Economics of ownership

[Backwoods_BC]

While it seems like its time for a new truck. Current truck is a 88 s10 4x4, Its been an awsome little truck and cheap to run. However, I need a bigger truck. I have been hearing forever that a diesel pickup is the way to go. The 2 in particular are the cummins, and the 6.2. I know the cummins is a good engine, but have heard horror stories about front ends. My question is, Does the 6.2 have any similar issues? I would be looking for a late model (need an extended cab - family is growing faster than gas prices go up!) 4x4. I drive alot and am leary of the variety in MPG numbers I have heard (as low as 15? seriously? I get minimum 22 in my s10, and 18-20 in my 4x4 yukon w/350 vortech!) My basic needs are 4x4, ext. cab, 22mpg+ Is this a realistic goal with the 6.2? Also, another concern, I see alot of MPG numbers drop considerably while towing with either the 6.2 or the cummins, I am curious, I tow a 4000lb+ trailer with our yukon, and see barely any MPG difference - like maybe a drop to 16, I thought diesels were meant to work\tow? Is the info I have been reading that wrong? I would hope that a diesel should be able to work harder than my little 350, and would expect as good or better mpg!

[crashz]

Geared correctly - its very possible. Especially if you can find a half ton with a diesel (which was only offered by GM). An extended cab 6.2 may be more difficult to find than a later model truck with a 6.5L turbo diesel. Can't comment on those, but seems like others have said that the 6.5L sacrifices a bit of mileage for more power.

The older 12valve Cummins Dodge trucks are all 3/4 ton and up, but would also do what you ask as well. Either truck will probably have rust issues and frontend repairs. Also each truck is only as good as the owner believes it is.

[trbankii]

Current truck is a 88 s10 4x4...

I would be looking for a late model

Is this a realistic goal with the 6.2?

Recognize that the 6.2 was last offered in '93 models. So, not sure what your definition of "late model" might be, but recognize that you're only looking at five years newer than your S-10. From '92 (there was crossover) to '00 you could get the 6.5, which would put you a bit newer.

[Backwoods_BC]

Recognize that the 6.2 was last offered in '93 models. So, not sure what your definition of "late model" might be, but recognize that you're only looking at five years newer than your S-10. From '92 (there was crossover) to '00 you could get the 6.5, which would put you a bit newer.

Yes, I am aware of that. I need an extended cab and AFAIK they were not available until the newer (88-93?) body style. I also understand it that the later years of the 6.2 were a little better built.

[Backwoods_BC]

Geared correctly - its very possible. Especially if you can find a half ton with a diesel (which was only offered by GM). An extended cab 6.2 may be more difficult to find than a later model truck with a 6.5L turbo diesel. Can't comment on those, but seems like others have said that the 6.5L sacrifices a bit of mileage for more power.


Yes, they seem to be a bit harder to find, lots of 6.5l out there, but as you mentioned, the sacrifice of power for mileage deters me from them. I drive a fair amount, and even 2 or 3 mpg difference adds up in a hurry! I wonder if the 6.5l couldnt be comparable on fuel consumption if it had the older 6.2l heads?


The older 12valve Cummins Dodge trucks are all 3/4 ton and up, but would also do what you ask as well. Either truck will probably have rust issues and frontend repairs. Also each truck is only as good as the owner believes it is.

I was under the impression that the 12valve would only barely get 20mpg, but never needs engine repairs. However, the truck around it has a poorly designed front end that ive heard goes out every 65k miles and costs around $1k to fix. My question is if the 6.2 has a comparable problem (bad crank webs for example) that should be calculated into the costs of ownership. Ie, the dodge would cost approx. $3-3500 a year for me to run (fuel\maintenance). If the 6.2l needs a full rebuild every 130k at a cost of $2000 it would work out a little ($500 or so because of mpg differences) cheaper to run than the dodge. Just trying to figure out if the mpg #s are correct and if there is any major mechanical flaws with the truck.

[raunch]

I think the economics of ownership depends on what you buy to start with. For example, I have an '83 suburban that I have had to put alot of money into; rebuilt front end, heads, scores of misc. stuff. Now that all that work is done, it gets cheaper to drive every mile I put on it. If I were to sell the truck, the economics of owenership to the buyer would be very good. So, I guess my point is if you find a good buy, the economics will better.

By choice, I put a 700r4 into the suburban and when the driving is easy I see 18-20 mpgs. However, it does not take much to drop the mpg's to about 16.5. That will happen if I run the A/C, if there is much of a wind, or if drive over 70. Towing my little pop-up I will see max mpg's of about 16. Most of time I am towing in 3rd though.

[jogl]

My 2 cents. I have lots of 6.2's and 5.9's. My favourites are my W250 (4x4 3/4 ton dodge that rides like a bull), and 6.2 Rally van, (that rides like a magic carpet). 5.9 is easy to work on, 6.2 in a van, Nay, Nay.

If you are going to haul a family in it you need a 6.2 in a crew cab or a van. Dodge did not offer a crew cab or van in diesel. The extended cabs are no good for riders (even kids).

If you are going to haul a trailer (regularly) you need a Cummins.

If you are buying a 17 plus year old vehicle, it does not matter who made it, you will be fixing it.

In my mind paying $5000 up front and putting $1000 to $5000 a year into an old vehicle is better than shelling out $40,000 for a new one.

JP.

[pologuy14]

throw a 5.9 into a suburban or extended pick up. its a headache but should b worth it:D

[Backwoods_BC]

My 2 cents. I have lots of 6.2's and 5.9's. My favourites are my W250 (4x4 3/4 ton dodge that rides like a bull), and 6.2 Rally van, (that rides like a magic carpet). 5.9 is easy to work on, 6.2 in a van, Nay, Nay.

If you are going to haul a family in it you need a 6.2 in a crew cab or a van. Dodge did not offer a crew cab or van in diesel. The extended cabs are no good for riders (even kids).


Van doesnt work, I need a truck for hauling stuff. I need 4x4. The kids wouldnt be in it much, so comfort for them is not a primary need. I just need something reliable that I can commute to work in during the week (110km or approx 65miles\day) and still get firewood\haul quads\go camping\fishing ect. on the weekends. Kids comfort is not a major factor, they are still young and I dont haul them around with me that often. Ie. On weekends only. It sounds like the 6.2 should fill my needs. In looking at one, is there anything in particular a person should be looking at? I know about the crank and harmonic balancer, anything else tho?

[NH2112]

My old '85 C1500 averaged 22mpg highway with a mildly built '99 MFI 6.5l, 4-speed manual, and 2.73 gears - when I drove it sensibly. I saw tank highs of 24mph with it. Having fun with all the power put me down around 15mpg. IMO the best way to get great fuel economy is to get the lightest suitable vehicle with tall axle gears, an overdrive tranny, and drive like a granny. Installing a factory 6.5l turbo on a 6.2l or pre-94 6.5l with mechanical injector pump and doing little or no turning up of the fuel should be able to get you over 25mpg with a 700R4 or 5-speed.

[Edahall]

I'm getting nearly 30 mpg highway with my 1/2 ton 2 wheel drive 1982 6.2L Suburban. It has the older 1982 heads which is good for fuel economy but limits the power. Then I have a 1990 Suburban that has a Cummins 6BT 5.9L and driven the same way as the other Suburban, it gets 26 mpg. However, it's 3/4 ton, 4x4, has a lift kit and has oversize tires. I often wonder if it would get as good fuel economy as the 6.2 if both trucks were comparable.

[phantom309]

I have a 94 ext cab 8ft box 8600lb 4x4 with the 6.5,.it has 3:42 gears in it,. cruises nicely at 65mph at 1800 or so,.I normally run 245 75 16 bridgestone v-steels on shiney rims for the summer, i commute with the truck, 140+kms per day, i get right up around 9-950kms to a 110ltr tank of fuel,.depends on wind, weather and how much of a hurry i,m in,.
I,ve put 43,000kms on it since i got it last march 2010
When i put the winter tires and rims on i lose nearly 80kms a tank,.
the winter tires are 265 75 16 michelin LTX, lumpy enough but they take more horsepower and torque to turn them,. i notice the brakes don't quite stop the same either,.truck is Much happier with smaller rubber,.better on fuel,.accelerates better,.
truck averages 20.5 mpg us (using internet conversion )
truck has new injectors (15,000mi) and new glow plugs,
a K+N cone filter, and a 3" downpipe, into a 3" pipe with a home made steel plate box like muffler,.3" tail pipe,.
the wastegate is held closed tighter with a spring,
mileage dropped some when i towed the roadmaster wagon on a car trailer, wagon is 4500+lbs, trailer is well built and is at least 1500lbs brakes on both axles etc,.now sweat,.
pulled 6 cords of wood, (maple and apple mixed) no problem,. mileage again went down to 18 or so,.
all round,. pretty good investment for a $1000cdn,.:)

Nick

[DmaxMaverick]

I have a 94 ext cab 8ft box 8600lb 4x4 with the 6.5,.it has 3:42 gears in it,. cruises nicely at 65mph at 1800 or so,.I normally run 245 75 16 bridgestone v-steels on shiney rims for the summer, i commute with the truck, 140+kms per day, i get right up around 9-950kms to a 110ltr tank of fuel,.depends on wind, weather and how much of a hurry i,m in,.
I,ve put 43,000kms on it since i got it last march 2010

When i put the winter tires and rims on i lose nearly 80kms a tank,.
the winter tires are 265 75 16 michelin LTX, lumpy enough but they take more horsepower and torque to turn them,.

i notice the brakes don't quite stop the same either,.truck is Much happier with smaller rubber,.better on fuel,.accelerates better,.
truck averages 20.5 mpg us (using internet conversion )
truck has new injectors (15,000mi) and new glow plugs,
a K+N cone filter, and a 3" downpipe, into a 3" pipe with a home made steel plate box like muffler,.3" tail pipe,.
the wastegate is held closed tighter with a spring,
mileage dropped some when i towed the roadmaster wagon on a car trailer, wagon is 4500+lbs, trailer is well built and is at least 1500lbs brakes on both axles etc,.now sweat,.
pulled 6 cords of wood, (maple and apple mixed) no problem,. mileage again went down to 18 or so,.
all round,. pretty good investment for a $1000cdn,.:)

Nick

Are you compensating your mileage for the 4-5% increase in rollout for the larger tires? If not, your mileage loss may not be as bad as you think. Your speedometer will also be off by the same %, so if the speedo indicates 100 Kmh, your actual ground speed will be about 105. Usually, with that tire change, once the mileage and speed is corrected (to about what you drove before the change), the mileage loss is minimal.

Also, acceleration and braking will suffer with your switch (normal and expected), for a couple reasons: The mechanical advantage increases on the brakes due to the size increase; More aggressive tires will lose contact area with the road surface (less rubber on the road, due to the tread design), and the tires are usually made of a softer compound (increases "scrubbing"); and, of course, you decrease your effective final drive ratio with larger diameter tires (effectively about 3.25 gears, all else being equal).

[Robyn]

Oh yesssssss on the fianl drive ratio.

My 89 K5 Blazer 4x4 has 3.42 butt gears and 33 inch tires.

The poor little 350 loafs along at around 1500 RPM once the tranny shifts to 4 Lockup.

OMG the thing is a slug unless you gdt it into the gears.

But, on the highway at speed, the mileage is not too bad, with all considered and taken into account.

Missy

[phantom309]

Are you compensating your mileage for the 4-5% increase in rollout for the larger tires? If not, your mileage loss may not be as bad as you think. Your speedometer will also be off by the same %, so if the speedo indicates 100 Kmh, your actual ground speed will be about 105. Usually, with that tire change, once the mileage and speed is corrected (to about what you drove before the change), the mileage loss is minimal.

Also, acceleration and braking will suffer with your switch (normal and expected), for a couple reasons: The mechanical advantage increases on the brakes due to the size increase; More aggressive tires will lose contact area with the road surface (less rubber on the road, due to the tread design), and the tires are usually made of a softer compound (increases "scrubbing"); and, of course, you decrease your effective final drive ratio with larger diameter tires (effectively about 3.25 gears, all else being equal).

http://www.discountpartcenter.com/tirecalc.html

well looks like 3.9% ,. so 870 x 1.039 = 904 so cold weather and the the extra effort probably makes up the difference,.

still damn good for a 6700lb 4x4 truck,.

Nick

[JohnC]

Yup, you're driving farther than you think, so your mileage isn't as bad as you think. Plus, you're driving faster than you think, so your mileage isn't going to be as good as if you stayed at the same speed. Third, 3.42 gears are already a stretch. Add the bigger tires and you're pressing farther toward "lugging" the engine.

[16gaSxS]

While it seems like its time for a new truck. Current truck is a 88 s10 4x4, Its been an awsome little truck and cheap to run. However, I need a bigger truck. I have been hearing forever that a diesel pickup is the way to go. The 2 in particular are the cummins, and the 6.2. I know the cummins is a good engine, but have heard horror stories about front ends. My question is, Does the 6.2 have any similar issues? I would be looking for a late model (need an extended cab - family is growing faster than gas prices go up!) 4x4. I drive alot and am leary of the variety in MPG numbers I have heard (as low as 15? seriously? I get minimum 22 in my s10, and 18-20 in my 4x4 yukon w/350 vortech!) My basic needs are 4x4, ext. cab, 22mpg+ Is this a realistic goal with the 6.2? Also, another concern, I see alot of MPG numbers drop considerably while towing with either the 6.2 or the cummins, I am curious, I tow a 4000lb+ trailer with our yukon, and see barely any MPG difference - like maybe a drop to 16, I thought diesels were meant to work\tow? Is the info I have been reading that wrong? I would hope that a diesel should be able to work harder than my little 350, and would expect as good or better mpg!

I'm going to look at this from a slightly different angle and you can mull it around and see if it makes sense too you.

1. you say you need a pick up to haul stuff like fire wood. Well an S-10 is good small truck but you seem to get by with it so how about not buying another truck sell the S-10 buy a 3/4 ton pickup box trailer and tow it with your Yukon. You have the 4x4 you need you have comfortable back seats for the kids. You can haul more outside with the trailer than the S-10 fewer trips to get your firewood so even though you mpg's might be lower you make fewer trips. You have one less truck to maintain and insure which should make the the difference in fuel economy.

2. You "NEED" a replacement for the S-10 get either an 6.2 Blazer or 6.5 Yukon (if one can be found) and a pickup box trailer. Again better seating than a extended cab P/U. If a Blazer or Yukon can't be found second choice a 1/2 ton 6.2 Suburban and trailer.

A 6.2 extended cab might be hard to find, I have a extended cab 6.5 and while we made it made due with the kids on trips it was bit uncomfortable for them and not much space for all their pillows and blankets ect.

3. keep every thing you have and just use the Yukon when you haul more than one kid.

Manny people buy (me included) buy extra cars or trucks when they can make what they have work if they set their mind too it. Does it make sense to spend thousands in a purchase and hundreds a year in extra insurance and too maintain plus the hassle of the extra rig, to save a few hundred a year in fuel. For example if you drive 20,000 miles a year and average 22 mpg you would spend $3636 on fuel at $4 a gallon if you average 18 mpg you would spend $4444 for fuel $808 more. That takes no consideration for a cost difference in Diesel and Gas. Right now I'm paying 40 cents more for Diesel.
How much would you pay a year to insure and buy plates for another truck?

Hope this helps and gives you another angle too look at your situation.

[Backwoods_BC]

Manny people buy (me included) buy extra cars or trucks when they can make what they have work if they set their mind too it. Does it make sense to spend thousands in a purchase and hundreds a year in extra insurance and too maintain plus the hassle of the extra rig, to save a few hundred a year in fuel. For example if you drive 20,000 miles a year and average 22 mpg you would spend $3636 on fuel at $4 a gallon if you average 18 mpg you would spend $4444 for fuel $808 more. That takes no consideration for a cost difference in Diesel and Gas. Right now I'm paying 40 cents more for Diesel.
How much would you pay a year to insure and buy plates for another truck?


True enough, However, I need 2 vehicles (rural living, the wife needs one, so do I) I recently looked into purchasing a small commuter car and using a trailer behind the yukon. Turns out that the car (vw diesel, 50mpgs) costs as much in maintenance as what I could save in fuel. Thus, it is not economical to own. This was\is the original question I have - What are the overall costs of ownership for me, per year (or km\miles) compareds to another vehicle.