Electric or mechanical?

[jMedia]

Bouncing back and forth between what engine swaps to do (don't suggest cummins, been over that too many times) and I was wondering if there is a great benefit (fuel economy wise) from bein able to use tuned chips on the electrical diesels? If i went I electrical i'd go 6.5 TD (duh) but if I decided to stick with mechanical I'd probably go the 6.2 with a turbo.

This is going in a Grand Wagoneer with 3.31 rear and 31" tires and end goal is a good DD with good MPGs

Thanks!

[DmaxMaverick]

6.2, without a doubt. Less power, but you won't as need much with your vehicle and goal. I suggest installing a 6.2L (or 6.5L) N/A first and give it a shot. Built and tuned well, won't be short on power, and WILL be long on MPG. Maximize the N/A, and you can get nearly the same power as a modest TD, minus the additional parts (points of failure), with a longevity gain. The turbo can go on later, which will give you a shorter build time at first, and plenty of time to accommodate the turbo fitment later.

[Robyn]

I could not agree more.

YESSSSSSSS
Put together a good 6.2 with the small precup heads and that Wagoneer will scoot right along.

I have owned a few K5 Blazers with the 6.2 and they do just fine.

If you are looking for mileage, thats the ticket.

Built as a "J" code engine, which was the heavy duty designation you can get a rated 160 HP (SAE)

The Banks turbo kit would pump these engines up to about 205 HP.

Back in the day, the Banks Kit was the real deal. GM offered it as a dealer installed option.


Be sure to have your injection pump (DB2) and the injectors gone through by a good pump shop and brought up to snuff.

Have fun and keep us posted.

Missy

[jMedia]

Thanks for the advice! What can be done to get that 6.2 to160HP? I would prefer not to have a complete dog haha

And just to clarify it's one of the full-size older wagoneers, not the smaller XJ style bodies

[DmaxMaverick]

Yeah. The station wagon with ground clearance. We know it well. Nice cars, in their day, and can be still with a good restore.

160 HP is no ancient Chinese secret (and about equal to the original AMC engines available at the time). Late model J code 6.2L's rolled out of the factory with it. Some application specific series were rated at 170 HP (military and commercial freight), and marine/stationary engines up to 190 HP (wide open DB-4 pump), all N/A. They were preferred over the Navistar engines because even the 7.3 IDI hit a brick wall at 175 HP, no matter what was done (short of a turbo), they were much more costly to maintain, less efficient, heavier, less user friendly, and shorter lived. You have a lot of options if you start with a healthy long block. Open, free flowing intake, headers (or HMMWV manifolds), dual exhaust with a balance pipe, a fine tuned healthy fuel system and you are past 160. Use electric fans and that frees up 10+ HP when you need it most. Stay away from the snake oils (cams, "special" mufflers, etc.), because there is NO ROI (sounds nice, but they offer no appreciable benefit).

A well built TH700R4 would top it off nicely, and negate just about any gearing issues (low 1st gear and tall OD).

30+ MPG would be a realistic goal with the right driving habits.

[jMedia]

Awesome, thanks for the advice. The 6.2 was a front runner for me for a while. Now I know I said "don't suggest cummins" (it's because everyone does) do you think a cummins could do better in the mpg area? I was actually lookig at a 4bdt-2 out of a isuzu box truck. Like the 4bt but a bit smoother.

I bought some hummer manifolds a while back cause they seemed like a good deal. So now I got a use for them!:)

[DmaxMaverick]

The 4BT is a good engine, but even with the -2, you better glue on the radio knobs. They are less rough than the earlier models, but still, by no means, smooth. Mileage could be similar, but power w/o a turbo will be well short, and mileage with a turbo will be significantly less (same as the the 6.xL). Another issue is the vary narrow usable power range compared to any V8. They are OK for a bread truck, but not practical for a DD and highway driver. A lot of folks make them work, but they do have their drawbacks. In the end, they are a good powerplant, but not ideal for your application. The 6.2L, on the other hand.....

[jMedia]

See thats what i figured. The 6.2 is looking better everyday..
Now what years to look for. I've heard to look past 89? That true?

[DmaxMaverick]

See thats what i figured. The 6.2 is looking better everyday..
Now what years to look for. I've heard to look past 89? That true?

Not necessarily. Much of the "qualities" of later models entailed a lot more than just the engine. A serpentine accessory drive would certainly be a plus. The engines have been, essentially, unchanged through the years. Changes were subtle, and usually served another purpose.

A later model 6.5L N/A (92+) would be worth a serious look. Not many "bugs" left in them. Turbos and electronics started the newer generation of issues.

[jMedia]

Not necessarily. Much of the "qualities" of later models entailed a lot more than just the engine. A serpentine accessory drive would certainly be a plus. The engines have been, essentially, unchanged through the years. Changes were subtle, and usually served another purpose.

A later model 6.5L N/A (92+) would be worth a serious look. Not many "bugs" left in them. Turbos and electronics started the newer generation of issues.


Ya ive heard to look for the serpentine system, but I'll also keep an eye out for a 6.5 na.

"The station wagon with ground clearance." -I love it :D haha perfect description

[phantom309]

If you want a mechanical turbo,. , look for a 1993 specific 6.5 turbo, it,s mechanical with a TCM for the trans,.

Nick

[sask3500]

If I may interrupt here, what approximate total weight, trailer and truck, would a well built n/a 6.2 comfortably handle? There will be variables of course, but feel free to generalize. We have several 40's to 60's half and one tons on the farm and a diesel shop truck would be cool, more so if it could tug a modest load. And the simplicity and economy of a non turbo would be cool too.

Justin

[DmaxMaverick]

If I may interrupt here, what approximate total weight, trailer and truck, would a well built n/a 6.2 comfortably handle? There will be variables of course, but feel free to generalize. We have several 40's to 60's half and one tons on the farm and a diesel shop truck would be cool, more so if it could tug a modest load. And the simplicity and economy of a non turbo would be cool too.

Justin

The engine is not the limiting factor with a load. It would depend on how fast you want to get there. Details required.

A 2.5HP B&S will move 40 tons up a 6% grade. (an exaggeration, but true)

Incidentally, the 6.2L N/A will have nearly twice the original power of the 40's, and more than any of the 60's. So, it will be no worse than what they could do when new. Again, details required.

[Yukon6.2]

Hi
One trip i took with my truck and trailer,the combined weight was a little over 24k LBS,trip was 200 miles one way,way back was empty.Truck had no problems moving that weight,up hill i was down to about 30 MPH,very long hill never got hot.
Not something i would want to do everyday,still averaged 13 MPG
Thomas

[sask3500]

I know, those vague theoretical questions are frustrating aren't they? It would be in the neighborhood of 8000 lbs total. We have a 4000 lb tool trailer that would be good advertising behind a 1950's one ton. Just thinking out loud, looking for ideas on what is possible.

Justin

[DmaxMaverick]

8K loaded is no sweat. Running unloaded should actually be pleasant, if not impressive with a good build.