6.2L article in Diesel Power magazine

[arveetek]

I was browsing the magazine aisle at Wal-Mart this weekend, and came across a magazine called Diesel Power (http://www.dieselpowermag.com). It's a new magazine, with just 4 issues out now. It's pretty cool to see a magazine devoted to turbo diesels in general. It mostly seems to cover newer show-type diesel trucks, but the latest issue happened to have an article about rebuilding the 6.2L engine.

In the article, they installed the DSG timing gears and stud girdle kit, as well as installed a new Banks Sidewinder turbo setup. It's neat to see an article like that in this day and age, when most folks regard the 6.2L as junk.

Some of the tech. info wasn't correct, but mostly it was a good article. What was really cool was the fact that they listed The Diesel Page as a must-have source for the 6.2L. They even mentioned talking to Jim Bigley directly.

Just thought I would pass that along!

Casey

[Dieselboy]

Linky:
http://dieselpowermag.com/tech/chevy/0554dp_62/index.html

[BobND]

They didn't waste their time looking for a "high nickel content" 1982 block.

According to the article, the most important thing to look for when searching for an engine to rebuild is that it is new enough to have a serpentine belt system!

While I agree that IS a plus (I'm putting a serp system on my 1984 Sub at the moment), it is hardly a valid argument against other possible rebuildable engines, I would think. Outside of that, and a few other silly statements, it's a pretty good article.

[jcomp]

"Modern Power Puller"

That's funny. Even with all the mods on my 6.2, at least as modified as the one in the article, it still lacks the power of a "Modern Power Puller".

My dad has a stock 97 Powerstroke and our trucks weigh about the same. I raced him from a stop to 80MPH up a long hill and he won by a lot. Yeah, you'd expect that, but he was towing a car on a trailer at the time. :eek:

How about this:
So, we deferred to the expertise and suggestions of Jim Bigley, editor of The Diesel Page manual and installed ACDelco #80G (PN 12563554)

[ZZ]

Thanks for the info. I just subscribed to 9 issues of this magazine.

[Ratau]

It was mentioned they installed a Banks manifold it looks deferent to other ones I saw. Could anyone shine some light on how many Banks manifold models were there?

[shamanie]

Outstanding article. Thanks.

[NH2112]

I don't see why making a "modern power puller" out of a 6.2l is such a joke. A 6.2l can be built to the power level of a slightly modified 12V Cummins (200hp/500lb-ft, for example) and still retain its reliability. 200hp/500lb-ft is nothing to sneeze at; looking at it from another way a 1st gen Dmax only makes a few more lb-ft and it's considered a "modern power puller." For all intents and purposes HP is pretty much irrelevant for a diesel engine (especially when the peak HP figures they brag about are made 1000rpm higher than any engine will ever see), which is why a 5.9l Cummins making 75-100 fewer HP than a Dmax, 24V 5.9l, or 6.0l PSD doesn't really lose that much in the real world.

I fully believe that a 6.2l can be built to 250hp/500lb-ft - close enough to the power levels of the 24V Cummins, 7.3L, and Dmax, for MUCH less than the cost of any of those engines. A good crack-free block, 6.5l heads, stud girdle, marine injectors, 19:1 pistons, wastegated turbo w/mechanical controller, propane injection, and a turned-up pump should easily make the above HP/torque numbers without overstressing either then engine or your wallet.

[ 11-03-2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: NH2112 ]

[C.K. Piquup]

I agree.Peninsular sells an N/A 6.2@200hp.Add turbo...

[arveetek]

I believe the reason they wanted to use the later model engines were for two reasons: 1. for the serpentine setup, and 2. for the later heads. While the '82 blocks are supposed to be stronger, the '82 heads may be weaker, but more importantly, have coarse-thread injectors, which makes it harder to find parts and upgraded injectors for. So if you buy an '82 engine, you'll have to buy a set of later model heads, and then also pay extra for a serpentine setup, if that's what you want.

Yeah, I've never heard of '80G' glow plugs...either a misprint or they heard Jim wrong.

I prefer to use the older cast rocker assemblies...no worries about the plastic retainers breaking and wreaking havoc on the pushrods. I didn't notice any extreme wear on my stock cast rocker assemblies either.

Ratau,

The Banks turbo shown is for the '88 and later body style trucks. It locates the turbo closer to where the stock 6.5L turbos sit.

As far as 'stump-pulling power' goes, my modifed 6.2L pulls nearly as well as my Dad's chipped '95 7.3L. When we both went to Texas this summer on vacation, both of us pulled 5th wheels. Granted, dad's trailer is bigger than mine, but I still managed to pass him on the hills. We were pretty well matched in power for the loads. There's no doubt that my truck would beat his by a long shot in a race. Of course, his truck is a crew cab 1 ton manual tranny.....I already have quite a bit of an advantage. But my truck will pull just as well as his.

Casey

[arveetek]

Originally posted by jcomp:
"Modern Power Puller"

That's funny. Even with all the mods on my 6.2, at least as modified as the one in the article, it still lacks the power of a "Modern Power Puller".

My dad has a stock 97 Powerstroke and our trucks weigh about the same. I raced him from a stop to 80MPH up a long hill and he won by a lot. Yeah, you'd expect that, but he was towing a car on a trailer at the time. :eek:
Jcomp,

It looks we have nearly the same engine, and I would classify mine as a 'modern power puller.' Perhaps there's something not quite right with your engine...or it could be the 4.10 gears with 37" swampers....it's going to take a lot of engine to move that down the road well. I have 4.10 gears with 31" street tires. So I already have quite an advantage in gearing over your truck. Perhaps 4.56 or lower gears would help your situation?

Casey

[moondoggie]

Good Day!

NH2112 said, [i]

[britannic]

Gearing is a big part of the equation. I had 4.56 gears with 33" tires.

[Dieselboy]

4.88s and 35s had some go. :D

[jcomp]

My point was not that it could not be done. My point was that the magazine did not do it and it was laughable for them to imply they had. My proof was the performance of my engine, which is almost identical to the one built, compared to an average "modern" diesel.

Casey, I'm sure your extra 9PSI of boost makes a lot of difference. I'm running the stock Banks turbo, like the magazine, and the highest I've ever seen it is 8 PSI.

To be honest, I'm wishing I had investigated this route more thoroughly:
24 Valve Cummins for $4000 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2001-DODGE-RAM-5-9L-CUMMINS-DIESEL-H-O-ENGINE-SWAP_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ33615QQitemZ800489 0465QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWD1V)

[ 11-04-2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: jcomp ]

[More Power]

The author of that article (Bruce Smith) sent a selection of images to me some months ago.

http://www.thedieselpage.com/images/brucesmith62.jpg

I think it's great that DP has taken an interest in 6.2L. smile.gif Bruce mentioned during one of our conversations that he took hundreds of photos during the build process, so you might be seeing more of it...

As far as what exhaust manifold was used, Banks designed at least two different versions - one for the 1982-87 body style and another for the 1988-98 body style. The one pictured looks to be the later version.

Jim

[CleviteKid]

I prefer to use the older cast rocker assemblies...no worries about the plastic retainers breaking and wreaking havoc on the pushrods. I didn't notice any extreme wear on my stock cast rocker assemblies either. I have to post an alternative opinion. GM found (and I confirmed on my original 6.2L engine) that the bronze bushings AND the steel shafts were wearing significantly with the first design. I believe the lubrication path was too complex, and the interface was not completely lubricated. The newer design allows the hard-steel on hard-steel interface to be FLOODED with lube oil, and these rarely show any noticeable wear.

But then, Casey LOVES to tear apart engines to fix and improve things, so in two or three years he will be back here convincing us that the later style rocker assembly, with all new plastic plugs every time, is the way to go.

Dr. Lee ;)

[arveetek]

Originally posted by CleviteKid:

But then, Casey LOVES to tear apart engines to fix and improve things, so in two or three years he will be back here convincing us that the later style rocker assembly, with all new plastic plugs every time, is the way to go.

Dr. Lee ;) Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here? :D

Maybe I should have looked at the rocker assemblies closer...I didn't inspect them all that closely, for I believed them to be stronger than the later style.

Hmmmm....I wonder if worn rocker assemblies could be the source of the annoying gear drive noise I've been fighting? DSG says that it takes a top-notch valve train to prevent noise, and I THOUGHT that my valve train was top-notch....

Life is a never-ending learning curve....

Casey

[DieselD62]

To be honest, I'm wishing I had investigated this route more thoroughly:
24 Valve Cummins for $4000Couldn't be more correct.

I happen to disagree that a 6.2 or 6.5 can be gone throught soup to nuts with all the high performance stuff out there and still match the 24V Cummins on a cost basis. Perfornace will be close, but the Cummins will be cheaper, and here's the dynamic that makes this so: You don't have to do anything to the Cummins! The very maximun was done at the outset, just a product of superior enginering. GM diesels are a sentimental thing, I know but the V-8 layout just doesn't work out well even in the 82-87 trucks for maintenance reasons. Time and time again, the 6.2 keeps kicking their owners in the face, yet we come back to it, mainly because it's a fairly cheap diesel to keep going. In closing, our kind of 'cheap' is really quite expensive.

[NH2112]

I had 2 '85 6.2ls go about 290K each, the 2nd put a rod through the cylinder wall and the 1st was still running but I tore it down when I took the truck apart and found cracks so I junked it. I put approx 200K of those miles on and all I did to the 2 engines themselves was replace 1 injector pump with a rebuilt, put rebuilt injectors in, and replace 2 sets of glow plugs and 1 glow plug controller. I replaced an injector pump on the 2nd engine but it was a used freebie I got from a friend. My 2nd engine lost a water pump and replacing that cost about $35 and maybe 2 hours of my time. I also put a set of used heads I had on it because of a bad valve blowing out the intake (it ended up not being the problem, since that engine is now sitting in the yard with most of a piston in the oil pan.) My 2nd engine went all ~290K miles on the original injectors and was still getting about 20mpg before it started having problems this past June. I don't think I've spent more than $750 on non-routine engine maintenance over 7 years and 200K miles. Maybe if I'd had to pay someone to do the work I'd be singing a different tune, but that's pretty cheap if you ask me, especially compared to what we hear DMax, PSD, and Cummins owners talking about spending to fix problems on their engines.

[More Power]

A few years ago I heard from a member who had more than 950,000 miles on his 6.2L diesel Blazer. That was the all time high, that I'm aware of. In addition, I've heard from many who had 400,000-500,000 miles on their original engine, with some of those reporting they were still running the original fuel injection system.

Seems whenever the 6.2 gets a little positive press, the Cummins advocates just can't let it stand. :rolleyes:

Jim

[restoguy]

Just thought I'd jump in here with my two cents. Not that anyone cares anyway, TOO BAD! I think that the cummins is a great engine and if they came in GM trucks, this conversation would be over. Few will argue with that. Transplanting one is not impossible, but also not for everyone. The 6.2L's have their problems but many have produced a lot of miles for comparatively low cost. And they are familiar to mechanics. If you swap in a cummins your probably going to do all your own maintence anyway so that's not an issue. I do all my own work and I have a stock pile of parts for the GM diesels. I'd have to start all over if I went to cummins. Not that I don't want to do a conversion some time, just that I'm more than happy chugging along with the 'ol detroit until then. Plus it's fun to tweak the melon of people who hate the GM's by stubbonly refusing to give them up! (stepping off soapbox)

[Dieselboy]

I built my motor primarily for fun. It's fun to drive. It always stands out.

That's a big part of why I like my 6.2L turbo diesel.

[jcomp]

"They last a long time" is not really a counter argument to "they don't make any power" if more power is what you are looking for. It's great the engines can last so long on so little money, but I still am skeptical that they can be built with the equivalent power and durability of a newer diesel. Especially for LESS money than buying a good used newer diesel.

Anyway, it IS fun do drive most of the time. I like all the strange looks I get, especially when people see me putting diesel fuel into it. Most have a hard time believing that it came that way from the factory.

However, it sucks to always be the slowest truck up the pass. Especially considering the amount of money I have into "upgrades".

[spitfirenut]

I can't speak on the 24v cummins, but the 12v that my dad has, while a good puller and quite fuel efficient for a 6500# dually, has had it's share of costly repairs required. The diesel part itself is well designed, but just as with the efi GM diesels he's had electrical/
electronic issues galore. He would be more than thrilled with it if he could find a manual pump for it, but the electronics drive him nuts. He almost wishes he'd gotten himself an old GM and gone through it instead.

[85-m1028]

QUESTION: I noticed in the picture of the engine the pasenger motor mount bracket is missing the lower portion of the mounting ear at the rear of the bracket? is this supposed to be this way? I welded some steel on it with a 3/16" washer and made it whole again "the th ear peice toward the outside had broke off about half way up so I just assumed the whole thing had broke off that way"

[More Power]

Yes, it's supposed to be that way. The slotted end aids installation & removal. Modifying it so it has a hole at both ends is OK too...

Jim