View Full Version : Latest FNG -- Need advice...
Hi all... I have been a longtime fan of the famous Detroit 53, 71, and 92-series 2-strokes, and in 2008 I became the proud owner of a 1982 Pace Arrow 28-foot motor-home with a 6.2L DD-designed diesel V-8 (not so proud when I found out the roof leaked). However, I got it for $1000, and once I primed the injectors (bone-dry on fuel, I suspect this is the reason I got it so cheap), it ran fine and did not smoke. It was beginning to misfire the last time it was shut down, I suspect condensation in the tank may have made it to the injector pump. If memory serves, it is a "red block", which I have heard both good and bad about.
I run my own business as a taxi service, and the 4.3L V6 in my all-wheel-drive GMC Safari van recently bit the dust at an unknown amount of mileage (Odometer says 171,000 but I suspect it has been replaced). I already know the drive-line in the van is also in trouble, so I can't justify spending $3,000 to replace the gasser when it only averaged about 13-14 mpg city and an all-time best of 19 highway, especially when I have a good diesel engine that could very well top 20 mpg city/25 highway.
However, the van is too nice and too well-optioned to simply scrap, so I figure, I already have a good-running diesel engine, why not swap the 6.2 and spend the money I save on replacing the gas engine on a transmission built to handle the 6.2? So, you could say that I am ready to join the dark side... muahahahaha.
I have found a fellow that has successfully swapped a '94 6.5/4L80E into a '94 Astro van. His account entails the electronically-injected 6.5 requiring wiring modifications that my mechanically-injected 6.2 will not. It seems to be a fairly simple swap, he claims the 6.5/6.2 sits on standard SBC V8 engine mounts, and I already know the 700-R4/4L60 transmission was factory offered with the 6.2/6.5.
My van's 4L60E is already in trouble and it requires a throttle position sensor input that the 6.2 is not equipped with, so I figure if I replace it with a 4WD 700R4, the swap should be fairly easy. I will only need a way of attaching the throttle valve cable to the injector pump.
So far as I know, this engine only needs a switched 12V feed to energize and de-energize the injector pump solenoid. Is this correct? I am aware that these engines need a vacuum pump for HVAC ductwork in the dashboard as well as other vacuum-operated systems, and it is my understanding that the early 6.2 has a vacuum pump built into the alternator, is this correct, or does it have a separate vacuum pump?
I am interested in hearing from folks with 6.2s and 6.5s as to their experience with fuel economy, etc... There are a few things I would like to compare between the gas 4.3 and the diesel 6.2 as well, mainly as to whether my 4.3's serpentine belt setup will bolt to the 6.2.... I would like to maintain functional air conditioning and cruise control.
Thanks in advance!
greatwhite
06-04-2012, 01:42
Most serpentine belt systems are reverse rotation water pumps, so I'm going or say your 4.3 system isn't going to work even if it bolts on. Now, it might if you switch to a later style reverse rotation pump....
Most serpentine belt systems are reverse rotation water pumps, so I'm going or say your 4.3 system isn't going to work even if it bolts on. Now, it might if you switch to a later style reverse rotation pump....
That was my plan, to put a reverse-rotation serpentine pump on the 6.2 and hope that my 4.3's serpentine system would bolt to the 6.2... too much to hope for?
There are plenty of serpentine 6.2s and 6.5s in the boneyards, thanks to the idiocy of our current guberment and certain short-sighted owners... Just don't want to pay $200 to pick off what I need and then maybe find out it won't bolt to my '82 block.
Your 4.3 stuff will not work at all. Any thing that will bolt to a 6.5 will bolt to a 6.2. If you could find a serpentine setup on a later 6.5 it would work. They made two different setups. One would probably approximate the positions of your AC compressor and your alternator. The 6.5's had a separate vacuum pump that was belt driven and the 6.2's vacuum pump is where the distributor would be on a gasser.
Stuffing a 6.2 into that little Safari is gonna be a "FULL HOUSE" for sure.
You can likely use a larger model van throttle cable thats designed for use on the 6.5 NA engines that had the mechanical injection system.
The serp belt system from a 96 and later 6.5 found in a pickup or Burb will place the AC pump on the driver side and the alternator on the Right.
Getting a radiator thats big enough to cool that diesel may be an issue.
The radiators used in the Burbs and pickups are huge as compared to what the little Safari came with.
I own a 94 Safari and the stuff on that thing is all very small.
As mentioned, none of the brackets and accessories from the 4.3 will fit the 6.2/6.5 engine family.
The two diesels can share most everything, mix and match.
Just remember, the serp belt system must have the appropriate water pump.
The 6.2 engines that came in the OLD square bodied rigs with V belts have a water pump that rotates the same as the crank, the serp belt driven pumps go the opposite direction.
You can use an oil pump drive (goes in the back where a distributor would be) from either a late 6.5 that does not have a vacuum pump or one that does.
The serp systems have belt driven pump up front.
Either will work fine to run the HVAC system.
Depending on how the swap goes and the room available, you may want to opt for the less obtrusive front mounted pump and use just the flat top oil pump drive.
The 700R tranny will work fine.
You will need the TV cable bracket that fits the 6.2
This has to be done right in order to make the thing shift right and LIVE
A mickey mouse bracket will generally not fare well.
Good luck with the project
Missy
Someone mentioned the vacuum pump being at the back of the engine, I presume it is to the right of my secondary fuel filter here? I'm guessing the glow plug controller is to the left of the filter.... If this pic can help anyone give me further info on this engine and setup, it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=104467249580313&set=a.104466656247039.10245.100000511167780&type=3&theaterhttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=104467249580313&set=a.104466656247039.10245.100000511167780&type=3&theater2130
Also, the air-conditioning compressor can be seen mounted top-center at the front of the engine -- does this jive with any early setups on the pickups, or does mine have a one-off? This chassis is GM StepVan, also known as the P-series (mine is a 20-series, I believe)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=104467249580313&set=a.104466656247039.10245.100000511167780&type=3&theater
Yes, that is the vacuum pump to the right and that is a glow plug switch of some kind on the left. As for the compressor, that setup is only for van useage. The later 6.5 serpentine setup puts the compressor more toward the drivers side but still kind of on the top.
Stuffing a 6.2 into that little Safari is gonna be a "FULL HOUSE" for sure.
Without doubt. However, I have documented evidence it will fit... here's the link for the conversion I found in a '94 like yours.
http://rthompson.us/1994-chevy-astro/
You can likely use a larger model van throttle cable thats designed for use on the 6.5 NA engines that had the mechanical injection system.
So possibly I can swap the motorhome's throttle cable to my Safari?
The serp belt system from a 96 and later 6.5 found in a pickup or Burb will place the AC pump on the driver side and the alternator on the Right.
The guy whose conversion is aforementioned claims he bolted his original 4.3 a/c compressor onto the 6.5's brackets, but he was using an engine that was originally serpentine. Brackets may not be the same, but perhaps the components are generally similar?
Getting a radiator thats big enough to cool that diesel may be an issue. The radiators used in the Burbs and pickups are huge as compared to what the little Safari came with. I own a 94 Safari and the stuff on that thing is all very small.
The conversion I have found mentions having to cut the radiator support slightly and use a radiator for a 1967 Suburban, with electric fans. Hopefully this will work on my '98.
As mentioned, none of the brackets and accessories from the 4.3 will fit the 6.2/6.5 engine family. The two diesels can share most everything, mix and match.
Ah, phooey! I was hoping... anyone have a serpentine setup from a late-model 6.2 or 6.5 they wouldn't mind selling? Would need all brackets and accessories, minus power steering pump.
Just remember, the serp belt system must have the appropriate water pump. The 6.2 engines that came in the OLD square bodied rigs with V belts have a water pump that rotates the same as the crank, the serp belt driven pumps go the opposite direction.
This sounds suspiciously like the same mod that GM used on all its old-school gas V8s when time came for serpentine upgrade... Ford did this as well.
You can use an oil pump drive (goes in the back where a distributor would be) from either a late 6.5 that does not have a vacuum pump or one that does. The serp systems have belt driven pump up front. Either will work fine to run the HVAC system. Depending on how the swap goes and the room available, you may want to opt for the less obtrusive front mounted pump and use just the flat top oil pump drive.
Mine is factory equipped with the oil pump drive, but which is more reliable, in your experience? I have read somewhere (here?) that the belt-driven pump can nix turbo installation on some applications, however, I'm not even sure I will have room for a turbo in there. The guy whose conversion I posted a link for says he plans to install a turbo downstream somewhere, perhaps aft of the trans and batteries (his are mounted underneath the floor). Doesn't matter, I have no plans for a turbo unless I really need it (doubtful, given engine size in proportion to vehicle size and weight).
As to room, it appears I will have plenty of room vertically, not so much on the sides and accessory drive, and I have concerns about the oil pan clearing my front differential as well, however, I am of the opinion that swapping the motorhome chassis oil pan for a 4WD Suburban application should fit nicely without issue.
The 700R tranny will work fine. You will need the TV cable bracket that fits the 6.2. This has to be done right in order to make the thing shift right and LIVE. A mickey mouse bracket will generally not fare well.
I am well aware of the woes of an improperly adjusted throttle valve. Will make certain a brand-new cable is installed and will have it towed to a trans shop for proper adjustment before driving. As to the bracket, I should be able to get this from any 6.2/6.5 equipped vehicle, but it must be for the 700-R4 trans, correct?
You will also need to use hydroboost brakes. I wouldn't trust the vacuum pumps to run a vacuum booster.
Are you going to be pulling the body off the Safari to do the swap?
Here are some other things to consider. You'll need stronger springs up front to compensate for the extra weight of the 6.2. The radiators from 6.2 equipped vehicles were huge and 4 core. You probably can get by with something smaller if it is driven easy. But keeping it cool may be one of the bigger challenges.
I'm just curious but what are the advantages of a Astro/Safari over an already equipped 6.2 diesel Suburban for taxi service?
Forgive the long reply here, I am answering and asking several questions at the same time...
Are you going to be pulling the body off the Safari to do the swap?
Technically, yes. These vans are unit-body with a '70s Nova/Camaro-style subframe... The way mine is built, you can't even pull the gasser through the nose. Some genius decided to make the modular radiator support one-piece after 1992... so everything comes down as a unit out of the body.
Here are some other things to consider. You'll need stronger springs up front to compensate for the extra weight of the 6.2. The radiators from 6.2 equipped vehicles were huge and 4 core. You probably can get by with something smaller if it is driven easy. But keeping it cool may be one of the bigger challenges.
Interesting point about the springs. I had thought about that as well. Apparently, late-model GM 4WD/AWD units use torsion bars and CV half-shafts instead:
Exploded View....................Close-Up View
2131 2134
If the Safari's stock torsion bars will not hold up to the extra weight, I have thought about swapping heavy-duty ones from a 4WD Suburban 2500, but I really don't think it will be an issue. SBC V8s are a popular swap among Astro enthusiasts, and my van was fully loaded, including tow package, so I suspect everything in it is already over-engineered. I also plan to rebuild the front steering and suspension while everything is out of the van, seems easier to do it while everything is accessible.
As to cooling, it will be driven easy, mostly low-speed cruising between 25-45, with some idling. I rarely open it up anymore, passengers usually object to being thrown back in their seats. I already know I will have to run electric fans for clearance. My stock tow-package radiator is single-core with 1 - 1.5 inch tubes, but I have a candidate in mind for a radiator if it won't do the job. The swap I found mentions using a radiator for a '67 Suburban, but I'm open to other suggestions, I'd rather not have to cut the radiator support.
I'm just curious but what are the advantages of a Astro/Safari over an already equipped 6.2 diesel Suburban for taxi service?
Price, availability, maneuverability, and third-seat accessibility. Believe me, I looked. I found ONE 6.5 Suburban, and it was almost $10k, way out of my price range. Gassers go for $6-$7k around here, BY OWNER. Suitable replacement van is similarly priced. I have yet to see a 6.2/6.5 passenger G-van, and I can't afford full-coverage insurance or property taxes on a full-size Duramax van, either. Third-row seating in a 'Burb is not as easily accessible for drunks who can barely find the door handle. :D And honestly, the van is just as comfortable. Another thing I like about the van is that passengers can't exit the driver's side. Keeps drunk/absent-minded folks from being struck while unloading. This happened in NYC, the passenger actually tried to sue the driver and the company for their own stupidity.
So far, since I already have the 6.2, I can do this swap with an upgraded trans and rear diff for about $3-$4k, about what I'd spend replacing the gasser, maybe less. Research indicates swapping for a 6.2 with the 700-R4 could save me that much in fuel in a year. Monster Trans advertises HD 700R4s for around $1500 shipped, and I can't justify $3000 to replace a stock V-6 gasser that averages 11-14 mpg, when I have an engine that is capable of 20 or better. Also, the 6.2 engine I have seems to be low-mileage. Odometer says 38,521. I can't know that it hasn't tripped, but you've seen the pic. I could be wrong, but it doesn't look like a 100,000 mile engine to me. I would think it would be grungier than it is. Besides, when was the last time you saw an RV with over 100,000 miles on it?
Another reason (maybe the most compelling) to swap the 6.2 over a rebuilt 4.3 is its expensive, unreliable CPI (Central Port Injection) system (aka "spider" injection). Not GM's best idea. They attempted a hybrid using electronic control on mechanical injection, similar to the 6.5's electronically-controlled diesel injector system, and they failed horribly. Even the upgraded MPFI replacement units are junk. ALL PLASTIC. They are prone to regulator leakage, cracked lines, and pre-'03 factory units are known for sticking poppet valves. The worst part is that due to the system being completely hidden from view inside a two-piece intake manifold, the only way to know the system has a problem is to check fuel pressure, which is a monumental PITA on my van. Half the dashboard has to come out to remove the engine cover. It cost me $700 and a week's downtime last time it failed. This van is on at least its third CPI unit since new, and I have noticed they typically last about a year. Getting away from this situation alone would be worth it.
So, basically...
1) Diesel Suburban too expensive IF I can find one.
2) Van needs an engine anyway, and is too nice and well-optioned to scrap.
3) I have a complete donor vehicle, and hate to scrap a perfectly good engine.
4) Benefit doesn't justify the cost of a stock replacement gasser.
5) I can get an upgraded 700-R4 for the 6.2 for less.
6) Safari is more maneuverable on city streets.
7) Van's third-row seating is more easily accessed.
8) 6.2 diesel seems more efficient and reliable than the 4.3 gasser.
Tthe more I think about it, I just have more reasons to go this route than not to. Besides, I really like my van, and I'd rather fix it. Don't misunderstand me, folks, I certainly don't want to sound like a smart-assed know-it-all that has it all figured out, that is not why I am here. I simply have an idea that I think will work well, and research indicates I am on the right track, but having never daily-driven a diesel before, I want to explore the idea a bit further with folks who have experience with the 6.2 before I start turning wrenches and spending money.
So far, the consensus is that the 6.2 works well for those who understand its limitations and what it is truly designed for, so why not? I think a diesel, all-wheel-drive minivan would be the perfect taxi. I don't tow, and I usually have less than 1,000 lbs of butts in seats. If money was no object and I could get one of the 2.5L/2.8L I-4 Duramax turbo-diesels being offered in the Colorado in other countries, I would certainly opt for one, but they are common-rail-injected, and require electronic control. But I digress.
Some folks (who probably don't understand diesels) say the 6.2 is a POS, and that I am asking for headaches in doing this conversion. I think those who slam the 6.2 probably are spouting the experience of a disgruntled buyer who blew theirs up trying to out-pull a Cummins. Why anyone would try that is beyond me, my research indicates it wasn't designed for that, rather, it seems to me it was initially designed to give buyers the option to get the fuel economy of an S-10, while retaining the comfort of a full-size truck.
I think the 6.2 is getting a bum rap here, much like the Oldsmobile diesels that preceded it. Early Oldsmobile diesels blew up routinely from misuse by people who drove and maintained them like gas engines, which brings me to a question. I have heard driving from a cold-start is almost as bad for a diesel as having water in the fuel. I don't really have a problem letting the engine warm itself, but can I avert this issue with a block heater in the winter-time? And are other measures available to assist cold-starting in addition to glow plugs?
I have been considering a diesel swap for this van for awhile now, and had considered the 3.9L Isuzu 4BDT1, but the adapter kit is $600, I would definitely have to fabricate engine mounts, and these engines are $2500-$4500 when you can find them. And I would STILL need the 700-R4 trans built to handle it. Even though the 4BDT1 appears to fit nicely where any 4.3 will, it still seems the 6.2 would be a much easier and more straightforward swap. I would much rather swap something that was a factory offering in GM light-duty trucks, than an oddball engine for a medium-duty box truck that I have to launch a crusade to find parts for. Besides, I already have the 6.2, why not use it?
One other thing I am very curious about. Gearing seems to greatly affect and vary fuel economy with these engines, and I am hoping for 15-20 mpg in-town, and 25-30 highway. My van was factory equipped with 3.73s, and a "gov-loc" type posi-traction rear differential. I know the 3.73s would be great for around town, but I do some over-the-road transportation as well. The rear differential needs rebuilding anyway, so I am curious what gears would be optimal. I know diesels have enough torque to laugh at even the steepest gears, and I am thinking perhaps 3.08s or 3.23s would be better suited for my purposes?
You will also need to use hydroboost brakes. I wouldn't trust the vacuum pumps to run a vacuum booster.
I wouldn't either, and fortunately, this was already done at the factory. Astros and Safaris have had factory hyrdoboost units for a long time, and these units are a popular swap in the custom hot rod world. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure they ever had vacuum assist. Apparently, GM offered these vans with diesel engines outside of the U.S. Maybe that is why they had hydroboost? My 4.3's air filter cage even has a warning label not to use starting fluid if equipped with a diesel engine.
Which brings me to another question. Starting fluid -- good or evil? I have heard that ether and other similar starting fluids will swell and crack glow plugs. I have also heard that WD-40 is a good ether-free alternative. Thoughts?
You're in luck since your van has torsion bars. Just crank them up and it'll be fine.
3.08's would yield the best fuel economy. I would also use LT tires to hold up to the weight.
The 6.2L would be an excellent engine for this vehicle. You'll get a lot better fuel economy around town over the 4.3L for sure. 25-30 mpg highway should be achievable at 55 mph. Aerodynamics on these vans can't be very good.
I don't think a single core radiator is going to cut it. The radiator in it was already too small for the 4.3. You'll want to stuff the biggest radiator you can find.
A well maintained 6.2L doesn't need ether for starting. I put a push button in my 82 Suburban to extend glow plug time and it always start no matter how cold it is.
Anyways, I hope you go ahead with this conversion. Do a write up and post pictures so we all can see.
You're in luck since your van has torsion bars. Just crank them up and it'll be fine.
Yeeehaa! I'm not familiar with how these work... what do you mean by cranking them up?
3.08's would yield the best fuel economy. I would also use LT tires to hold up to the weight.
That's what I'm thinking... 3.08s might be hard to find for the front diff, but I'm sure I can get them. Would you go any higher than 3.08s, or would they simply lug the engine? Good tip on the LT tires, I'll keep that in mind.
The 6.2L would be an excellent engine for this vehicle. You'll get a lot better fuel economy around town over the 4.3L for sure. 25-30 mpg highway should be achievable at 55 mph. Aerodynamics on these vans can't be very good.
They don't have the best aero package, admittedly, but Suburbans don't either... LOL. Truthfully, I could get 19-20 with the 4.3L if I kept it around 60. I'm sure the 6.2L could get better than 25-30 at that speed. If it can get 25 at 70, I'll be happy. 30 or more would be nice... but with on-demand AWD, all bets are off.
I don't think a single core radiator is going to cut it. The radiator in it was already too small for the 4.3. You'll want to stuff the biggest radiator you can find.
I had a thought... If I can relocate my coolant recovery and washer fluid tanks to the firewall, and put both batteries beneath the floor, I'd have plenty of room for a full-size radiator.
A well maintained 6.2L doesn't need ether for starting. I put a push button in my 82 Suburban to extend glow plug time and it always start no matter how cold it is.
Cool... mine was a PITA to start even in 60 degree weather, but I suspect the vehicle wiring was to blame, it had been (for lack of a better word) half-assed to the point there were battery leads labeled (+) that were actually (-). Which may suggest the odometer has indeed tripped, but once I got the injectors primed, it ran great and didn't smoke or knock that I could tell.
Anyways, I hope you go ahead with this conversion. Do a write up and post pictures so we all can see.
You guys will be the first to know when it begins! Probably be a few months, have to build up money for the trans and a few other odds and ends.
greatwhite
06-05-2012, 12:11
Well, my opinion:
You'd be better served finding a full size van to swap in the 6.2, or one that is/was fit with one already.
Since they came with the diesel option, parts will be easier to find and available at any parts store. That is a very important point if you're using it for a taxi and it forms part of your household income. Quick and easy repairs means back on the road making revenue. Cooling won't be an issue nor will suspension or space to in the engine bay.
Your torsion bars may or may not work on the Astro. It all depends on where the adjusters bottom out when you increase the preload.
The astro is put together from the bottom up, like all vehicles these days. Meaning the body is built and the front subframe/enigne/transmission is built and then the front subframe assembly it raised into the body. It's the way vehicles are made these days. The engines were never intended to be lifted through the engine bay or doghouse. Way easier for the factory to build them this way (saves $$$ and time), but it's a bit of a PITA to remove the engine unless you're in a shop with a lift (costs you $$$ and time).
Transmission in a full size van should bolt right up, only issue it the torque converter stall speed is the only issue if it was a gasser. A diesel transmission will bolt right up and the converter stall speed will be right.
They can be had in many option levels, full rubber rear floors are an option if you deal with a lot of.....ahem......"trash"......in the taxi business. You also have the option of removing the rear seats and running cargo for local businesses if you want to pick up some extra business.
A full size van will be a bit more trouble in tight spaces, but minimally more than an Astro.
Down time will also be very minimal if you are using the van as a taxi and dropping in the 6.2. Once again, time off the road is lost revenue.
I know you've said you want the diesel in the astro, but for a taxi/work truck a full size van with a blown 6.X just makes so much more sense for swapping in that 6.2.
Good luck whichever way you go.
Well, my opinion:
You'd be better served finding a full size van to swap in the 6.2, or one that is/was fit with one already.
Since they came with the diesel option, parts will be easier to find and available at any parts store. That is a very important point if you're using it for a taxi and it forms part of your household income. Quick and easy repairs means back on the road making revenue. Cooling won't be an issue nor will suspension or space to in the engine bay.
They can be had in many option levels, full rubber rear floors are an option if you deal with a lot of.....ahem......"trash"......in the taxi business. You also have the option of removing the rear seats and running cargo for local businesses if you want to pick up some extra business.
Transmission in the van should bolt right up, only issue it the torque converter stall speed is the only issue if it was a gasser. A diesel transmission will bolt right up.
A full size van will be a bit more trouble in tight spaces, but minimally more than an Astro.
Down time will also be very minimal if you are using the van as a taxi and dropping in the 6.2. Once again, time off the road is lost revenue.
I know you've said you want the diesel in the astro, but for a taxi/work truck a full size van with a blown 6.X just makes so much more sense.
Good luck whichever way you go.
All good points, well made and well taken. My van has the 4L60E, which requires input from a throttle position sensor that the 6.2 does not have AFAIK, not to mention the trans is questionable at this point anyway. Down time isn't much of an issue at this point, as I have a temporary replacement vehicle. It isn't as flexible as the van, but will do for the time being. Money is the real constraint at this point -- I simply cannot afford to do anything else. Basically, I already have the van, and I already have the engine, so it's a kind of "use what you got" thing. Even at that, I don't expect the van to be back up and running before the end of summer.
greatwhite
06-05-2012, 12:32
... I don't expect the van to be back up and running before the end of summer.
I would think that would be a fair estimate.
Perhaps longer depending on your fabrication skills.
If your 4.3 has a position sensor already in the harness and located on the throttle body, it can probably be adapted to the manual throttle linkage on the DB2. The 92-93 DB2 6.5 trucks with the 4l80e came factory equipped this way IIRC....
Cheers-
That's alot of dreaming about that kind of fuel mileage.
Yeeehaa! I'm not familiar with how these work... what do you mean by cranking them up?
If you look at how it works, you can add more tension to these torsion bars. However, it'll ride softer than it did with a heavier engine up front. If it's too soft, then you might want to go with larger diameter torsion bars.
That's what I'm thinking... 3.08s might be hard to find for the front diff, but I'm sure I can get them. Would you go any higher than 3.08s, or would they simply lug the engine? Good tip on the LT tires, I'll keep that in mind.
You could probably get by with 2.73's as well if you wanted the best fuel economy at 75 mph. But all around, I think you'll be better off with 3.08's.
They don't have the best aero package, admittedly, but Suburbans don't either... LOL. Truthfully, I could get 19-20 with the 4.3L if I kept it around 60. I'm sure the 6.2L could get better than 25-30 at that speed. If it can get 25 at 70, I'll be happy. 30 or more would be nice... but with on-demand AWD, all bets are off.
To maximize fuel economy, install a free flowing exhaust of at least 3" in diameter and install a J code intake manifold. You can also hack out that center section with the EGR apparatus if you're budget minded like myself. Those fuel economy number you mentioned are what I get with my 1982 Suburban although it's not AWD and being that it's stripped down, it may be lighter weight.
I had a thought... If I can relocate my coolant recovery and washer fluid tanks to the firewall, and put both batteries beneath the floor, I'd have plenty of room for a full-size radiator.
Excellent, you'll be glad that you installed a full size 4 core radiator when all is said and done. It's a requirement, not an option.
Cool... mine was a PITA to start even in 60 degree weather, but I suspect the vehicle wiring was to blame, it had been (for lack of a better word) half-assed to the point there were battery leads labeled (+) that were actually (-). Which may suggest the odometer has indeed tripped, but once I got the injectors primed, it ran great and didn't smoke or knock that I could tell.
Starting in cold weather won't be an issue if it's all maintained and working well.
You guys will be the first to know when it begins! Probably be a few months, have to build up money for the trans and a few other odds and ends.
As someone mentioned, you'll need low stall diesel torque converter and the shift points set for running behind a diesel. When you're done, you should have a really cool vehicle.
I would think that would be a fair estimate.
Perhaps longer depending on your fabrication skills.
If your 4.3 has a position sensor already in the harness and located on the throttle body, it can probably be adapted to the manual throttle linkage on the DB2. The 92-93 DB2 6.5 trucks with the 4l80e came factory equipped this way IIRC....
Cheers-
Check on the sensor, my van did have one from the factory, but it's a rotary type, not sure if it can be adapted or not. Truthfully, a high-mileage 4L60E will probably not last long behind a 6.2, especially if it was originally built for a 4.3... LOL.
Interesting stuff on the later 6.5s... I just wonder if the later pump with the TPS requires it for feedback, since the injection is somewhat electronically controlled on those.
That's alot of dreaming about that kind of fuel mileage.
I've read EPA "estimates" of 20 city / 30 highway for an 83 K20 Suburban... of course, I know these are only estimates...
But checking out the fuel economy thread, I've also seen real-world owners say they get anywhere from 12-30, some over 30. I guess it just all depends on how they're set up and how you drive them. I figure 30 is attainable with the right gears and overdrive on average interstate runs, say, 20-40 miles. As they say, results may vary.
I'd be interested in hearing from other folks as to their results with this engine, and how their rig is set up...
I've read EPA "estimates" of 20 city / 30 highway for an 83 K20 Suburban... of course, I know these are only estimates...
That's about what I get on my 1982 Suburban but it's a C10 model and totally stripped down. However, keep in mind that diesel is more expensive than gas at the fuel pump. I'm paying about 70 cents more per gallon for diesel.
greatwhite
06-05-2012, 13:45
Check on the sensor, my van did have one from the factory, but it's a rotary type, not sure if it can be adapted or not. Truthfully, a high-mileage 4L60E will probably not last long behind a 6.2, especially if it was originally built for a 4.3... LOL.
Meh, be nice to it and it will last a fair while. IE: gentle on the throttle with acceleration. But it's not the best scenario. I'm betting your 4.3 converter is going to flash too high to make a decent converter for the diesel. I'm thinking the stall speed is probably around 1500-1800, probably a good 600 rpm or more higher than a 6.X would be. It'll work, but you mpg and driving satisfaction will suffer. Get on it a couple times hard and you can start pulling the life expectancy down on that 4l60E pretty fast. maybe even "bloom" the converter. It's just not rated for the torque....
The 92-93 trucks had a rotary style TPS, That's why I say just swap it on to your DB2 with a 92-93 style setup.
The other thing I'd be concerned about is the AWD box. Yeah, they came in cyclones and typhoons, but those are very different beasts all together...
Now that I think of it, you might also have trouble with the transmission control.
I'm just not sure what inputs besides input/output speeds and TPS the PCM will be looking for from the Astro drivetrain. That the MIL will be on all the time goes without saying unless you get it reflashed to turn off the codes associated with the sensors that will be missing after your DB2 is up and running.
Whether or not the light bothers you is up to you. You can always just pull the bulb/desolder the LED, or "shadetree" it and put a piece of tape over it. But the Astro PCM may chuck the transmission into limp mode with codes present.
A fully mechanical 700r4 is sounding better and better for a swap like this. Bu tthen you run into whether or not a 4x4 700r4 tail housing will mate with the Astro AWD box. And then you might need custom length driveshafts. You might get away with the driveshaft lengths as I think the 4l60E grew out of the 700r4, but don't quote me on that.
The BCM should be ok, but who knows until you get it up and running how it will behave.
I'm, also assuming you don't have emissions checks where you live. God help you if you have to get tangled up in that endless quagmire!
The more I think about this, the more I keep coming back to finding a 6.X van with a blown engine and do the swap.....
Interesting stuff on the later 6.5s... I just wonder if the later pump with the TPS requires it for feedback, since the injection is somewhat electronically controlled on those.
Later style? You mean the 92-93? Nope, it uses it for transmission control. They have a TCm, not a PCM. The pump is purely mechanical. The 94-up DS4 uses the PCM for fuel and transmission control, but the PCM takes it's TPS signal from the APP (Accelerator pedal postion) since it's "fly by wire". IE: no throttle cable at all.
I've read EPA "estimates" of 20 city / 30 highway for an 83 K20 Suburban... of course, I know these are only estimates...
But checking out the fuel economy thread, I've also seen real-world owners say they get anywhere from 12-30, some over 30. I guess it just all depends on how they're set up and how you drive them. I figure 30 is attainable with the right gears and overdrive on average interstate runs, say, 20-40 miles. As they say, results may vary.
I'd be interested in hearing from other folks as to their results with this engine, and how their rig is set up...
Most full size trucks are realistically around 13-15 mpg in combined driving with a TD. NA trucks get a bit better due to lower fueling rates, among other things.
Chuck in your awd system and its inherent losses, and I'm going to guess you won't top 17 MPG. Maybe 18 mpg straight highway.....but that's just my guess.
Cheers
greatwhite
06-05-2012, 13:51
That's about what I get on my 1982 Suburban but it's a C10 model and totally stripped down. However, keep in mind that diesel is more expensive than gas at the fuel pump. I'm paying about 70 cents more per gallon for diesel.
Lucky me, Diesel is cheaper than gas here by 9 cents a liter (that's about 34 cents a gallon for those south of 49).
But it's 1.26/liter which works out to about 4.76 a gallon......http://www.pastrugni.com/forum/images/smilies/new1/obm.gif
Seems a guy can never catch a break.......:(
I think greatwhite is right on with his mpg figures. Don't dream too big with your mileage. Expect lower and be happy if it's higher
That's about what I get on my 1982 Suburban but it's a C10 model and totally stripped down. However, keep in mind that diesel is more expensive than gas at the fuel pump. I'm paying about 70 cents more per gallon for diesel.
True, but too many people focus on what the fuel costs and never bother to pencil it out... Let's look at some figures.
My 4.3L normally averaged 12-14 mpg. Split the difference and call it 13.
You say your Suburban averages 20 mpg.
87 octane is currently around $3.30 per gallon in my area. Diesel is $3.79.
Assuming I can re-use my stock 25-gallon gasoline tank... (not advisable)
$3.30 x 25 = $82.50
$3.79 x 25 = $94.75
Diesel costs $12.25 more per 25-gallon tank.
So... PPG = Price Per Gallon, MPG = Miles Per Gallon CPM = Cost Per Mile...
PPG / MPG = CPM
$3.30 / 13 = $0.2538, or $0.25 per mile.
$3.79 / 20 = $0.1895, or $0.19 per mile.
Savings with diesel would begin at $0.06 per mile in fuel cost...
Doesn't sound like much... but consider this...
1) I drive around 40,000 miles a year.
2) The gas 4.3 got around 300 miles to 25 gallons.
3) At 300 miles per tank, I fill up 133 times a year.
4) 7 more miles per gallon over a tank is 175 more miles per tank.
5) At 475 miles per tank, I would fill up just 84 times per year.
133 fill-ups
- 84 fill-ups
49 fill-ups
49 fill-ups at $12.25 each = $600 a year in fuel saved. This is assuming all city driving. Assuming 25 mpg highway, I save even more, and given the fellow who swapped a 6.5 into his Astro is claiming 22 mpg average, I think I can do better.
But this isn't just about fuel savings. By swapping the 6.2...
1) I've eliminated about $600 worth of maintenance every year.
2) I've eliminated >$400 worth of sensors that can fail at any given time.
3) I've taken control over the engine away from the pesky PCM.
4) I've given myself the option to run an exhaust brake.
5) I've given myself the option to run certain alternative fuels.
6) I've eliminated a $700+ injector unit every 12-18 months.
As you can see, there is much to consider here.
Meh, be nice to it and it will last a fair while. IE: gentle on the throttle with acceleration. But it's not the best scenario. I'm betting your 4.3 converter is going to flash too high to make a decent converter for the diesel. I'm thinking the stall speed is probably around 1500-1800, probably a good 600 rpm or more higher than a 6.X would be. It'll work, but you mpg and driving satisfaction will suffer. Get on it a couple times hard and you can start pulling the life expectancy down on that 4l60E pretty fast. maybe even "bloom" the converter. It's just not rated for the torque.... The 92-93 trucks had a rotary style TPS, That's why I say just swap it on to your DB2 with a 92-93 style setup.
I presume that would mean swapping the IP for a 92-93 unit. Don't see the point if the 4L60E won't last anyway, which is a foregone conclusion. I pretty much counted on changing transmissions if I were to do this.
The other thing I'd be concerned about is the AWD box. Yeah, they came in cyclones and typhoons, but those are very different beasts all together...
Now that I think of it, you might also have trouble with the transmission control. I'm just not sure what inputs besides input/output speeds and TPS the PCM will be looking for from the Astro drivetrain. That the MIL will be on all the time goes without saying unless you get it reflashed to turn off the codes associated with the sensors that will be missing after your DB2 is up and running. Whether or not the light bothers you is up to you. You can always just pull the bulb/desolder the LED, or "shadetree" it and put a piece of tape over it. But the Astro PCM may chuck the transmission into limp mode with codes present.
A fully mechanical 700r4 is sounding better and better for a swap like this. But then you run into whether or not a 4x4 700r4 tail housing will mate with the Astro AWD box. And then you might need custom length driveshafts. You might get away with the driveshaft lengths as I think the 4l60E grew out of the 700r4, but don't quote me on that. The BCM should be ok, but who knows until you get it up and running how it will behave.
Now you see where I'm going with the 700-R4 idea -- take the PCM completely out of the loop. I have a fair bit of research involved in validating this, first and foremost, someone has done a successful part-time 4WD unit swap on an '01 AWD Astro. They say the only hard part they had to change was an output flange on the transfer case itself, likely a year-model change. Otherwise, the system bolted to their original transmission and worked as if it were still in the donor vehicle. If memory serves, I think the front shaft is adjustable, but this fellow noted no real trouble with swapping transfer cases other than an output flange.
Also, Astro/Safari vans had an AWD option from 1990 or so, using the 4WD variant of the 700-R4 4WD with, what strangely enough, appears to be a standard 4WD transfer case with something like a gov-lock limited slip in to transfer power when rear wheelspin was detected. Pretty neat system, but only transfers 35% of power, which was why this guy elected to swap the 4WD unit from an '02 Blazer. If I fix this van, I might do that myself at a later date. The only reason I plan to try to leave the PCM intact is to prevent its absence from shutting down the body control module, if it has one. I may also need it to control the instrument cluster, depending on a couple things I haven't fully investigated yet -- mainly the instrument cluster, which I could also swap for a '95 unit, since I am not sure what controls the digital shift indicator in my '98.
I'm, also assuming you don't have emissions checks where you live. God help you if you have to get tangled up in that endless quagmire! The more I think about this, the more I keep coming back to finding a 6.X van with a blown engine and do the swap.....
I live in a fairly rural area where all they do for inspections is check to see if it has a catalytic converter... easily faked with an empty shell. If I can run veggie oil, I don't really see why anyone would care. I can respect the idea of finding a factory 6.x van with a blown engine, but as I said before, I have yet to see one in a passenger model. And even the gassers are hard to find, most people are hanging on to them. My father has a nice '93 G20 conversion van that runs good and is clean, but it's a gasser, and he wants $3000 for it... $3000 would do what I'm thinking about, or at the least replace the 4.3L. Money, or lack thereof, is my driving motivation here.
Later style? You mean the 92-93? Nope, it uses it for transmission control. They have a TCm, not a PCM. The pump is purely mechanical. The 94-up DS4 uses the PCM for fuel and transmission control, but the PCM takes it's TPS signal from the APP (Accelerator pedal postion) since it's "fly by wire". IE: no throttle cable at all.
Wow... and eurocrap has been bragging about "drive-by-wire" when GM brought it to the market in the 90s? *smh*
Most full size trucks are realistically around 13-15 mpg in combined driving with a TD. NA trucks get a bit better due to lower fueling rates, among other things. Chuck in your awd system and its inherent losses, and I'm going to guess you won't top 17 MPG. Maybe 18 mpg straight highway.....but that's just my guess.
The 6.2 I have is NA and will likely remain that way... Turbo would be nice, but not necessary. I believe the AWD system may hamper mileage a bit with its extra weight, but the beauty of it is that this system only engages when it is needed. So I'm hoping it may not make much difference. If it averages 17 mpg, it will still be better than what it did before. I like to think more is possible with properly planning the swap and choosing the right gearing, etc. Exhaust will make a difference too, I would think... optimum size for a 6.2? 3"?
Keep the thoughts coming, folks... You've all been very helpful and informative thus far... really like this forum! :)
Exhaust will make a difference too, I would think... optimum size for a 6.2? 3"?
On a diesel, bigger is better but yes, 3" single exhaust should be pretty sufficient. Installing a J code intake manifold also helps. Or if you're frugal like me, just hack out the center EGR section on your existing intake manifold.
On a diesel, bigger is better but yes, 3" single exhaust should be pretty sufficient. Installing a J code intake manifold also helps. Or if you're frugal like me, just hack out the center EGR section on your existing intake manifold.
Eh... I was thinking dual 3"... :) Would my '82 even HAVE an EGR? I didn't think EGR was required on diesels until the early 2000s?
greatwhite
06-06-2012, 16:18
For a NA 6.2, 3" exhaust is more than enough.
Your picture on page 1 looks like a dual plane manifold, but I don't see anything that looks like egr.
But I'm not super familiar with 6.2's that are that early.
Maybe MissyGWench of someone can shed some light on that....
DmaxMaverick
06-06-2012, 17:47
Eh... I was thinking dual 3"... :) Would my '82 even HAVE an EGR? I didn't think EGR was required on diesels until the early 2000s?
EGR was used in 82, but the model in the pic doesn't have it. HD and commercial were exempt. And I agree, single 3" is more than enough for a N/A 6.2. OEM 6.5TD's have 3" single. Duals would take up a lot of the limited space available. It would also be easier to quiet down, which is probably essential in your business. Be sure to route the outlet to street-side (not curb-side, where most of your customers will be).
EGR was used in 82, but the model in the pic doesn't have it. HD and commercial were exempt.
Score! Being a P20/P30 motorhome chassis, that would be an HD application. Without EGR, I presume this engine will therefore get better fuel economy, right?
And I agree, single 3" is more than enough for a N/A 6.2. OEM 6.5TD's have 3" single. Duals would take up a lot of the limited space available. It would also be easier to quiet down, which is probably essential in your business. Be sure to route the outlet to street-side (not curb-side, where most of your customers will be).
Good thinking... That's one thing I never liked about the stock V6 exhaust system on this van, it exits curbside. I presume your comment about being easier to quiet down is referring to running duals.
Question... if turbo 6.5s had 3" single-exhaust, and dual 3" would be more than enough for a N/A 6.2, could I possibly get away with modifying the stock V-6 exhaust? This one has an oddball system... Looks like 2.25" Y-pipe to cat, 3" from cat to muffler, 2.25-2.5" exit pipe. Cat melted down and blew out a long time ago, so that's not an issue. I am guessing this would choke the 6.2 down enough to hurt economy, though.
Another question... I have heard much about bio-diesel, eco-diesel, low-sulfur diesel... And not knowing much about the difference between octane and cetane, I am curious exactly what cetane means.
I know a diesel can be damaged burning gasoline, but they WILL run on it, albeit not well. My uncle owns a '92 K2500 that he runs an 80-20 mix of veggie oil/gasoline in, although his economy has dropped from 28 to 21, and I am waiting to see whether his IP goes first, or if the engine spits out a piston.
I have heard a lot about E85, and while I don't have a problem with buying the diesel fuel if that's my only option, but I am curious whether anyone has ever tried a diesel/E85 mix, or straight E85, I would think a high-alcohol fuel would somewhat meet the characteristics needed for a diesel, and perhaps burn cleaner? Just a thought, as I said, I am the latest FNG...
DmaxMaverick
06-10-2012, 11:51
Single exhaust would be easier to "quiet", than duals. A single, larger muffler is more efficient than 2 smaller mufflers. Larger cross-sectional volume (such as duals of the same size) makes more noise, all else equal. My suggestion for simplicity and greater noise control was a single 3" system. Your Y to 3" to muffler is fine, but you'll want to continue the 3" to the tailpipe.
I DO NOT recommend mixing gasoline or alcohol with Diesel, bioDiesel, veggie, or anything else you may consider to burn. Alcohol or gas use in a Diesel engine should be considered ONLY as a tool to address a specific issue (such as deicing in very specific conditions). Too much of either can cause serious issues. Bad idea, in almost all cases. It happens (usually by accident), and a little gas for a short period won't hurt. More gas for longer periods leads to serious issues. Your Uncle's formulation sounds like DSE (Diesel Secret Energy), which is a farce. It's junk, and will kill the engine over time. I know of several, locally, who have used it (past tense), and the result was the same, in every case. Dead truck. These varied from 6.2/6.9 era engines up to late model HPCR engines (Ford 6.0L, etc.). There are correct ways of using VO/WVO, but that isn't one of them. Using E85 or any "E" fuel is the worst of both worlds.
Single exhaust would be easier to "quiet", than duals. A single, larger muffler is more efficient than 2 smaller mufflers. Larger cross-sectional volume (such as duals of the same size) makes more noise, all else equal. My suggestion for simplicity and greater noise control was a single 3" system. Your Y to 3" to muffler is fine, but you'll want to continue the 3" to the tailpipe.
Just wanted to clarify... I wasn't sure what you meant with the way it was worded. I am 99% certain I will be doing this swap now, but I want to nail down all unknown quantities before spending any money. Also, will my engine get better fuel economy, coming from a non-EGR application?
I DO NOT recommend mixing gasoline or alcohol with Diesel, bioDiesel, veggie, or anything else you may consider to burn. Alcohol or gas use in a Diesel engine should be considered ONLY as a tool to address a specific issue (such as deicing in very specific conditions). Too much of either can cause serious issues. Bad idea, in almost all cases. It happens (usually by accident), and a little gas for a short period won't hurt. More gas for longer periods leads to serious issues. Your Uncle's formulation sounds like DSE (Diesel Secret Energy), which is a farce. It's junk, and will kill the engine over time. I know of several, locally, who have used it (past tense), and the result was the same, in every case. Dead truck. These varied from 6.2/6.9 era engines up to late model HPCR engines (Ford 6.0L, etc.). There are correct ways of using VO/WVO, but that isn't one of them. Using E85 or any "E" fuel is the worst of both worlds.
Good post, DMM... this is exactly the reason I asked. I have learned that a lot of the home-brewed ideas usually aren't good ones. More questions... LOL
I have also heard that kerosene can be safely used in a diesel, albeit not legal. Is this simply because of the tax-exempt status of kero? I have actually heard that a diesel will run better on it than standard diesel fuel.
I am wondering if there are any automatic water-removal systems out there, and what I could expect to spend for one?
I saw a video of an old Caterpillar tractor on YouTube that had a "donkey engine", which from my understanding, is old technology, basically a smaller engine is used to crank a bigger one. It was mentioned that some route the smaller engine's exhaust through the bigger engine's intake, helping to heat the air coming through the intake... I have also heard of intake heater grids, are any of these viable ideas for my 6.2? I am interested in anything that will improve efficiency or starting.
DmaxMaverick
06-10-2012, 12:24
About the mileage.....YMMV. Period. With the application you are working with, the details probably won't make any difference you can detect. The EGR engines weren't ONLY about the addition of EGR. Fueling rates and other details were also different. Forget about this one, and move on to bigger issues.
Kerosene is only illegal because of the tax thing. It runs fine in Diesel engines, but lacks lubrication. Late formulations of ULSD are equivalent, but have lubrication additives. Still, either way, use a lubricating additive to remove that concern. Higher cetane fuels, or the use of cetane improvers will generally offset their cost with improved mileage. The byproduct is better starts and smoother running. Diesel engines will not "run better" on kerosene, due to the use of kerosene in itself. It produces less power than #2 (lower BTU's, less MPG's), but flows better at lower temps. That's all.
A good fuel filter system will manage water fine. The problem with water gets serious if/when you get a LOT of it. This is not a serious concern if you are fueling at common locations. Keep spare fuel filters with you, just in case you get a little more than what's normal. Also, use a water management additive to minimize issues. Find a good additive that controls water, adds lubricity, and improves cetane, fuel at good stations, keep filters fresh, and move on to the next issue.
DmaxMaverick
06-10-2012, 12:30
About the Cat with the "donkey" engine. Actually, it's called a Pony, and your description is essentially correct. The exhaust, as well as the coolant systems are "paired", and the Pony engine heat is shared with the main engine. Some were replaced with electric starters, but nothing works better than a good Pony. I'm preparing for a "donkey" engine overhaul on a D4, as we speak.
If you have a healthy engine with a properly working glow plug system, you shouldn't have any need for more. If it gets really cold, plug it in to warm it up before a start. It's probably a good idea to replace the block heater before you install the engine. It's a lot easier to access on the stand. Once the engine is installed, route the power cord (standard 110V 3 prong) to a convenient location that protects it from the elements.
Cool... I had another question... the engine I have was slow to crank, even with three batteries connected, could there possibly be something wrong in the electrical system in the donor vehicle, or could I have an engine problem?
Hooptybass
06-16-2012, 11:36
it could just be a starter problem . Are you sure your gettin enough voltage down to it . clean wires and whatnot ? could have the starter tested if you have the motor out
Okay, let's start from square one, my last post was a little vague...
When I first bought the motorhome (as-is, where-is), I bought two batteries for the 1982 P20 chassis it is listed as. Forget the CCA, but I'm assuming 1000 each, being for the diesel engine.
When I connected these batteries to the veritable rat's nest of wiring (lots of splices, repairs, and improperly labeled battery terminals), I found that the engine was very slow to crank. I had a known good 850 CCA battery from a school bus with a 429 gasser that I also connected. Still no joy. Cranking was still slow, and I finally noticed that small wisps of smoke were rising from the starter side of the engine. Sure enough, the starter was fried. So I ordered a brand-new gear-reduction starter for a 6.2 diesel on Ebay and installed it. Still cranking a touch slow, but it was better. The part number on the fried "reman" starter I removed came back to a 5.7 Oldsmobile diesel, interesting, to say the least.
Still wouldn't start, though it would try with a little mist of WD-40 or starting fluid. Then I checked the fuel gauge. I didn't think anyone who owned a diesel was actually naive enough to run it out of fuel, but sure, enough, the gauge read below E. :eek: Oh, boy... I knew what I was in for.
So then I put ten gallons of fresh NEW DIESEL (meaning the 07+ low-sulfur formulation) in the tank, hot-wired the injector pump solenoid, connected a momentary switch to the starter solenoid wire, and got my wrenches out.
Three hours and an unknown amount of swearing later, the old girl finally fired up and happily rattled away, running on seven cylinders, much to my surprise... I wasn't even done priming the injectors yet. Once all eight injectors were primed, the engine ran great with no smoke or knocking, and plenty of power, even for a 28-foot camper. It ran and drove fine to where it is parked now, save for a little condensation in the tank making it up to the engine (Damn it). I threw some of the white bottle "Power Service" in the tank, but haven't cranked it since, and it's been sitting about three years. My plan was to full-time in this thing, but you know the rest of the story. Now I would like to at least get some use out of it in parts.
My only concern is the slightly slow cranking speed, but you know, now that I think about it, this motorhome is wired for three batteries, and one is SUPPOSED to be isolated for powering the RV's interior lights, but considering the wiring is probably not as it was done from the factory, I may have initially had one of my new batteries on the wrong circuit. Possible?
I believe I will replace the starter again just on general principle when the engine is pulled. I'm told gear-reduction is not the right starter for this application, and it lacks the mounting holes for the necessary brace to prevent block cracking. I just hope I haven't done any damage already.
More questions, and I hope my thread hasn't fallen through the cracks and been forgotten...
A thought occurred to me that might make the project somewhat simpler. My 6.2 has been sitting for three years without being started, and when last run, was misfiring, presumably from condensation where the motorhome had sat with no fuel in the tank.
I am told that if this engine has sat for three years with water inside the injection pump, that I may have to replace it. I was not aware of this, or I would have started and run the engine for awhile after throwing the Power Service in it to remove the water.
Since I may have to replace the IP anyway, I am thinking of upgrading to the later model pump with the TPS on it. Reason being that I am hoping a simple rebuild (diesel-spec of course) of my original 4L60E will simplify the project and save me the trouble of sourcing a 700-R4 and TV cable setup. If it can save me a few hundred and some grief, I am willing to swap the injection pump, especially since it looks like I will have to anyway.
The main question is, will the stock 4.3/4L60E PCM programming properly operate the transmission this way? Another question, will the 4.3's TPS connector plug in to the 6.2's injector pump TPS without swapping connectors?
One other question, is there such a thing as an automatic water removal system for a diesel that could work in this application?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.