Lets give the 6.2 diesel some love

[Ricko1966]

Are you thinking of moving to Kansas anytime soon?
I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[Vbb199]

The hell with that motor he's got, I'm just shocked he's back from the grave

Good to hear from you again @CSFJ

 

[Blue84]

I took out the 6.2 and put in the 5.9 Cummins. I have a NP205 transmission behind it, but will be putting an Allison 1000 behind it soon.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[75Monza]

I took out the 6.2 and put in the 5.9 Cummins. I have a NP205 transmission behind it, but will be putting an Allison 1000 behind it soon.

You must be registered for see images attach

Nice...but one thing I would suggest doing is getting rid of that intake filter and putting like an AFe Box there plummed to outside air. Hot underhood air isn't the greatest. Nice limited restriction necks though...what did they run you?

 

[Blue84]

I have an cowl induction hood, so I'm getting the air I need to the engine. The limited restriction necks were included with the engine when I gone it. So not sure of the price for them.

 

[Scrapman]

My 85 3500 dually came stock with a 6.2 and turbo 400 and gets descent mileage if i dont push it too hard. she also packs a good load. the only addition i would like to make would be to bolt on a GearVendor behind the tranny and give this old girl a 6speed built specifically for this truck

 

[Blue Ox]

Since you bring it up. I know someone with a Gear Vendors from a manual trans/NP208 that he's looking to sell. Of course you'd have to buy the adapter and controls for an auto. Don't know if that would be cost effective, but if anybody's interested let me know.

 

[Vbb199]

Since you bring it up. I know someone with a Gear Vendors from a manual trans/NP208 that he's looking to sell. Of course you'd have to buy the adapter and controls for an auto. Don't know if that would be cost effective, but if anybody's interested let me know.

@mrburitto would maybe be interested

Or @WamboJambo

 

[mrburitto]

Since you bring it up. I know someone with a Gear Vendors from a manual trans/NP208 that he's looking to sell. Of course you'd have to buy the adapter and controls for an auto. Don't know if that would be cost effective, but if anybody's interested let me know.

I have been looking for a GearVendors but it would be going in my C30 with a TH400. Do you know what would be needed to use it with an automatic? Sorry I dont know much about gearvendors other than what it does lol. I tried to look it up, and didnt find much.

 

[Ricko1966]

My 85 3500 dually came stock with a 6.2 and turbo 400 and gets descent mileage if i dont push it too hard. she also packs a good load. the only addition i would like to make would be to bolt on a GearVendor behind the tranny and give this old girl a 6speed built specifically for this truck

IMHO If you just bolt in a 4l80 out of a diesel truck you'll have a very easy, affordable O.D. And I'm not sure if all diesel 4l80s are this way but the donor truck I bought had a seperate transmission controller , so no bucks there either.

 

[Bextreme04]

IMHO If you just bolt in a 4l80 out of a diesel truck you'll have a very easy, affordable O.D. And I'm not sure if all diesel 4l80s are this way but the donor truck I bought had a seperate transmission controller , so no bucks there either.

FWIW there are no differences between 4L80's by application. The only difference is in the torque converter used. 454 and Diesel use the same torque converter, which is different that the other applications.

 

[Ricko1966]

FWIW there are no differences between 4L80's by application. The only difference is in the torque converter used. 454 and Diesel use the same torque converter, which is different that the other applications.

But I thought the gas cars used a different transmission controller and harness.Diesels being a seperate harness and tcm where as gas applications used the pcm harness.IDK

 

[1987 GMC Jimmy]

1) The sound. The 6.2L is about the best sounding of any of the big 3's engines. A 5.9L Cummins sounds like a bucket of bolts down the intake.

2) 8 cylinders. Much smoother power that won't rattle your truck apart.

3) Four cylinders long. Fits much better under the hood than an inline six.

4) Remember you have to take these things in the context of the time. Most of the offerings for engines were pretty wimpy as well. I'll put my 6.2L up against any engine offered in the same model year except the big block. Obviously they're not in the same class, but as stated, burns gas like there's still dinosaurs walking around.

I forgot two, although somebody already touched on one of them.

Weight. The 5.9 is a lot heavier, necessitating stiffer springs to support the extra weight. So ride is compromised as is load carrying capacity. The more of it's own weight a truck has to carry around, the less cargo it can carry. And after all, isn't that the purpose of a truck?

Powerband. The Cummins low RPM range makes it pretty intractable for a light truck. Remember, it's an Ag/Industrial engine that somebody decided to stick in a Jeezus Chrysler.

FWIW, I've spent my life around engines too. Everything from 855 Cummins, Caterpillars, Volvos, Detroits and Internationals to Macks and Mercedes, MTUs, Mackintosh-Seymours, Delaval Enterprises, Electo-Motives and Fairbanks-Morse. And I've never heard a one of them sound as $#itty as a 5.9 unless they were broken.

Don't misunderstand, I don't think the 6.2L is a legendary engine by any stretch. It has some serious limitations. But again, you have to take it in the context of when it was designed and what it was designed for. GM was first to the field with pickup truck diesels having introduced the 6.2 in 1982. Ford put the Navistar 6.9 in their trucks in 1983 and Chysler was last offering a diesel in their pickups. None of these offerings was the powerhouse that they've evolved into. They were all low horsepower engines aimed at fuel economy. Comparing the 6.2 to more modern engines or engines aimed at a different application like a fuel injected big block is comparing apples to oranges. You might as well throw in a gas turbine for comparison.

Along those lines did anybody notice that GM offered the 6.2 across the entire C/K product line, whereas the Cummins and 6.9/7.3 were only available in heavier trucks? No diesel Broncos, or Ramchargers. That says a lot about what GM had in mind for it's powerplant.

Compared to what was available at the time, I tend to agree. The 6 bbt Cummins has a pretty rough sound, especially when running straight pipes (yuck), and the 6.9/7.3 IDI are less rough IMO but not as smooth as the 6.2. The 7.3 PSD is technically a contemporary of the 6.5, not the 6.2, so I think this is splitting hairs, but I would argue it’s the best sounding of the diesels that were in production up to that time, the 90s. Just an opinion that exists slightly out of the scope of this discussion, but any opportunity to plug my favorite diesel...

I think the 6.2 is underappreciated despite being gutless. You have to remember that GM was succeeding the Oldsmobile 350 diesel (at least in the trucks, the fate of passenger cars having diesels was sealed) which had a notorious reputation despite the improved DX versions, and the fact that we can at least agree the 6.2s were reliable, economical, and well-mannered on the highway as long as you’re not passing was a serious practical victory for the General.

 

[RecklessWOT]

Hah, no. Let's not give love to a turd.

 

[Bextreme04]

But I thought the gas cars used a different transmission controller and harness.Diesels being a seperate harness and tcm where as gas applications used the pcm harness.IDK

The transmission is the same. The gas engines that had a 4L80E would have all had TBI so they are controlled by that computer. The diesels used a stand-alone controller, but that doesn't mean the transmission itself is any different.