new guy with 6.2

[198662T]

Hi, Could you read my posting in the 6.2 area or should I retype all the questions? I have more after that but 10 at a time seems good !! Thanks for your time.

[CleviteKid]

Hello SWK, welcome to TheDieselPage.com. I can mosey over to the 6.2L Forum; I want you to save your fingers for turnin' wrenches and such, not retyping questions unnecessarily.

Dr. Lee :cool:

[198662T]

Hi,
Just in from the garage. I am looking at this company called SLM and they sell the dual coil glow plug good or bad?
I looked at my set up tonight (1982 6.2 "J" with 1994 6.5 turbo) and I wanted to make a plate about 3/16 thick to move the right exhaust manifold away from the injector lines even thought I have them wrapped with heat insulating material from Summit. What type of steel should I use and do you think it will hold up under the turbo heat/pressure? How can I control my boost with a GM3 turbo with a GM4 waste gate actuator?
Thanks for your time.

[CleviteKid]

Your cylinder heads and exhaust manifolds are just plain old gray cast iron with a tensile strength aroung 40,000 psi, so any steel you find will work just fine for your exhaust manifold spacer.

A slab of mild steel, or A-36, or SAE 1010 would fill the bill. In fact, if a magnet sticks to it, whatever it is, it will work just fine.

Based on experience, we only recommend either Kennedy's special glow plugs http://www.kennedydiesel.com/detail.cfm?ID=30
or the GM AC60G glow plugs.

Dr. Lee :cool:

[198662T]

I ordered the glow plugs from Kennedy last night. How should I control my waste gate? I was going to make a pressure switch to open at 12 psi. to then dump the vacuum on the gate but did not want to invest the time if there is a simple/reliable method. Refresher,this is a 1982 6.2 with a 1994 turbo set up with a fresh GM3 turbo with a GM4 waste gate. I have the GM3 waste gate but the can was crushed. Would a new GM3 gate work? Thank you.

[CleviteKid]

Call Diesel Page advertiser and supporter Bill Heath, tell him what you have, and ask him what you need.

Do the same with Kennedy, then take your choice.

Dr. Lee :cool:

[198662T]

Hi again,

[198662T]

Hi again, I have a chance to purchase some 6.2 motors. 2 are 1992 models and 1 is a late 1980's the owner was not sure. Did GM ever wring out one or more years or did they have issues like the cracked main web for each year. Basically, if you had a choice what would you buy (year) and what would you spend. (I know -loaded question)Thanks for your time.

[CleviteKid]

Get both 1992 motors - they should have the desireable -599 block casting and not have any problems.

Offer $200 each, and see what happens ! ! !

Dr. Lee :cool:

[198662T]

Dr. Lee,
I bought both motors and paid $100 each.
The first motor was VIN# 1GBJK34J9ME193375 block number on left rear was 14022660 number on right front was GM 6.2. This motor had the tube from the valley area out thru the left side of the block, has the camshaft drive w/o sensor, no EGR and the newer style starter than my 82'. Serpentine belt drive with a large oil pressure sensor.
The second motor VIN# 1GBJK34J6NE190047, block number left rear 12552929 and right front of block just said GM. Has no tube from lifter valley out thru side of block and no EGR. HAs speed sensor on cam drive , 6.5 style oil pressure sending unit, and serpentine belt drive.
Newer style starter.

1. Why the differences in these motors?
2. Where can I fing a posting in the forum or a book of casting numbers, like you can find for small & big block chevys , to help my junk yard hunting?
3. I show the first motor as a 92' and the second one as a 93', do you agree?
4. Should I put one of these starters on my 82' motor? I have read they are better, but I don't remember if it was greater cranking speed or durability?

Thanks for your time,
Scott

[john8662]

The 660 block I've heard of, its a common block casting number that most 6.2's have, including your 82. The 929 block is a new one to me, wasn't aware of that casting. Either way, the later 6.2's had slightly thicker main webbings to compensate for cracking. The final block design the 599 casting had a little bigger main webs, and was shared with the 6.5. Both the 6.2 and 6.5 late model (some 92/93 blocks) shared the 599 casting, the 6.2's were obviously not bored as much as the 6.5 block.

As far as starters, the newer starter is supposedly the better design. I personally like the old big heavy starter, because with a set of HOT batteries, the engine turns over very fast. On my 86 with the original starter and hot batteries on it, once warm I just bump the key, its running. I also have a 6.5TD that has the new style starter and it just doesn't crank as fast or start as fast even with new batteries. But there are some advantages to the new starter, supposedly more torque, its lighter (easier on the bolts that hold it) and lasts longer. But with 140k on my original starter in my truck, I don't know if thats true or not.

Either way, you have a couple of spare good usable starters for your project that'll bolt right up, just don't forget the front starter bracket!

[198662T]

Does anyone else have an opinion? I like all the feed back from everyone as I am not an expert and you have much more experience. I feel lonely with no replys tongue.gif

[john8662]

SWK,

I did some research only after finding I have a block with the casting number you have. The 929 block that you have is one of the sought after blocks, its one of the transition blocks with the thicker main webs. Its one of the blocks used in building 6.2's and 6.5's. So if its a 6.2 now, it can be a 6.5 later, or just keep it 6.2 and keep the stronger thicker cylinder walls.

I found this out when working on my 95 6.5. I had thought all along that I had a 599 block, nope 929, I was stumped, did some looking, and turns out its the right block too. Just thought I would share that with you.

[198662T]

I appreciate the response. Where can I find information about build specs, casting numbers and so forth like you can with SB chevy and so on? This seems to be difficult to locate considering the General built them for 10 years. When you say desireable , I understand why but how did you come to that conclusion? Thanks again.

[john8662]

I don't know of any sites setup like SBC sites are that have years and casts for the diesels. You've basically found the home for 6.2 and 6.5 information on TDP. These engines were not popular like the SBC engines were and yes they were produced for awhile, but not common.

To understand what a desireable block would be, you'd have to understand the changes made to the engines throughout the years good or bad. I've just read many user's opinions and information that they obtained from several builders. I really don't know where THEY get their information though.

Here is what I gather about the production line.

Here is the 660 cast block history as I understand it.

1982

First year, introduction engine, you can identify this engine by it's red/orange paint job. These blocks are "supposedly" a good block because they were cast with a higher nickel content. They are also always stamped with the production date on them. I have two of these blocks and both of them are dated X-XX-81.

1983 Through 1987

Continued production of the 6.2L, some changes in the internals of the engine, but used the same block. This block is supposedly cast of a softer metal content, less nickel. These engines do see the cracking main webs syndrone, there isn't really a rhyme or reason for it either, some do, some don't. My theory, harmonic balancer and getting them really hot. These engines were all painted black. You can tell production years by other cast numbers located on the front passenger side of the block (left).

1988 through 1991

These 6.2's were the same as the previous 6.2's (had internals from 85+ engines). I haven't confirmed this, but I read somewhere that in 1988 GM made the main webbings thicker to compensate for cracking. I haven't measured to compare, I have also seen some of these engines tha feature a turbo oil pressure tap on the passenger side timing valley just like a 6.5, but on a 660 block.

Here is the 599 and 929 block history as I understand it.

Introductary year for the 6.5 turbo diesel, this year featured a stronger main web system (thicker). These blocks were shared in production with the 6.2L diesel as well, because 6.2's were still being used until 1993 in some models. These blocks are sought after mainly because they had the thick main webs and they don't have some of the "improvements" made to later 6.5TD's.

The next 6.5TD's had problems with cracking below, and because of new implementations into the block machine work.

In 1997 a new block was used that incorporated oil spray piston coolers. Basically GM drilled taps in the block below the bottom of the cyinder bore that spray the bottoms of the pistons with oil. The idea was to cool the pistons. This ended up being an idea that helped one problem but created more problems. The holes machined into the block for cooling ended weakening the block that cracked, usually straight up into the cylder bores, causing coolant consumption.

Late 1998 production 6.5TD's were the same as the 1997's but the machined holes in the block were smaller to help with the cracking. I have still seen these blocks crack, didn't solve the problem. This is the 506 block.

Current, the 6.5TD is being manufactured by AM General for their Hummer H1 production. AM General purchased the molds and patents on the 6.5 and modified the engine and and have actually fixed the cracking problems with 6.5 bottom end. These engines are cast with a Navistar logo in them.

[198662T]

Wow.Well I have a red 1982 in my truck now getting a turbo and 1 '92 and 1 '93 engine.I appreciate all you time and effort on this post.I hope this turbo project goes as expected but it will not see the road until spring most likely.Thank you again and happy holidays !! smile.gif smile.gif