me to I like it it's a great car I'm gonna buy one..we still have it in Iraq and some of them are in a great condition...and the new one approaches 7000$'

This lamb concurs.

Right here with you!!! Love this old school info

Lawrence Hodge NOPE. I love them. On a binge.

Every school teacher I had in my early elementary years had some version of this car. One rebel teacher I recall, had an Audi. Her husband was "rich."

Actually the El Camino/Caballero and the Monte Carlo/Grand Prix (as well as the G-body Bonneville) no longer had the LF9 after the 1984 model year (the LT6, what the Grand Prix and Bonneville never had, was dropped a year earlier).

It must have been a heavy motor for these relative small light cars.

@@777jones for sure! A fully dressed olds 350 diesel weighs 850lbs this at least weighs 650ish

Imagine a 4.3L V6 TD in an S-10? or 1500?

@working_country ___ Hunh, nice! Happen to have a link?

+DieselQuads Hair is a bit thinner now, but still looks good for his age.

Pat goss also not aging..huh?

+DieselQuads He's 148 now.

He is immortal just like Dunkin McCloud from Highlander, lol ! ! !

He'll be 69 this month, +DieselQuads

Well Mercedes was only getting 67-80 HP out of it's 4 and 5 cylinder diesels at the time and it took a turbodiesel to get power into the 120 bracket so it wasn't all that out of line.

@@ponchoman49 but they were 2.4liter 4cylinders and 3.0 liter 5 cylinders. The nonturbo 3.0 (om617) made the same power as this 4.3. and with a turbo it made almost 40 more horsepower.

@@SuperLabonte43 And the Merc was also so reliable that there are still lots of them around with unopened engines and several hundred thousand miles on the clock.

Twin turbo that thing if you can even find the engine somewhere.

It was the 4.3 torque that mattered; drove mine 143k mi and the lo rpm power was always there.

And they wonder why they lost the market to foreign autos and needed bailed out... They brought it upon them selves...

+Nutz4Gunz45 LOL -- this is a GM vehicle that they wished they can sweep under the rug. My dad had an 81 Buick Electra Diesel.

+Nutz4Gunz45 We had an '83 6000 LE, the power window motor failed leaving the dealer lot new.

+Nutz4Gunz45 Hey, that happens in the present day with Audis !

Nutz4Gunz45 Toyota gets a pass when their shitbox Tundras catch fire and their Prius' accelerate on their own though, even getting caight red handed trying to sweep it under the rug... right? What's funny about all this is Ford and Toyota were both in bad shape sales wise at that time and at the rate they were going would've had no choice but to call Uncle Sam (our tax dollar) and file. Speaking of Ford Fiascos, anybody remember the Firestone debacle? Yeah, must be Ford at their best!

It needs a modern engine to give it some power.

I wish I had 5 or 6 of these. These are fine engines if you don't dog them out!

Steve Holsten These engines were horrible.

The 3300 was the best engine this platform got. Many are still around today.

@@davidmeyers6884 1984-1988 could get the 3.8L. It made 10 fewer hp but 15 more lb-ft than the 1989-1993 3.3L.

+dwilsonjr78 You can still go on Craigslist and see them from the 80's and 90's for sale.

+scott9050 They make great used cars.

Had an 87 and just bought a 61k original mile 1996. Great little bomber cars that are cheap and easy to fix.

Yes, they did last. I don't know why these cars lasted despite their small size. Back in the 70s and 80s, the only really good American cars were full size, and these cars. The related Buick was also good. I don't know why the Chevy and Pontiac variants sucked.

CaptainSpauIding It was not a good engine.

Another pleasant "GM experience"...

My dad used to say that Chrysler had good engines but lousy designs and Oldsmobile had nice designs but lousy engines. He had a point.

+スバル Well, how would you pronounce automatic?

+TheRealE1337ist Dunno, there's just something very John Davis about the way he says it at 2:18 !

lunaazul Agreed on pro-nunciation. Love malaise era vids too. "A mostly benign pre-version," JD might say

Nice Guy Eddie: Honda was the worst car I ever had.

+Robert Koscinski must have been old used junker honda is better than bmw and Mercedes Benz

Brandon Murphy: Honda sucks!

_"These were the cars that caused the huge growth in Japanese market share in the US."_ Well, no. That all happened in the 70s, especially with the oil embargo and CAFE standards, among other factors, catching the big three flat footed along with the Japanese having the right product at the right time. Then, as the Japanese competed for market share, they would begin to better understand the American market, thus adapting their offerings to better suit that market over time, making them even more competitive and essentially assuring that they will continue to serve the American market for many years to come. By the 80s, the big three were only just starting to stop their bleeding and turn things around for themselves, which they would eventually do once they found their footing around the mid 1980s onward. But, goodness gracious, did they have a lot of tumbles when trying to relearn how to walk in that time, especially GM with debacles like the X-body cars, the 5.7L diesel V8, the Cadillac V8-6-4, the Cadillac HT4100 engine (cast iron heads on an aluminum block, what could go wrong?!), and a half-assed attempt at a smaller Cadillac by making the Cimarron out of the J-body (the same platform as the Chevrolet Cavalier).

These cars had little to nothing to do with America's love affair with Toyota and Honda. It was more to do with the 2 massive oil embargoes that caused drivers to seek out the most efficient small cars they made and Detroit was late to he party.

+Dan McCarthy That engine was one of the worst things ever produced by any automaker. Legendarily bad. I agree with you. But VWs early diesels in this era didn't help either.

+Dan McCarthy If the bean counters didn't insist on using the same assembly line as the gas engines these would've been great. Even so, they are one or two fixes away from being really reliable. Of course those fixes should've been done at the factory lol

I have always said this.

+Dan McCarthy It was pretty much the C.A.F.E. mafia crushing the industry with unrealistic MPG demands overnight,they had to come with new engines off their asses otherwise they'll be heavily taxed or forbidden to sell high demand models,they didn't had time to long time testing and shit happened,all the diesels were lemons,the Cadillac 4.1 was a POS among others,Mercedes-Benz thrown the towel and paid the fines,even the Japanese had to reduce the HP to ridiculous numbers,it was a hard time to be in the auto industry,i was working at Ford back in the day and I remember very well,it was all the C.A.F.E. assholes fault,like a conspiracy to fuck up everybody at the same time,when the government gives opening to special interest groups to intervene in the market with stupid rules and regulations capitalism and free market stops working,the same thing is happening right now with the Global Warming bullshitters,well,and the C.A.F.E. is still around fucking up everything,so when you look at the new cars and say "They look like crap,i don't want to buy it" you know whom to blame....

And just when you thought that the diesel might be making a comeback in cars in the US, VW dealt it another disastrous blow to it's reputation!

I had the same one too.... It ran forever tho

+Biker Jim My mom had a 93 brand new, I miss it somedays, it had a 4 cylinder, but it broke down when I was little.

You had to really try hard to kill the iron duke

I can only imagine lol

Clever

Shots fired

I've always called this generation the Olds Nutless! 😆😆😆😆

Thanks for speaking up for the 4.3 diesel, they were very good diesels 1.5 million miles of testing before production. You are one of the few. Thanks

That engine was offered in the fwd Cadillac Deville in 1985. Making it the only non V8 offered in a Cadillac for years aside from the four banger offered in..ahem ..the Cimarron until the Opel based Catera came out.

@@pmvaldez1 Rear drive DeVilles were available with Buick's 4.1 Liter V6 as a credit option in early 80's

@@emeyer6963 huh, I thought the 4.1 was a v8 as well.

@@pmvaldez1 They had both for a year or 2 if memory serves me right.The V8 came out for 1982 model year replacing the V8-6-4 that was offered for 1981.

+vector6977 My parents had one of those when I was a little kid. Somehow we managed to take the family 1500 miles to Florida in it. Driving through the mountains required that the A/C be shut off so that it was able to make it up the hills!

+vector6977 My soon to be wife's first car was a Celebrity, on the way to the mall black smoke poured out of the AC vents forcing us to stick our heads out of the windows. It was traded in for a brand new 90 Sunbird within a few days but the back seat was full of good memories.

+vector6977 I didn't actually know you could get a Eurosport with the 4-cylinder engine. All the ones I remember as a kid had the 2.8 V6.

+Tuneman1984 You are right. Eurosports didn't have 4 bangers.

+Hella Good Um yeah they did.

Yes- the Buick Century was on this platform, as well as the Chevy Celebrity and the Pontiac 6000.

You have a 63KW toaster? You wouldn't happen to be Photonicinduction?

Patchuchan I am ironically

Joel Worsley wait! Is this a real toaster 🤔

I too have a diesel toaster. Good ol cancer toast

uxwbill, this V6 diesel was quite reliable.

I owned a 1984 Ciera V6 diesel and as long as you stayed on top of routine maintenance, especially oil changes and glow plugs, they run forever. I'd still be driving mine if it weren't for rust as a result of Detroit area salt. With the 4 speed auto, I got no worse than 37 mpg and I got 48-50 mpg on trips. Besides the Geo Metro, it took an automaker over 20 years to building a car that got anywhere close to this kind of mpg.

People were afraid to buy an diesel from GM because of how hard the 5.7 sucked. Even if those V6 diesels were great, nobody would be willing to take the chance. In fact, I'm certain those diesels ruined the sales of every diesel not made by Benz.

@@devonnewest7990 Better? Maybe. "quite reliable"? No. I worked with a couple of older GM mechanics who dealt with these V6 diesels when they were new -- said the heads stayed on better than the V8s, but they broke the crankshafts instead.

Um, maybe the 4.3L Chevy V6 gas engine, definitely not the Olds 4.3L V6 diesel.....

Yep. Mine still runs great.

The 3.3 was a great engine, very fast in a Ciera and even faster in a Grand Am.

@@davidp8627 The 3.3L 3300 was a shorter deck of the GM 3.8L 3800 Series engine C code started in 1988.

Makes it feel like an '80s V8 lol

They were good in snow....skinny snows on front = unstoppable

I think the new 3 cylinder cars are faster than that, lol.

Considering it only had 85 HP it isn't that bad

A Beetle needed far longer than 19.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile. That was more like the 0-60 time.

In the States 'petrol' and 'gas' are used interchangeably.

Austinmini1275 I didn’t think they used the word petrol at all over there. And it’s quite surreal replying to a 4 year old comment lol

Was it a diesel? It was probably the 2.5 liter iron duke gasoline engine.

No it was a four cylinder brougham 4 dr with plush seats.

It's a piece of shit Ray.

they kept running . body didn't rust out . horrible to have a vehicle last ur life time . hate to save a million dollars . hahah. modern version be nice .. better milage than hybrids no hybrid . just horrible cars .

Mark McGarret and mine was 24 so what?

@@roddevereaux1830 it's old.

The "Duke" is the engine the USPS has used since over 30 years in their delivery vans..

They tried to cut corners because they were in a hurry to get better fuel economy. GM ended up destroying the reputation of diesel engines for American car buyers for decades.

Because they decided to rush production by both not testing the engines properly and basing them off 350 olds gas engines...which is why the 5.7 olds is one of the only over square diesels you can buy.

Basing it off a pre existing car petrol engine meant that Detroit Diesel (a GM subsidiary at the time) weren't involved in the development rather being taken on by the car engineers unfamiliar and inexperienced with diesels

I know, it's amazing that a car of that size could squeeze that many miles out of a gallon 30 years ago!

They way they calculate fuel mileage now is way stricter than it was when this car was new - it wouldn't get the same MPG ratings today

For real!

Yeah, but think about how much smog those 80s diesels were allowed to produce. Some of these cars had permanent paint stains near the exhaust pipe. It gets interesting to see how many MPG people get when they take a VW TDI, remove most of the smog equipment, and put it in a Vanagon. They still produce less smog than 80s diesels, yet also have more MPG.

But remember this was 1984 36 years ago every thing was slow even the V-8 engine like in the 5.0L Camaro and Mustangs only put out 140hp-170hp.

Virtually every car in the late 1970s through the mid 1980s was slow due to hp strangling emission regulations.

Pretty normal for the average family sedan in the 70's and early 80's

+Bknyzson718 On a good day, not like they do now. Also, they were painfully, nearly dangerously slow.

+vector6977 gotcha

+Bknyzson718 Check out the Escort diesel review.

Rob Neville yes 1985 was the last year. The 4.3 diesel was offered in the fwd C platforms in 1985 but not the next year.

Except, for the original V8 version (code LF9) that gave the brand so much grief, that was dropped after January 1985.

Nope but VW/Audi and FCA sure did today

Diesel emissions weren’t a big concern back then.

rbrobbi: Great movie!

How the fuck do you split a fuckin' car, ya dummy? With a fuckin' chainsaw?

You don't get that Tru-Coat, you get oxidation.

@@jasonmoreland8155 We had a deal here, for nineteen five!