comet swirl chamber WAS indeed used in the 350s as well as the 6.2s, 6.5s, my Allis Chalmers ED-40 tractor, etc. &c. And Detroit injectors?? I have no idea if the author is referring to Detroit, Michigan, or Detroit Diesel Corp., or even something else? If he's a diesel-idiot - maye he thinks anything diesel can be called Detroit - kind of like using the word "Band Aid." GM and high-nickel blocks - I know that was done many times. I've got several 1960s small-block V-8s that are high-nickel. Also, the first year of the 6.2 diesels - ca. 1982 - were high nickel. And- V-8 Roosamaster pumps - I've seen them well before GM came out with the 5.7 diesel. I've seen them in Roosamaster version and Rotodiesel. I do NOT know if any were used on farm-tractors - but road -tractors - maybe? Funny thing is - back late 70s when we had Roosamaster pumps crapping out left-and-right on 5.7 diesels - we were kind of stumped. We had our own pump shop and did not have anywhere near the problems when the same basic pumps were used on farm tractors, log skidder, dozers, etc. Roosamaster/Stanadyne sent out a service bulletin and claimed that the GM 5.7 diesel failures were due to the " high under hood temperatures" not nomrally occurring in farm tractors. And - GM/Chevy had service bulletins that said something different. They blamed owner ignorance and low-quality fuel. So ??? As time went on, the rubber material for seals was upgraded many times. But, the plastic weight-retainer was still used when the 6.2 came out (also used in the 6.9 Ford IH engines), and wasn't dropped until around 1985 when it was replaced with the EID.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
HobbyFarmer71

11-02-2006 09:10:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to Bob, 11-02-2006 08:17:23  
You don't know IH's very well do you??? The IH model 1468, made from 1971-1974; and the IH model 1568, made from 1974-1976; were both V-8 Diesels, so yes it is possible that they found an 8-cylinder pump at a tractor dealer.

With the right people, time and money, anything is possible.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bob

11-02-2006 09:23:24




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to HobbyFarmer71, 11-02-2006 09:10:17  
No, Mr. Hobby, I'm think'in it may be YOU who doesn't know IH tractor V-8's very well, if you think they used Roosa-Master IP's in those BIG tractors, which was the brand mentioned in the first post. (I'm VERY familiar with those tractors, as there were quite a number of those around here, up on the open prairie. That engine about BROKE a neighbor of mine, 'til he gave up and got rid of it. The models with the 466's were GREAT, and another neighbor still uses his as his primary tillage tractor. There are a number around, also, that have been repowered with Cummins engines.)

Certainly, I realize ANYTHING is possible, with enough $$$$,as it obviously was, since they DID build the 5.7 Diesel.

My point is that the anecdote must be once or twice removed from the folks that actually built the prototype, because it contains inaccurate information that would not have come from folks actually closely involved in the project.

There is so much misinformation floating around about the history of the 5.7's and 6.2's it's ridiculous.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
HobbyFarmer71

11-02-2006 10:59:07




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to Bob, 11-02-2006 09:23:24  
Like 135 Fan says, who really cares, and on my behalf, if you re-read my post, I never said anything about Roosa-Master Pumps. I used those models as an example that V-8 pumps could have been bought at a tractor store back than. Another example would be Stieger who had V-8's in their tractors back in the early 60's, so V-8 pumps have been around for a long time prior to that "Winter Project."



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
135 Fan

11-02-2006 10:06:13




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to Bob, 11-02-2006 09:23:24  
Who really cares. The fact is that the early GM diesels were garbage! Especially the 5.7's. The 6.5's were better but now they use an Isuzu engine. I've heard it suggested that they should have just stuck a 3-71 or 4-71 in and they would have had a real good diesel. The biggest problem was that these industrial engines are way to heavy. GM knows how to make a good diesel but sure didn't make one with the the 5.7. Dave

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike M

11-02-2006 10:34:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to 135 Fan, 11-02-2006 10:06:13  
RIGHT ON !!!! GM did more to hurt diesel engines being used in cars and light trucks than anyone.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

11-02-2006 10:16:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to 135 Fan, 11-02-2006 10:06:13  
They've (GM) got a new light-weight diesel coming out in a few years - for light trucks and SUVs again. It is supposed to be entirely GM built - but I'm not sure what means. You mention the Duramax as Isuzu - but GM has owned a large part of Isuzu for years - so it's kind of hard to separate Saab, Subaru, GM, Daiwoo, etc. - they are all tied together. The new diesel coming out soon - may or may not be a G.M. German Opel design.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike M

11-02-2006 11:16:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to jdemaris, 11-02-2006 10:16:32  
I hope they don't use Opel. The Cadillac Catera was built by Opel and was/is a piece of junk.

I ran one of those Isuzu built cab overs with a GM nameplate (don't remember which model but was larger than most you see)I was really impressed with the power and fuel mileage it made.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
135 Fan

11-02-2006 10:28:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to jdemaris, 11-02-2006 10:16:32  
I was just making the point that they didn't develop a new engine in house for the trucks. They went to a different division. Cab over GM trucks are Isuzu. Hitachi excavators as well as others use Isuzu engines. They are extremely good diesels. Dave



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Jdemaris

11-02-2006 11:31:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to 135 Fan, 11-02-2006 10:28:54  
Heck, I still have two 1981 Chevy Chevettes with 1.8 Isuzu diesels and they've been great (the engines that is). 48 MPG on the highway for an 81 is pretty impressive. Also got an 85 Isuzu P'UP 4WD truck with the 2.2 diesel - also a great little vehicle. As far as I know - the only - almost- in-house diesel was the 350 designed by Oldsmobile division. The 6.2 was designed by Detroit Diesel. The new 6.5 blocks are now being made by part of Navistar (International Engine Co.). They wanted to call it International Harvester again - but can't since they sold the name off. The Duramax was jointly engineered with Isuzu and GM people. This new V-8 that's coming out - as described in the G.M. press-release - is a ground-up General Motors diesel - 300 horse and less than 6 liters. They claim it is 30% more efficient - but my question is - as compared to what?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
135 Fan

11-02-2006 13:16:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to Jdemaris, 11-02-2006 11:31:10  
The 6.5 blocks used in Hummers are a heavier and stronger block. They're supposed to be the hot ticket if you need a new 6.5. The 8.2 GM used in larger trucks is supposed to be notoriously bad. The GMC forwards are built by Isuzu and are similar to Hino's which Toyota is a major shareholder. Hino has excellent engines as well but doesn't use them in as many applications as Isuzu. Dave



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bob

11-02-2006 14:01:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF35 tractor with Chevy 6.2 diesel and Olds D in reply to 135 Fan, 11-02-2006 13:16:35  
The early Hummers are reputed to have just as bad of a block as the GM pickups. GM turned the manufacture of the engines over to GEP (General Engine Products) after the REALLY crack-prone 6.5 blocks equipped with piston cooling nozzles that were produced in the late 90's. They took a block that was ALREADY prone to cracking, and drilled oil galleries, and installed piston cooling nozzles to allow the engine's HP to be kicked up to try to keep up with FORD. The drillings only served to cause MORE cracking.

Lacking a foundry, GEP "farmed out" the casting of the blocks to NAVISTAR. After a certain date, 6.5 blocks used in HUMMERS, as well as NEW replacent 6.5 blocks bear the "NAVISTAR Diamond" logo as a casting mark in the central valley of the engine. The blocks has some added webbing for more strength, and are reputed to have a higher nickle content than the GM-produced 6.5's. True story.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

11-02-2006 18:34:13




Report to Moderator
 IH can't use their own name in reply to Bob, 11-02-2006 14:01:35  
Yeah, I was kind of getting a laugh out of it. The company makes a point that it is a subdivision of "Navigating the Stars" Company - (shortened to Navistar), named International Engine Co. that is making the new blocks. They wanted to revert back to the International Harvester name - but cannot since they sold the name off and no longer have rights to it. Kind of sounds like the old Ford and Fordson name-battle. Seems some corporate people don't like the Navistar name anymore. It was picked - just when they were verging on bankruptcy, to show their ability to "Navigate the Stars" and make a comeback, and has been shortened to Navistar. As my dad used to say, that's enough to make a maggot puke. Almost as good as when Datsun/Nissan first copied a bunch of sports cars and created the 240Z. A head Japanese guy was wined and dined in New York City - by US execs. and was taken to see a Broadway show - "My Fair Lady." Ends up, not really knowing our culture, he decided it would be a catchy name for the new sports car and is was named the Fairlady. Hmmm. That went over like a f*rt in church in this country. So, the Fairlady name was quickly dropped in the US and it was renamed the 240Z. Overseas - it remained the Fairlady. Back to the 6.2s and 6.5s. I've yet to see an 6.2 block crack like the later ones do. It is supposed to be the only year the high-nickel block was cast. And the first year 6.5 was not as crack-prone as the later ones that had less mass. That all being said - it seems that the aftermarktet main-bearing web girdle kits work well at holding the 6.2s and 6.5s together at the main-bearing webs - the common problem spot.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy