[455Grandville]

Does anyone know 6.2 or 6.5 diesels on here ?
Not my favorite diesel, but Im told some 6.2 and 6.5s had steel cranks ?
If so can you ID them in the engine by the flange ?
Im needing a lightweight diesel , and a inliner wont fit without alot of modifications.

[mzbk2l]

I don't know those engines well enough to answer your question, but www.thedieselpage.com is the expert site on those engines. LOT of archived info there to dig through.

'Course, if you REALLY want lightweight, it's hard to beat a Duramax with those aluminum heads.

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by mzbk2l

I don't know those engines well enough to answer your question, but www.thedieselpage.com is the expert site on those engines. LOT of archived info there to dig through.

'Course, if you REALLY want lightweight, it's hard to beat a Duramax with those aluminum heads.

Duramaxx would tear up the driveline with its torque.
And yes Mike, I drove a Duramaxx recently and was impressed with its power.

[mike nixon]

the "black engines were the better ones. if irc they came out in late 83. i've got one in my 78 4x4 it's turned up to the ragged edge of smoking bad, has decent power, runs well and pulls over 3mpg with a straight 4spd,4:10's and 33" tires in a 6k# truck.


mike

[mzbk2l]

I was just yanking your chain with the duramax comment.

I really would check out the diesel page, though... there are probably hundreds of members there who could answer any question you might have on the 6.2/6.5 right off the top of their heads.

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by mzbk2l

I was just yanking your chain with the duramax comment.

I really would check out the diesel page, though... there are probably hundreds of members there who could answer any question you might have on the 6.2/6.5 right off the top of their heads.

I know.I'll never hear the end of that. I have heard of some Duramaxx issues; there is a coating they used on the heads to prevent corrosion and some owners neglected to change the coolant when they were supposed to. It would eat through the coating, but thats on the owners, not the engine. 6.9s and 7.3s can calvitate in the rear cylinders by the same neglect -

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by mike nixon

the "black engines were the better ones. if irc they came out in late 83. i've got one in my 78 4x4 it's turned up to the ragged edge of smoking bad, has decent power, runs well and pulls over 3mpg with a straight 4spd,4:10's and 33" tires in a 6k# truck.


mike

Thanks for the info, Mike -
Im dropping one in a old Land Rover pickup; it has a underpowered 62 hp 4 cylinder diesel and they make conversion kits for the 6.2.

[mike nixon]

you'll like the 6.2 in that l/r, jsut gear it to take advantage of the torque band. i know of several blazers that pull 25mpg on a regular basis. the mechanical pump 62/5's are a good engine they just aren't the powerhouses the newer ones are.

mike

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by mike nixon

you'll like the 6.2 in that l/r, jsut gear it to take advantage of the torque band. i know of several blazers that pull 25mpg on a regular basis. the mechanical pump 62/5's are a good engine they just aren't the powerhouses the newer ones are.

mike

Mike, Ive always heard the 6.2s forte was 20 + mpg. 62 hp to 135 + hp will be night/day, though. I laugh everytime I hear a newer diesel owner (Duramaxx, Cummins, Powerstroke) tell me they get 30 mpg

[sleepy]

A friend of mine has a 06 duramax and he is lucky to get 12. my 82 6.2 got 28 hwy and 25 city. I wish I still had that truck.

[pro-tour79]

I had a 6.2 in a heavy 3/4 ton no OD trans and still pulled over 20 mpg and it didn't matter if it was fully loaded down and that was with 225000+ miles on it.

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by sleepy

A friend of mine has a 06 duramax and he is lucky to get 12. my 82 6.2 got 28 hwy and 25 city. I wish I still had that truck.

They have 'em turned up so high (365 hp) from the factory these days. If you buy a Duramaxx in some motorhome chassis I think its 230 hp or something like that.
I read GM had an economy 6.2 in step vans that was less hp for fuel economy

[Cliff R]

All of the 6.2's I've been into had iron cranks. The turbo charged 6.5.s are supposed to have steel cranks, but I'm not sure?

The 6.2's come in several "flavors", very early units have different rocker arm set-ups, water pump, etc.

None of those engines are overly impressive, in any configuration, and every single one I've had apart had major cracks in the pre-combustion chambers, and some across the exhaust valve seats.

Those engines are NOT direct injected, or did they have intercoolers on the later turbo charged versions, they are basically considered TURDS in the diesel world, at least compared to other designs. Some folks have still spent the time/funds to get some pretty impressive power from them, so they do have some potential.

The later Duramax engines, at least those I've driven, are much better, but seem to be pretty thirsty. We took a friends 2005 Duramax to Daytona last year for bike week, pulling a small trailer with 2 bikes in it, and it never did hit 10 miles to the gallon! It's pretty much "stock" except for some sort of "chip" in it......Cliff

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by Cliff R

All of the 6.2's I've been into had iron cranks. The turbo charged 6.5.s are supposed to have steel cranks, but I'm not sure?

The 6.2's come in several "flavors", very early units have different rocker arm set-ups, water pump, etc.

None of those engines are overly impressive, in any configuration, and every single one I've had apart had major cracks in the pre-combustion chambers, and some across the exhaust valve seats.

Those engines are NOT direct injected, or did they have intercoolers on the later turbo charged versions, they are basically considered TURDS in the diesel world, at least compared to other designs. Some folks have still spent the time/funds to get some pretty impressive power from them, so they do have some potential.

The iron cranks are bad about breaking around the 2nd main cap.
If I can find a 3.9 Cummins BT I'll go that route -

[mike nixon]

Originally Posted by 455Grandville

They have 'em turned up so high (365 hp) from the factory these days. If you buy a Duramaxx in some motorhome chassis I think its 230 hp or something like that.
I read GM had an economy 6.2 in step vans that was less hp for fuel economy

as long as the 6.2's not turned up until it smokes like a coal burner it's efficiency increases with turning up the fuel as long as the advance cam is adjusted also. you don't want to get crazy with the advance but a little goes a long way.

the step van version was severely underpowered.

i've seen a total of 2 cranks broken in a 6.2 that were n/a. the banks kit really wakes them up but it'll also spit the crank out of the block in short order if the engine's run hard.

i've seen more cracks in the main webbing of the block and gaulding of number 8 cyl than i've seen other issues.

i'd be on the hunt for a ton truck as a donor. the non emission version, no egr, will be the snappiest of the bunch.

as i said above, they're not a duramax but iwth some care they're a good engine for a driver. i've actually thought about stuffing one in a mid 70's pontiac for a driver.

mike

[455Grandville]

Mike, If I drop a 6.2 in I have a complete set of the red headed stepchildren of diesels : Olds 5.7 and IH DV-550, though both run real well and earn their keep.

[mike nixon]

the 5.7 must be a later model. i've seen those run a LOT of miles. in fact i know of one right now that runs well in a mid 80's park ave.

that binder engine kind of scares me, i've not heard a lot of good about them. i like the dt466 and dt366 for an international engine.


mike

[455Grandville]

Originally Posted by mike nixon

the 5.7 must be a later model. i've seen those run a LOT of miles. in fact i know of one right now that runs well in a mid 80's park ave.

that binder engine kind of scares me, i've not heard a lot of good about them. i like the dt466 and dt366 for an international engine.


mike

Despite low miles it has a later "WX" replacement block (deeper holes tapped for main bolts) I bought it with a bad headgasket: Ended up removing the block and installing ARP studs. Im averaging 30 mpg running the A/C.

I have a later 9.0 which was a somewhat improved DV550. 550s & 9.0s are gutless : about 180 hp and they are L-O-U-D when climbing a hill loaded. The DT466 is probably the best medium duty diesel ever made.

[mike nixon]

that's my opinom on the dt series of engines also. the 366 can be made to run well but it takes a little tweaking. i've got it in my head that i'd like to stuff one in a vintage binder pickup or shorten my co1600 down, stick one in there and use it to pull trailers.

i know a guy who's in the process of changing a 9.0 in a payloader. he's not having any fun with it and is hoping the one he bought is a good one.

mike

[455Grandville]

They made several displacements for the 466 series: DT360, DT408, DT466, DT530 and now DT570. I think DT stood for "Diesel Turbo"
It started out as a farm tractor engine in 414 cid in the 1960's.

The 9.0 has some good points: easy to start when cold, and suprisingly decent fuel economy. If your friend sells that extra 9.0 tell him they are in high demand with the tractor pulling crowd.