Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Towing with a 6.2 diesel

Discussion in 'The Garage' started by blazer_boy03, Nov 10, 2003.

  1. blazer_boy03

    blazer_boy03 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bellefonte Pa
    I just bought a project blazer with a 6.2. Does anyone tow with one? How does it do? I have heard way too many different stories about it. Any input would be great Thanks
     
  2. rjfguitar

    rjfguitar 3/4 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Posts:
    9,097
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    california
    As far as I know they tow OK but they get very good fuel mileage under a load. Unlike a gas motor. Basically the non turbo 6.2's have a little more power than a 305. My spec sheet for my 85K5 says stock 6.2's have 235 ft pounds of torque and a 350 has 275. They aren't exactly power house motors but they are dependable, get better fuel mileage than the strait 6, and get good mileage even under a heavy load. They aren't any too quick though. I'm not dogging a 6.2 or anything but I personally think the later ones with the optional banks turbo are the ticket, they made more power than the 6.5 when It first came out.
     
  3. 84_Chevy_K10

    84_Chevy_K10 Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Posts:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL, USA
    I think Chevy and Diesel are two things that should never be combined. /forums/images/graemlins/ignore.gif
     
  4. blazer_boy03

    blazer_boy03 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bellefonte Pa
    Why not? Diesels are how I make my paycheck !!!!
     
  5. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,173
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    Tim, you need to stop letting your a$$ do the talking some day.

    My 'J' code 6.2 easily makes the same power as the stock 350 I had when I got the truck. I wouldn't hesitate to tow my 21 foot trailer with it if I put some 33's or 35's on the truck. It ain't no speed demon but it'd tow the load just fine and i wouldn't need a second mortgage for fuel costs.

    'J' code spec's are 155 hp and 265 lb/ft of torque. Check the spec's for a stock 350 in the early to mid 80's...

    The 6.2 makes that torque at quite a bit lower rpm too.

    Rene
     
  6. Can Can

    Can Can Pusher Man Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    15,552
    Likes Received:
    136
    Location:
    Cochrane, Alberta, Canada
    Yet another great example of your outstanding "tech advice"..... /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

    Brian- I've owned my 83 6.2 pickup for almost 7 years. The only work I've had to do was replace the injection pump because I didn't run any fuel conditioner and the diesel in my area is REALLY dry due to the additives they put in the diesel to compensate for our low temps.

    I've towed my TT all through the Rockies in Western Canada, which include some of the harshest passes in the free world. The ol' 6.2 won't break any land speed records, but if I gear down to 2nd she'll pull 12% grades all day long. Top that off with an average of around 25 MPG!!! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

    Keep in mind that a 6.2 is an injected motor with no secondary ignition system to have to maintain. You also get a decent amount of low-end grunt.
     
  7. blazer_boy03

    blazer_boy03 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Posts:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bellefonte Pa
    Thank you for the honest info. I have heard so many different sroeies about these engines that I don't know what to think. thanks agian for the info.
     
  8. Fubeca

    Fubeca 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Posts:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Denver Area
    Here's a crummy pic of me towing my '66 Nomad trailer. I towed over some steep passes, slow and steady. I really liked the 6.2 for mileage, and I would buy one again.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. 84_Chevy_K10

    84_Chevy_K10 Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Posts:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL, USA
    [ QUOTE ]
    Tim, you need to stop letting your a$$ do the talking some day.

    My 'J' code 6.2 easily makes the same power as the stock 350 I had when I got the truck. I wouldn't hesitate to tow my 21 foot trailer with it if I put some 33's or 35's on the truck. It ain't no speed demon but it'd tow the load just fine and i wouldn't need a second mortgage for fuel costs.

    'J' code spec's are 155 hp and 265 lb/ft of torque. Check the spec's for a stock 350 in the early to mid 80's...

    The 6.2 makes that torque at quite a bit lower rpm too.

    Rene

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Unfortunately the market agrees with me more than you, Rene.

    GM had a number of design flaws with the 350 Diesel, then kept the 6.2 until after Dodge already had a direct injected Diesel and Ford already had their Turbo IDI. Along comes the Ford Powerstroke in '94 and GM was still running the 6.5. Then comes 2001, Ford and Dodge had already had their DI turbo Diesels and then GM decides to enter the market? /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif

    I am sorry, but I love Diesels, and I love Chevy, but the two should never be combined. GM has really failed in this market and if you think that's a matter of opinion, just look at their sales numbers from the first 20 years that they sold Diesel trucks.

    The 6.2 is severely lacking when compared to its competition, which is the reason I think that Chevy and Diesel should never be combined for some kind of towing/working rig.

    I'd love to have a 6.2 in my truck if it ran good though. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Great MPG and it'd be a crawlin monster. I just would expect to lose a drag race to a snail. I wouldn't much care though as I'd get nearly everything I'm looking for in an engine in one shot. Fuel injection is standard on those buggers!!

    I didn't really find it necessary to explain my opinion until you made those kinds of comments. I didn't just wake up on the side of the bed and decide that a gutless engine sucks for towing. It might make as much torque as a 350, but my C30 has a 350 and it certainly doesn't pull a trailer at any kind of reasonable speed and I imagine a stock 6.2 wouldn't do much better.

    I know that I wouldn't be caught dead in a K5 with a trailer as long as is posted above. I personally think that a person who'd tow that long of a trailer with a K5 has a death wish. Not to mention the 1/2 ton running gear, 1/2 ton springs, c clips, etc. Makes me afraid to know that I drive on the road with someone who'd consider such a setup.
     
  10. rjfguitar

    rjfguitar 3/4 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Posts:
    9,097
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    california
    Does anyone have a later model 6.2 with the factory banks kit? I have heard those are some hot motors. Curious to hear about one. /forums/images/graemlins/thinking.gif
    OH, and thanks for clearing up everything for us Tim. Where would we be without your extensive intelegent knowledge /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
     
  11. 84_Chevy_K10

    84_Chevy_K10 Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Posts:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL, USA
    Probably listening to you and driving tipsy show trucks that we claim to, "wheel." /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif
     
  12. rjfguitar

    rjfguitar 3/4 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Posts:
    9,097
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    california
    The duramax is a sweet motor and is right up there with the rest in sales. If chevy would wake up and make a deal with Catipillar and put 3208's in or something along with the allison... it would out run the rest of them on hills, strip, sales, you name it. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
     
  13. NITRO

    NITRO 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Posts:
    1,057
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Frankfort In
    i know GM hasnt been on top of it diesel wise in the past years, but i really think they are noticing them now and puttin time into it. look at the new Duramx's. they are one of the top diesels out there now. GM was the first to design the "quiet diesel" i know they werent all on top back in the day, but u hafta give em more credit now.

    NITRO
     
  14. rjfguitar

    rjfguitar 3/4 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Posts:
    9,097
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    california
    [ QUOTE ]
    Probably listening to you and driving tipsy show trucks that we claim to, "wheel." /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif

    [/ QUOTE ] at least my truck doesn't look like a piece of shi t like a certain grey and black one and mine actually has a 14BFF than that semi thing of yours. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif And get over your little " I don't wheel my truck" thing, it's really getting old. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
     
  15. NITRO

    NITRO 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Posts:
    1,057
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Frankfort In
    damn, u beat me to it
    /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
    NITRO
     
  16. rjfguitar

    rjfguitar 3/4 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Posts:
    9,097
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    california
    [ QUOTE ]
    driving tipsy show trucks

    [/ QUOTE ]
    OH and my truck is shorter than yours with a wider stance...stupid. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
     
  17. aksidentproan

    aksidentproan 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2001
    Posts:
    477
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    I'm curious about this too. How about anyone who has installed the banks kit on their 6.2. I'd really like to go diesel but 6.5's are too expensive so maybe a 6.2 with the banks setup would be the ticket.

    Evan
     
  18. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,173
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    [ QUOTE ]
    GM had a number of design flaws with the 350 Diesel, then kept the 6.2 until after Dodge already had a direct injected Diesel and Ford already had their Turbo IDI.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    First of all, who mentioned the 350 diesel? Not the same motor, not the same block and other than both being a V-8 the 6.2 and the 350 diesel have nothing in common.

    Chevy did keep the 6.2 and 6.5 for a long time and the turbo'd versions did quite well for what they were intended.

    [ QUOTE ]
    The 6.2 is severely lacking when compared to its competition, which is the reason I think that Chevy and Diesel should never be combined for some kind of towing/working rig.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Let's compare apples to apples to begin with. My father had an 86 F-350 with a Naturally aspirated 6.9 that was no quicker than my naturally aspirated 6.2. It did quite well regardless and was often overloaded with 6000 lbs + on the 8x12 flat deck. It wouldn't win any races but it never quit working or complained either. It also manged a respectable 17 mpg no matter how it was loaded.

    [ QUOTE ]
    Fuel injection is standard on those buggers!!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Well...duh!!! Ever see a diesel with a carb? /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif

    [ QUOTE ]
    It might make as much torque as a 350, but my C30 has a 350 and it certainly doesn't pull a trailer at any kind of reasonable speed and I imagine a stock 6.2 wouldn't do much better.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Then your 350 is sacked. I pulled our 5500 lb trailer over 10,000 miles with my 350 and never had a problem maintaining 70 mph. Yes on hills it was working OT and that's to be expected. The 6.2 would do no worse, probably do better.

    [ QUOTE ]
    I know that I wouldn't be caught dead in a K5 with a trailer as long as is posted above.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    God I hate agreeing with you.../forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif

    Rene
     
  19. 84_Chevy_K10

    84_Chevy_K10 Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Posts:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL, USA
    [ QUOTE ]
    Then your 350 is sacked. I pulled our 5500 lb trailer over 10,000 miles with my 350 and never had a problem maintaining 70 mph. Yes on hills it was working OT and that's to be expected. The 6.2 would do no worse, probably do better.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Nah, my 350 isn't sacked, my trailer weighs almost twice what yours does. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif On flat ground I can pull 70-75 but it's hurtin' on hills.
     
  20. tRustyK5

    tRustyK5 Big meanie Staff Member Super Moderator GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Posts:
    36,173
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Location:
    E-town baby!
    The new HD's are barely rated for double my trailers weight with either the 8.1 or the D-max...

    If that's the way you rate a vehicle's capacity to tow than you might as well quit now because nothing will satisfy you.

    Rene
     

Share This Page