PY Online Forums - Bringing the Pontiac Hobby Together

PY Online Forums - Bringing the Pontiac Hobby Together (https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/index.php)
-   Members Helping Members (https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   GM Diesel... (https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=624644)

Ben M. 02-12-2010 01:53 AM

GM Diesel...
 
I've been looking at several mid 80's GM trucks with diesel engines (6.2L). Supposedly the performance is decent and the mileage isn't too horrid (more than 10-12 compared to the 7-8 of the gas). Are these engines of this vintage any good and are there any problems to look out? I was also sent info on a 1993 suburban with a diesel engine as well, is this the same vintage or a better\worse engine?

I ask because I don't see too many around... and wonder if it's like the Olds 350 =P

Don Brown 02-12-2010 09:30 AM

GM Diesel
 
Try going to The Diesel Place. A lot of information on GM Diesels there.

bigunde 02-12-2010 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Brown (Post 3906487)
Try going to The Diesel Place. A lot of information on GM Diesels there.

X2 . Thats a great place

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/index.php

http://www.gm-diesel.com/

Ben M. 02-12-2010 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigunde (Post 3906507)
X2 . Thats a great place

Thank you both! Exactly what I was looking for.

sleepy 02-12-2010 11:02 AM

I had an 82 chevy 6.2 2wd. 28mpg and no trouble what so ever. Had 190,000 on it when i traded it. Wish i hadn't done that.
My next door neighbor had a 82 6.2 suburban 4X4 and got 20mpg with it.

goatman-68 02-12-2010 12:23 PM

The 6.2L non turbo engines are pretty gutless, other than that they are an (OK) engine. fuel injection pumps are the most common failure which only cost around $500.00 for a rebuilt. The 93 6.5L engine is probably a turbo'ed engine which have more power but occasionally pop head gaskets. When you get to 1994-2000, they have an electronic/mechanical injection pump which fail pretty regularly or at least the PMD (pump mounted driver) does. The same vintage Ford (Navistar) 6.9L/7.3L diesels are a better choice.

SRR 02-12-2010 11:21 PM

Ben funny you mention these trucks. A customer came in today for batteries for a turbo Diesel powered 1984 regular cab dually. He used it for his business.

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/cto/1594555780.html

I wish I had the money for this one. :(

Ben M. 02-13-2010 12:21 AM

That would make an awesome smog exempt replacement for the wrecker, eh Steve?

There's a guy up here with one that's going for like $1k that supposedly runs well. Tough decision ;-) Also a couple of Suburbans, which would make a very practical vehicle when you don't have access to anything more than a 2-door Lemans or 4 door Bonneville =P

Cammer-6 02-13-2010 09:11 AM

Ive now gone to the school of hard knocks with the Duramaxs.
Bought an 01 GMC one ton x cab flatbed.
It has at least one bad injector,which makes it impossible to start on its own.
But when its running,even with the bad injector it runs like a scalded ape.
You can turn the wick up on those later model diesels to the point that some other drivetrain components will be the weak point.
Most of the guys that own GM diesels have a low opinion of the older 6.2,6.5s;but the 01-04 Durmaxs have injector problems.

Ben M. 02-13-2010 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cammer-6 (Post 3907410)
Most of the guys that own GM diesels have a low opinion of the older 6.2,6.5s;but the 01-04 Durmaxs have injector problems.

"Low opinion" because it isn't a performance monster (like a Pontiac 350) or "low opinion" because of serious design flaws and wear components (like a Pontiac 301)? I'm looking for reliability and usefulness, I am not much of a hot-rodder with a need for speed (SRR will tell you all about how strange that is for someone as young as me).

mike nixon 02-13-2010 10:01 PM

THe 6.2's a reliable engine but not the performer the newer engines are. I've got one in my 78 k20 4x4, straight 4spd trans, 4:10 gears and 33"tires. 20 mpg empty, 13 pulling 12k #'s against the govenor, the injection pump's turned up to the ragged edge of being a coal burner.

They had a nasty habit of cracking blocks when run hard. I've not had that problem yet and I've ran mine HARD. Turbos will kill the 6.2. The 6.5 had electronic problems in the fuel delivery system.

As I said they're not a bad powerplants but don't expect the horespower of a newer engine.

Mike

SRR 02-14-2010 12:17 AM

Yep
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben M. (Post 3907558)
"Low opinion" because it isn't a performance monster (like a Pontiac 350) or "low opinion" because of serious design flaws and wear components (like a Pontiac 301)? I'm looking for reliability and usefulness, I am not much of a hot-rodder with a need for speed (SRR will tell you all about how strange that is for someone as young as me).

If Ben were to get a job driving Miss Daisy around she would tell him to hurry up. :D
Those earlier Diesels didn't have the brute power we now take for granted BUT they get good MPG and propel the truck they are in.
Hey Ben guess what I did with my old computer? Yep, I now have PY, CP and email in the garage!!! Yee-ha now I'll never get anything done. :D Albert suggested it after I put a clutch in his Xterra (what a beech, even for a stinking 4 popper) He had a spare 17" monitor, keyboard and set the tower up with XP. Even has a working DVD player. Works great but needs more memory (only 512K at the moment) and some speakers besides the ones in the monitor. :rolleyes:

Ben M. 02-14-2010 01:59 AM

Quote:

THe 6.2's a reliable engine but not the performer the newer engines are. I've got one in my 78 k20 4x4, straight 4spd trans, 4:10 gears and 33"tires. 20 mpg empty, 13 pulling 12k #'s against the govenor, the injection pump's turned up to the ragged edge of being a coal burner.
This is good info. I've seen a few with the 4 speed on the 'net, but none for sale. I do like the idea of a manual transmission, but I'm pretty sure that's not going to be easily findable =) As far as performer, every time I think of "diesel performance" is some knucklehead "chip"ing it and it belches black smoke while driving loudly down the road. That's not me. I drive low compression engines everywhere with 2 series gears, so screaming performance is not something I even understand, much less want ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRR (Post 3908129)
Yep, I now have PY, CP and email in the garage!!! Yee-ha now I'll never get anything done.

Look at you now! You never got anything done anyways even with no computer out there ;-)

stimpy 02-14-2010 03:12 PM

I help take care of a fleet with 6.2's and 6.5's an early d maxes and a few bt6's , the 6.2's are mostly landscapers trucks and several of the high milers have spun or broke balancers but when I say high milers I mean 300K+ and its hard milage pulling heavy trailers and snowplowing , we had to pull the body off one ( i t was easy as the salt ate most of it away ) and just used the drivetrain to power a able chassis , when the balancer comes apart they last about 10 minutes .... most problems are the pressure vac pump and filters plugging/gelling ( which we ussually change out to a big truck type ) gutless wonder Yes but can't beat the milage ,especially the vans


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:10 AM.