Factory ratings????????

[markelectric]

Anyone remember the factory HP of the 95 suburban and the 99 sub? We are toying with a possible upgrade in family transportation.

[rjschoolcraft]

The 95 should have been 190 hp and 385 lb-ft...IIRC.

The 99 is 195 hp and 430 lb-ft.

[markelectric]

Thanks, I was hoping for more difference.....

[Kidd]

Markelectric.. the 45 ft. lbs. of torque make a ton of difference. Had a 95, traded for my 98. The 98 pulls a lot better.
Odd thing, the 95 was rated at 210 HP.. at least that is what the sticker said.
K.D.

[MartyB]

I thought my 96 was ~185/385, and the post 97's went out at about ~220/440 or so. It seems the only thing we can all agree persay is the torque, not the HP. IIRC the HP did float around a bit by the yrs, but the torque stayed pretty consistant.

Now that I am looking at sig, need to change that! to show an 05 DW 3500

[rjschoolcraft]

The power rating never went above 195 hp, 430 lb-ft. GM had planned on a 215 hp, 430 lb-ft version for 2000, but dropped it for the Duramax. That proposed rating would have been very competitive with the 2000 Dodge/Cummins rating of 215 hp, 420 lb-ft.

My 95 had a sticker on the valve cover of the original engine that stated 190 hp and 385 lb-ft. I have a Trailer Life RV Handbook that shows the 97 rated at 180 hp, 385 lb-ft. The drop may have had to do with emissions and OBDII programming, or could just be an error in the TL book.

[AndyL]

Originally posted by ronniejoe:
The power rating never went above 195 hp, 430 lb-ft. GM had planned on a 215 hp, 430 lb-ft version for 2000, but dropped it for the Duramax. RJ, any idea what they changed to make the 210/430? Since the torque is the same I wonder if they revised the CAM sightly?

And, dang it, if they would have just added an intercooler....

[MartyB]

I keep thinking in the 2000-2002 range a 210-220/430-440 engine was offered, possibly in the 2500/3500 vans to compete with the T444E in the E250/350 vans.

I seem to recall the post 97's having more than 200 HP too, but then again I maybe brain fert! :rolleyes:

[rjschoolcraft]

When I was shopping for my Suburban, I looked at new 99's and carefully reviewed factory ratings. 195 hp, 430 lb-ft was the going rate. There are lots of rumors, but no known 200+ factory ratings.

[DA BIG ONE]

I don't know if this helps, or if this ever made it into a 99 GMC, but then again many like me just found out we have the enhanced blocks in our 99's, so;
http://www.amghummer.com/Diesel/GM99Diesel/6_5LV8TurboDieselFeatures.htm

[rjschoolcraft]

I've seen that before. Still believe that it did not see production. GM was all geared up to do it, but didn't.

About enhanced blocks... My cracked block had all of the so-called enhancements (except for the alloy change)...beefed up main caps, smaller bolts, etc. The AMG blocks didn't start production until about November 2001. Thats too late for any "factory" GM installation to have one.

[DA BIG ONE]

Originally posted by ronniejoe:
I've seen that before. Still believe that it did not see production. GM was all geared up to do it, but didn't.

About enhanced blocks... My cracked block had all of the so-called enhancements (except for the alloy change)...beefed up main caps, smaller bolts, etc. The AMG blocks didn't start production until about November 2001. Thats too late for any "factory" GM installation to have one. RJ What boost levels were you running when blk cracked?

[Dvldog 8793]

Howdy
My block was also the GM"enhanced" :rolleyes: model. It had all the fancy marks and beef-ups. with exception of the Navistar logo in the valley. When I called AMG GEP and talked to them they told me that the navistar blocks were a different alloy and casting method and also were thicker and the piston oilers were a different design. I asked if this would measurable if I took the engine apart and was told I would able to see the difference without a calipers.
Who knows???
I was running about 12 PSI max on the old engine, it had 125kmiles on it. never ran hotter than 205* even under heavy load.

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by Dvldog 8793:

I was running about 12 PSI max on the old engine, it had 125kmiles on it. never ran hotter than 205* even under heavy load. What happened to yours? Did you monitor EGT's and exceed "acceptable" limits? Maybe long pulls with the EGT

[Dvldog 8793]

Howdy
EGTs never have been above 900 post turbo. Whenever I pull I use the EGT as a guide and that tells me what to do. As to my engine it had the typical crack between 6 and 8. about 3inches long up into the cylinder wall. Split the main in half at the oiler hole and there was about a noticable shift in the main web even with cap still bolted in place indicating some real stress in the casting. I was amazed that the thing didn't grenade. It ran great even when it was sucking up antifreeze at 1 gallon every 100 miles!
L8r
Conley

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by Dvldog 8793:
Howdy
EGTs never have been above 900 post turbo. Whenever I pull I use the EGT as a guide and that tells me what to do. As to my engine it had the typical crack between 6 and 8. about 3inches long up into the cylinder wall. Split the main in half at the oiler hole and there was about a noticable shift in the main web even with cap still bolted in place indicating some real stress in the casting. I was amazed that the thing didn't grenade. It ran great even when it was sucking up antifreeze at 1 gallon every 100 miles!
L8r
Conley Now you got me worried Conley! I've got 165K on mine. Boost turned up a little with a free flowing exhaust and UNI air cleaner. I typically drive the truck straight hi-way 75 miles a day. I tow maybe once a month, a 5500# trailer. Most of it local 25 miles to the track and other times on 900 tows to an event. I watch the EGT's and temperature very closely. I stay well within the parameters you did. You had no other upgrades done to the truck in increase power like tweaking the pump timing or sensor? That's a little worrisome...

Art.

[rjschoolcraft]

Max sustained was at 18 psi.

Take a look at the crack poll data. You'll see there that the majority of the respondents were running stock configuration in excess of 100,000 miles when they cracked. I don't think increased power is a big contributor here.

[TurboDiverArt]

Originally posted by ronniejoe:
Max sustained was at 18 psi.

Take a look at the crack poll data. You'll see there that the majority of the respondents were running stock configuration in excess of 100,000 miles when they cracked. I don't think increased power is a big contributor here. Well, then I'll play the ostrich and hope for the best. I don't plan on putting on parts to make the truck have more power, it's fine the way it is. I only make modifications for longevity and MPG.

Thanks!
Art.