6.2 debate.

[11Echo]

I have seen those 350 diesel in a Oldsmobile one time those where a bad thing gm did. Why do v8s not belong in the diesel world. I seen at the Detroit auto show the 2016/17 dodge ram is going to a v8 that Cummings is developing it for them. Thanks for that 11echo I thought they were imported from over seas.

I liked the 8V71 318 hp Detroit in my Kenworth.
The Cummins series 903 V8 335 hp in my IH Transtar did ok.

Pic of the tag on my 1962 Frigidaire stove. GM had plants all around the Dayton area.

 

[Recovry4x4]

My father worked for Frigidaire, Delco Air and subsequently Delco Products before his death. Been to lots of the plants around Dayton. Are the truck and bus group plants just sitting vacant? Would love to walk around in there for a day of 4.

 

[MarcusOReallyus]

I'm not sure if this is in English???

I'm not sure if that's a statement or a question.

 

[rsh4364]

I love my 6.2 and plan on having more in the future.Easy to work on, no computer and in-expensive.Would love to drop one into something lighter and more streamlined and get 30-35 mpg! Ill always have my 1009 and hopefully a 1008 in the future,where else can you get a big,heavy,ugly 4wd that gets 20 something mpg for less than 5k?

 

[m16ty]

Easy answer here. It's because of the internet. Someone once posted that it was a converted gasser and once that was out, it was doomed. The internet and the majority of it's users never let facts get in their way to telling a story or voicing their displeasure.

That rumor has been around a lot longer than the internet. I remember hearing that in the late '80s.

I want to think that there was a converted gasser before the 6.2 that was a Oldsmobile.


I tend to agree on liking the in-line diesels vs the V8. I'm not saying the V8s are junk, I'd just rather have a in-line when given the choice. The main problems with V diesels is it is hard to get much stroke out of the V configuration. Diesels love long stroke and lower RPMs. The old Detroits kind of get a pass on this due to the 2-stroke design but their in-lines did pretty well also.

 

[Jozseph]

It is this simple V8 have no business in the diesel realm. inline design is a lot better for longevity and maintainability.. but where stuck with turd of motor that is rapidly going in to obselesince with fuel and epa requirements some parts. most people will eventually willn't have there trucks in 2 to 3yrs on this site.......{SNIP]

The cheap Caterpillar 3208, V-8, 210hp, 375, hp or 435hp in a marine version.
The dump truck, garbage truck engine.

One individual shoehorned this cheap Cat into a older F-250

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOABHUAmhJI


"....simple V8 have no business in the diesel realm..." in my opinion this an incorrect comment.

Install a 3208 into a K30, and see how much moxie you have!

Regards

Joseph

 

[Keith_J]

It is this simple V8 have no business in the diesel realm. inline design is a lot better for longevity and maintainability.. but where stuck with turd of motor that is rapidly going in to obselesince with fuel and epa requirements some parts. most people will eventually willn't have there trucks in 2 to 3yrs on this site. All you have to do is search on the internet for how to fix this or that for 6.2 6.5 diesel, there is whole cottage industry that was thriving about ten ago with these motors with parts pieces and information all for sale. The proof is in the pudding, they are of poor design and the CUCV is at the panicle. So if you want to keep it around one must improve the mech. skills give up bowling golf, girlfriends ect.. because you have new mistress her name is 6.2 and they are sucking the life out out of me..lol Remember you can't fix stupid design just throw money at it.

Inline sixes have perfect balance on the crank since they have a firing/ignition/injection event every 120 degrees of crank throw, a V8 has firing every 90 degrees. Seems odd that fewer cylinders makes for a smoother engine but the V8 is actually two inline fours so the second order vibrations are only partially canceled out.

V8 engines have s shorter crankshaft which makes them stronger, lighter and more space efficient.

I guess if V8s don't belong in diesels, those M123A1Cs were just junk

There is nothing wrong with the 6.2 design wise for its time. Roller tappets? Quite modern. All of the Cummins fans will fawn over the fact the 6deuce lacks cylinder liners, big diesels have liners because they are cheaper than oversize pistons to rebuild if the pistons can be reused. Which isn't often the case. Modern engines like the 6.2 use lower tension rings that don't wear the cylinders like old cast iron rings. And the rings should last 300k.

Indirect injection was the norm back in the time for small engines because it offered higher engine speed with a much simpler injection system. VAG in association with Bosch pioneered small diesel direct injection in the 1980s, computational fluid dynamics made possible by modern computers in the 1990s brought us to the current state of art.

 

[MarcusOReallyus]

I want to think that there was a converted gasser before the 6.2 that was a Oldsmobile.

There was. They tried to make a diesel out of a 350 gasser. It was a disaster. Many credit this mistake with setting back diesel development and acceptance in the U.S. We are FAR behind the rest of the world in using diesels for passenger vehicles.

 

[lonewolf90]

It was the 5.7 diesel they ran out of diesel motors and started using 350 gas blocks and putting diesel heads on them seen it on the history channel. Gm for sued over it

 

[Skinny]

That Olds 350DX really killed the entire roll out of light duty diesels in American spec cars. Mercedes never had an issue, it always comes back to the Detroit iron having crappy engines. Everything in the 80's was noisy and smelly, most were slow too. Ford had some serious issues moving on from the 7.3 and hurt its reputation. I remember International said its new generation of diesels would be revolutionary in that they test each one before going into service. Turns out that the short amount of run time never showed the fuel leak that popped up after it went out for delivery to the customer. Seems like most have been a big let down on the American market. Sure you can pick up a used truck, spend about $3k on it doing head gaskets, studs, deleting EGR, deleting emission components, etc. and will probably have good service life. Thats just the way it is with the 6.5, 6.0, 6.4, etc. engines. I'm sure no one after spending $40-60k on a new truck wants to hear that though. Realistically the Cummins has been the only engine that survived well in that area of the market. 1st gen Duramax engines did pretty decent.

I think the ultimate fate for domestic diesel has been all the new expensive emission components. I think the only thing that will save that market is much higher fuel economy offerings. Let's face it, the buyer has to spend a premium to get the engine, feed it more expensive fuel, add DEF, and shell out more money for repairs to keep that bastard child catalytic converters running along with all the temp/pressure sensors...it's a tough sell for the average buyer of a Chevy Cruze, Jetta, etc. to face. A 1 ton work truck, probably a no brainer and they don't need to be sold on why a diesel is better. It's a rough crowd. I really hope Chrysler does well selling diesels in SUV's and 1/2ton trucks, it may get the ball rolling in non-1ton diesel sales.

I think we will look back on today's diesels and compare them to what the carb'd engines went through during the 80's with the pellet catalytic converters and air injection components. Only difference is electronics are keeping these things making a ton of power. They just need a cat the size of a coffee table that costs $6k to replace...yikes!

Either way, I won't own one. I'd rather build a truck with a real diesel engine then have an $800 a month payment for one that requires a scan tool

 

[lonewolf90]

Right on skinny.

 

[rsh4364]

I bought my 1009 from a friend and co worker,when I started fixing up he told me not to spend much $ on it.I asked him how much $ do you have invested in your duramax 4wd with 35 mudders that runs 13.3 in the quarter mile.He said around 50k..I told him I guess I have about 48k left in my truck budget.LOL..I could spend 5k on my 1009 and have an awesome truck that would last for years and years.And it would be built the way I want it.He sold his truck last spring for 15k. Crazy!

 

[Keith_J]

There was. They tried to make a diesel out of a 350 gasser. It was a disaster. Many credit this mistake with setting back diesel development and acceptance in the U.S. We are FAR behind the rest of the world in using diesels for passenger vehicles.

Funny how VAG used gasser blocks too for Diesel engines. Even direct injected turbocharged common rail systems. Shared the same bore spacing and transmissions, with suitable ratios.

It wasn't the block's fault the Olds 5.7 failed, it was the rest of the system. Starting at head bolts and heads, then fuel systems. And GM did a horrible job at preparing its dealers for service. Then throw in substandard diesel fuel.

 

[southdave]

The cheap Caterpillar 3208, V-8, 210hp, 375, hp or 435hp in a marine version.
The dump truck, garbage truck engine.

One individual shoehorned this cheap Cat into a older F-250

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOABHUAmhJI


"....simple V8 have no business in the diesel realm..." in my opinion this an incorrect comment.

Install a 3208 into a K30, and see how much moxie you have!

Regards

Joseph

All glorified turds lol.. never seen on with over 175 k on them 210 hp my chevy cruze with right programing will do that lol heck my 5.9 makes around 450hp on 5.9 liter verses 10.4 liters yes it was also an Idi motor a gutless wonder. The few I have been around. ?.

 

[southdave]

The Duramax is a GM motor built in the USA. GM hired Isuzu engineers to design the engine and oversee it's development.

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1303dp_history_of_the_duramax_diesel_engine/

Limited liability company that funtion outside the normal operating realm of gm powertrain.similar to ford/kia or GM/ deawoo. that plant like most in dayton and southern Indiana work force belongs to an electrian union.. I been there few times it feel like Japanese company more than american.. more less the last of anything that is gm left in dayton ohio ...there is parts house around hamilton .

 

[m16ty]

I find it hard to understand why early auto diesels were so far behind in the 80s. By the time the 80s rolled around, IDI was already outdated tech in the ag and construction world.

I'm very familiar with agriculture engines of that time period and earlier and they were building 200+HP engines that were tough as nails and would run forever. I guess the auto industry thought they smarter but it appears that wasn't the case. Cost also may have been a factor.

 

[cucvrus]

This is another one of the push me shove you opinion debates. My engines better then yours arguments. The 6.2 was and still is a very reliable engine. They served well in the military and in combat situations. They are easy to repair and have basic issues as does any mechanical item. They get great fuel mileage for the size of the vehicle they are powering. They may be a bit under powered but they get the job done. And many are 30 years old with hundreds of thousands of miles on them and still have never been apart. With that being said I have seen them with 400K and still going strong. I have seen them with 3K and dumped in the scrap bin. Why? Poor mantainance? Abuse? Who knows? If you beat on an anvil long enough and hard enough it will break eventually. To each his own. I know I have said it before I have driven these 6.2 CUCV diesels easily 500K + and never had one let me sit along the road. Never. I Limped home with a couple bad injection pumps but never sat still and walked. It all comes down in my opinion on how well they are maintained and using the right tool for the job. They are not race cars (trucks) so I don't race them. They are not Big Foot trucks so I don't lift them put big tires on them and mud bog them. Everything has a breaking point. Many people strive to have the biggest fastest and coolest thing on the road. The CUCV is NOT that it was NOT designed for that and NEVER will be that. It was designed to be an inexpensive alternative for base use during the design of a purpose built vehicle. Such as the HMMWV. And the HMMWV had the same engine the reliable 6.2. I can not debate or argue it is not the best but it serves well and is very reliable for it's inteneded use.

 

[Keith_J]

Small diesels? Bosch built the injection pump used in the M35A2 multifuel, they had to form an independent subsidiary company (Ambac) to win the defense contract. Sure, the Roosa pump was around but it was indirect injection only.

Small diesel technology had been stunted because the costs outweighed the benefits. Up until the oil embargoes..and it is stunted again by ever increasing emissions regulations and the rising cost of diesel compared to gasoline. Furthermore, gasoline engine technology has far improved to eliminate the thermodynamic efficiency advantage of diesel. Gasoline direct injection IS as efficient as diesel. Back in the 1980s, Smokey Yunick predicted fuel would be priced by energy content, that came true in 2006. And now, it costs the same per mile if you pull the load with a Powerstroke or an Ecoboost.

 

[cucvrus]

Good point. I have to agree. The newer light duty diesel in the RAM pick ups is getting 28 30 MPG. At this point that is good. But what is the life of the engine? And with Diesel being more expensive, what is the cost savings? I have a 2014 Silverado with a Ecotec 3 V6 that gets a poor 16 MPG. It has 285 HP and 305 lbs of torque. I would rather have the fuel mileage then the horse power. I feel that we have the technology to do better. I had a 1984 Diesel Chevette (in 1984) that got 60 mpg hwy and 48 city. It was 1.8 Isuzu diesel and ran 385K before the body of the car gave out. The engine still ran perfect. I think they have the technology to build more efficient diesel engines but chose not to. Every design no matter what has its flaws and defects. As does it have its strong points. Use what you have for it's intended use and you should not have any issues. Maintain it well and check it very closely for items needing maintained and it should serve you well beyond your expectations. The 6.2 is an old engine. Would I want a 2014 Silverado with one in NO. It had its place and time. I like to advance not go backwards. I will maintain the 6.2's that I have and I think they were and are well suited for the applacation in the CUCV of yesterday.

 

[Skinny]

Back in the 1980s, Smokey Yunick predicted fuel would be priced by energy content, that came true in 2006.

That's is an interesting point! Diesel had a nice price inflation due to the low sulfur regs as well...certainly not winning the battle on the consumer end. The environment is cleaner but it would be nice is the gov't and fuel industry made fuel that actually didn't kill my engines.

Regardless of where we stand technology wise, internal combustion will only go so far. We are still wasting 2/3rds of the BTU energy out the exhaust and radiator. Sure a turbo helps capture that thermal energy but it is still a very inefficient system. Even with the coolest direct injection, we are still burning the fuel where stripping it down to the atom and using electricity would net a lot more power and energy output per unit of fuel.

The 6.2 is still cool in my book along with tapered wheel bearings, locking hubs, and cast iron transfer cases. Don't get me wrong, my Cuck would be cooler with a Cummins.