This article is ratedList-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

ListsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize alllist pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. AutomobilesMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofautomobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

The first sentence of the second paragraph is a bit of cause for some concern. It used to read as follows:

Due to the fact that they were based off of standard gasoline engine designs...

but now reads:

These Diesel engines were designed to fit into the engine bays of gaoline powered automobiles, but despite popular belief, they were not "converted" gasoline engines...

Is it accurate to say this? The reason I ask is that they're essentially beefed-up versions of standard Olds V6/V8 gasoline engine blocks, albeit with big-block sized main journals. While there are some differences, they're basically modified versions of their gasoline counterparts, aren't they? I'm inclined to change it back, but looking for arguments against doing so.--King V18:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced that any of that discussion actually belongs within this article - I think it's better served being included with theOldsmobile V8 engine article and its Diesel section. However, what's there now needs a lot of sourcing for its claims first before that would even make sense. I just spent a good chunk of time adding to the list (basically rounding out GM's impressive engineering history and cleaning up a LOT of redundant redundancies under each engine family) - and after all that, the big honking "Diesel" section looks somewhat out of place. I already moved a paragraph into theChevrolet Corvair engine article (which still needs sourcing too); I'm thinking of doing the same in this case.Duncan1800 (talk)11:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned with the bias shown in the olds diesel section. The author mentions poor failures from design, then proceeds to list failures from maintenance, improper rebuilds, misuse of one use parts, etc, etc, as those failures from design. One of the most common mistakes non-engineering people commit is to use something outside of its designed use, or fail to maintain it within its designed maintenance schedule, then, when it fails, blame it on the design. Even the best engine in the world needs timely oil changes. Like most people on the internet, the author's credentials are called into question.—Precedingunsigned comment added by74.137.221.66 (talk)15:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire Section 8 (Automotive diesel engines) is superfluous especially considering this article is a list. It seems silly to have conflicting and debatabley biased diatribe about the Olds diesel and its impact on North American diesel perceptions; there is already a list of GM diesel engines in section 5 and this article is not really meant to be a source of info about the motors, it is merely a list linking said motors to their respective articles. Would anyone be opposed to deleting section 8?DieselDork (talk)14:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GM six-letter engine coding system explained (courtesyhttp://www.topbuzz.co.uk/info/engine_codes/engine_codes.htm)

Note: * = any character, # = Stricter limits for ca.1996

Here's the GM six-letter SKU codes for variousEcotec used inOpel cars (courtesyhttp://www.opelpower.dk/guides/eculist.asp)

DmitryKo 06:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please add any information on these little-known engines.

There's a lot of other "classic" GM engines, including the Copper-Cooled Chevrolet and the earliest Oldsmobile V8 (from 1916). I'm also looking at adding GM's industrial and diesel designs (from Electro-Motive, Detroit Diesel, etc.) into this list. The name of the company is GeneralMotors, after all - best to include the full depth and breadth.Duncan1800 (talk)12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted this article from Autoblog about a new 2.9L V6 diesel for the Cadillac CTS in Europehttp://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/06/geneva-motor-show-cadillac-unveils-new-2-9l-v6-diesel-for-cts-user Sd-100

I have a question: My 1980 GMC truck had a blown V6 motor in it when I bought. I have a V8 350 motor on hand. I know it will fit, but here is the question.. It has a two gas tanks, which required a 3 outlet for the the V8, but the V6 only has a 2 outlet. What is the third outlet for on the V8.....—Precedingunsigned comment added by66.174.79.238 (talk)16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked this list pretty extensively, adding in a lot of missing engines (many of which will need pages created for them) and even throwing in some of GM's heavy-duty production to provide historical perspective. I know I'm still missing some things - early Vauxhall engines come to mind (damn it!) and there may be other regional production from South America, Asia, etc. that I'm not aware of. The help of Wikipedians from elsewhere in the world (outside the US, that is) would be greatly appreciated, especially in pinning down dates and specifics for Opel/Vauxhall production and refining the data for other "world" engines.

The list has been organized mainly in a historical way, tracing GM's engine development through the years - I feel this is more instructive (and interesting) than grouping things by division; others may disagree, and I would welcome additional input. I'm also somewhat hamstrung by the way individual engine pages are currently organized - instead of starting with a semi-DAB page like "Cadillac V8 engine" and expanding from there (into, say, separate pages for L-head, OHV, aluminum, and Northstar V8s), everything is currently mixed into confusing jumbles on single pages. I understand how to get through all these pages now, but that's only after months of learning the "tricks" needed to do so. Most of what exists seems incomplete as well, at least compared to my own references.

I'm also of the opinion that sprawlingly huge pages like "GM Vortec engine" should be nothing more than DAB pages, giving links only to the various engine families (Atlas, small-block, LS, etc.) under that name and sorting things out within those pages instead. On that note, if Ford'sDuratec brand has a page, why doesn't GM's equally notableEcoTec brand?

At some point, I may decide to rework this list into a series of tables instead, but that's down the road. I'd also like to work up a comprehensive, cross-referenced list of RPO engine codes (don't laugh - I've already tortured myself with the similarly dauntinglist of NASCAR race tracks, so RPO codes shouldn't be much more painful). For now, though, I think this gives a good base from which to further refine and Wikipedia's coverage of General Motors and its engineering achievements.Duncan1800 (talk)13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cross-posted this discussion to theWikiProject Automobiles talk page; please direct any comments on this post to that location.Duncan1800 (talk)14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link onList of GM engines. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/20120814143041/http://www.oaklandowners.com:80/pages/History_McCargar.html tohttp://www.oaklandowners.com/pages/History_McCargar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}01:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a major problem in it's layout (probably because it was started as an automotive article). There are sections for "Locomotive", "Marine", and "Industrial", however the same GM engine families were used across these categories - the 567 engine, for example, was used in locomotives, tugboats and ferries, and stationary generator and pump applications; the Series 71 engine was used in trucks and buses, fishing boats, and stationary applications - so trying to divide these will result in repetition in each category. I'm tempted to just lump them all together under "Heavy Duty" engines.

• List-Class List articles
• Low-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• List-Class Automobile articles
• Mid-importance Automobile articles