A new/old idea for GM: Deere powered trucks

Hello!
While discussions take place in Detroit and Washington, DC about how to rescue the Big Three US auto makers, I would like to put forth a suggestion for GM's Truck Division: offer a complete line of light, medium, and heavy-duty trucks powered by John Deere diesels. This is not a "new" idea. Back in the early '80's, John Deere and GM's Detroit Diesel Division formed a partnership called "DDEDEC", which stood for "Detroit Diesel/Deere Engine Corporation". To the best of my knowledge, the only surviving product is/was the 60 Series Detroit engine, which was marketed as a Detroit Engine in over-the-road trucks, and also used in an ag-variation in the large, 4WD Deere tractors. I truly believe that if General Motors offered a clean-burning, Deere diesel engine in their light and medium-duty trucks, they would have a stronger market than they do now. The John Deere name alone would prompt brand-loyalty sales. What are your thoughts? I also had hopes that Caterpillar would someday offer a diesel engine for light-duty trucks. Stay warm out there!
Merlin

Caterpillar just discontinued their highway engine line. But, using John Deere engines in trucks sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe even build a John Deere edition truck? Deere has a good reputation building quality diesels.

Good thoughts there. I thought that DDEC meant Detroit Diesel Electronic Control, tho. And, yes, the persistent legend that Deere's 12 litre is really designed and built by Detroit Diesel. I'm not sure if it is true or not, I haven't seen anything in official Deere histories that say it is true. Deere did offer the wet-sleeve 5.9 as a limited option for GM mediums in the 80;'s, tho. There are a few Deeres: the 4.5, the 414, etc that would be an excellent match for today's GM products. Imagine a Duramax with a Deere 414 and an Allison. Dodge would be quaking in their booties. Some years ago, Cat acquired an engine that would be an obvious fit for the Class 3-4-5-6 market when it acquired the Perkins 3056, however, for some reason, failed to exploit it. Again, a Ford or Chev pickup with the Perkisn 3056 would have the Dodge boys shaking like a pup poopin' peach pits. But mebbee they didnt meet emissions or something silly like that. Oh, well, just some ramblin' on here, FWIW.

The newer Deere engines don't have a good rep. I heard through the grapevine that Rayco the stump grinder people were having alot of trouble with whatever models they used. I didn't think Deere tractors had that good of rep. for fuel economy either ?

Now give me an engine built by Kubota or Yanmar in a small truck or a larger engine in a big truck. You can knock the Japan co. all you want but they build good running fuel effeicent engines.

I agree.Ive been wishing that Ford would use a slightly scaled down 11.1 Series 60 in their Super Duty trucks.Id love that.

In the light diesel line, GM finally got it right with the Duramax [nee Isuzu]...wouldn't want to give that progress up.

But I think pairing Chevy and Deere for a special-edition truck makes a lot of marketing sense, for a lot of reasons.

My only question is will the Deere engine meet the stricter emissions that vehicles adhere to and not cost $8000 as an option.

DuraMax by Isuzu is built from clean sheet of paper to be powerful, reliable but first and foremost conducive to stringent emission and mileage requirements. To "add-on" necessary equipment to be responsive, fuel efficient and clean highway engine is just not feasible. Great discussion and day-dreaming but totally ignores the reality of current engine technology. Enjoy your GM truck with Duramax on the highway and enjoy your John Deere in the field.

Duramax done has a rep like all new GM stuff high cost up front, high cost maintenance just like Ford and Dodge had bad reps for bad trannys. That sure aren't durable for what they cost like dura name would imply! Cost, no durability, new ones needing major service too soon, executive and union greed is what's hurting them. Can't expect to keep sticking it to everyone and want more bailouts when you treat the customer that way!

Those Duramax are still having the head gasket failures GM is infamous for.

NOBODY has ever built a V configured diesel that was worth a darn. They just can't put enough metal in them to get them to hold up.

Spending time and money neither Deere of GM has? To re-invent the wheel and trash something already in existance that works?
Probably not.........
GM has a clean sheet turbo diesel V6 set for 2010 light trucks.

You said "NOBODY has ever built a V configured diesel that was worth a darn. They just can't put enough metal in them to get them to hold up."

For 28 years I drove several million miles with v8 71 and v6 91 power. Had a few road failures but never because of the engine throwing craps. Those not worth a darn engines served me well.

Always wondered why all the manufactures want to reinvent the wheel. There's probably a thousand different brands of diesels made and Chevys bright idea was to convert a gasser. If the Deere's engines are some of the best use them, but use the best of proven engines.

Good for you ! And alot of guys claim the GM 6.2 and 6.5 were good. The Detroit V series weren't as good as a Cat or Cummins in line or the Detroit that replaced them. Cat and Cummins and International V models were not anywhere near as good as their inlines.

I actually worked on the project you mention and should add a correction, it was IHC not JD.

was done in the 80s as Deere was looking to increase engine market share.
THey were working with GM on the project and I still see one of those trucks at a auction now and then.
It was a huge FLOP......

Ummm....what about the 10's of thousands of EMD, General Electric and Alco V12, V16, V18 and V20 diesels? These basic designs have been extremely successful in locomotive, marine and stationary service for nearly 3/4 of a century(!)

Or the Cummins V12-1710 - essentially a pair of 855 straight 6's on a common crank? It, and it's larger displacement V12 and V16 descendents are every bit as robust as the original Cummins 855.

Hello!
I remember, too, that Detroit Diesel briefly offered the Navistar/IH DT466 engine and the Perkins 354 engine as 4-cycle, mid-range engines. Thanks for the reply!
Merlin

Hello, Bob M!
You raise an interesting point, and an old question of mine: Why didn't GM have their Detroit Diesel Allison Division build a compact diesel engine for their light-duty trucks? The EMD 645 and 710 engines are amazingly tough! I HAVE seen a few 4-53 and 3-53 Detroits put into Chevy pickup trucks. Thanks for your thoughts!
Merlin

Hello, Sam!
I remember back in the early '80's Hot Rod magazine featuring a Chevy 1-ton truck with a Caterpillar 3208. I understand that a company in Florida used to do these conversions. I saw a Chevy Dually in Bangor, Wisconsin about 12 years ago with a Caterpillar 3208T engine. What a neat truck!
Merlin

I think that is a good idea. Deere is a great name, and GM trucks are well respected--at least they used to be. The Deere name for engines in a GM truck is a good thing.

Many engines and manufactors are very good. But the problem seems to be one word.... EMISSIONS! It takes a whole pile of money to research and develop an engine design that will pass emissions tests, on millions of engines, for millions of miles. Now even off-road engines need to meet certain standards. Be sure to thank your legislators.

That sounds good but CAT and Deere are barely able to keep up with demand for their own products right now. It would take serious retooling and additional manufacturing space.

Now if CAT and Deere were to buy up the Big 3 and turn them around. Now there's an idea! They both obviously have a knack for running a business.

Good luck,
Bill

Unable to confirm that Cat has abandoned the on-road market. The website is still active.
Cat

Umm, actually GM is trying to get out of the medium-duty truck business. After a couple of years of negotiations, the deal to sell their medium-duty truck line to Navistar International fell through a few months ago. Don't expect GM to be spending any money on new medium-duty truck programs. And GM currently doesn't play in heavy-duty.

Simple reason Merlin: Cost!!

DDA manufactured quality heavy duty diesel engines and automatic transmissions. But the marketing geniuses and bean counters at GM figured - probably correctly - that a DDA designed/built light duty diesel would not be cost competitive in the pickup market. So instead GM modified an existing gasoline engine into a diesel. The rest is history...

----

Regarding Detroit Diesel repowers, for years a coworker drove an F250 he'd repowered with a 4-53T. The truck was crazy noisy. But it performed well. And it was a lot easier on fuel than the big gas V8 it replaced.

bus driver, Cat has quit the truck market,our lease company told us a year ago they were switching to Cummings because Cat had quit the truck market.(emmisions) With the new catalitic converters I can't say I blame them

It is true. They will stop on-road engine apps soon if they haven't already. Rumored to wait for the others to get the emmissions met then get back in it after the others spend the money figuring out how to do it efficiently. Comes from a man at a Cat factory.

I've heard that one of the problems with putting an industrial diesel in a lighter truck is that they are too heavy. However, I had a Hino 4 ton truck with a non turbo 6 litre, 165 HP engine that easily got 16 mpg. That would make an excellent engine in a 3/4 ton or larger pick up. The 1 1/2 ton Hino uses a 4 cylinder turbo diesel and gets over 20 mpg. That would also be an excellent engine in a pick up. I'd give up acceleration and a little top speed for way better economy and reliability. I don't think auto companies want their vehicles to last too long. Dave

As a Chevrolet owner, it would kill me to have
a "GREEN" engine in my truck, so i"d have to
change to Ford, in order to have a "RED" (Binder)
engine.

JD and GM never had a partnership, what did happen was that Allison transmission helped JD with a transmission adapter. Some JD engines with Allison transmissions were put in motorhomes and I suppose a few other vehicles.

JD and GM did talk, at the request of JD, but nothing ever came of it. As mentioned below GM and IHC did perform so work together but IHC went ....

As a note, IHC was know for being able to do casting work that no one else could do.

Merlin, are you aware that someone is using a computer assigned the same IP number you have made your last several posts to this forum on to post disruptive posts to Usenet by way of Google Groups. The IP is IP:208.74.247.249 assigned by:

OrgName: Ace Communications Group
OrgID: ATA-31
Address: 207 E Cedar
City: Houston
StateProv: MN
PostalCode: 55943
Country: US

in the Rushford, Minnesota area, to post harassing and disruptive messages by way of google groups to the Usenet Newsgroups
alt.recovery.aa under the assumed posting name of Chronocidal Charlie. Chronocidal Charlie was a long time poster to alt.recovery.aa, in fact, he had posted there for over 13 years under the name prior to whoever it is who is posting from the same IP number you are assigned or being assigned when you post here to this forum?

The last two posts this person made to alt.recovery.aa are referenced as follows:

http://nnalert.com/5tm3x4

http://nnalert.com/5htlmy

The full posting profile of the person doing this is referenced as follows:

http://nnalert.com/68ftfm

Seemingly the same person using the same ISP posting under the name of boblarson4 made numerous threats to have the original user of the name Chronocidal Charlie shut down, ISP services pulled and also engaged in some tactics on Usenet that could be defined as simply stalking in an attempt to discredit another human being and destroy his credibility.

If your contract with Ace Communications group does not give you a static IP and it does indeed assign this IP:208.74.247.249 on a random basis, it might help you to know that the particular IP has been used in several such endeavors over the past few years, and seemingly the person doing this had a long disruptive Usenet posting history by way of WebTV under the name of Henry Cotter, e-mail, [email protected]. Referenced at:

http://nnalert.com/65db6m

There are numerous incidents of this computer being used as an e-mail harvester and other activities that a severely bot and malware infested computer can be engaged in.

If this is a case of Ace Communications Group in Houston, Mn, assigning you a dynamic rather than static IP, then you might contract Ace Communications to assign you a static IP for the, I believe, additional $5.00 per month, to be on the side of safety to exempt you from any further involvement in the situation.

I used to spend a lot of time with relatives over around Preston, Harmony, Lanesboro and Whalan area, in addition to some association with St. Mary's and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Good people in that area.

Sincere regards,

Concerned Usenet User