Can anyone settle a dispute I'm having on another forum. I say that the 6.2/6.5 are not Detroit Diesel engines, they are GM designed but not from the Detroit division. Wikipedia and a basic Google search says otherwise. So which is it?
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
6.2 a Detroit Diesel?
- Thread starter Chevy305
- Start date
I would like the answer to this as well. I think people calling six twos Detroits is poserish. Its like they're trying too hard because the other diesels are known by names, not numbers. And it feels like they want people to take them more seriously because with a "Detroit" they have a real big boy diesel.
Yes, Detroit Diesel division of GM:
Detroit Diesel/General Motors V8 Diesel
General Motors introduced a line of Diesel V8 engine engines for their C/K pickup trucks in 1982. This engine family, designed by GM division Detroit Diesel, was produced by GM through 2000, when it was replaced by the new Duramax line. AM General's subsidiary General Engine Products (GEP) still produces a military variant of this engine for the HMMWV.[1]
OverviewManufacturerDetroit Diesel division of GM
Production 1982-1993 and 1992-current
Combustion chamber Displacement 6.2L/379cid and 6.5L/395cid Cylinder bore 6.2L: 3.98 in (101 mm); 6.5L: 4.06 in (103 mm)
Piston stroke 6.2L: 3.80 in (97 mm); 6.5L: 3.82 in (97 mm)
Cylinder block alloy Iron
Cylinder head alloy Iron
Valvetrain 16 OHV Compression ratio 21.5:1, Marine 18:1
Combustion Turbocharger Borg-Warner GM-X series, also available naturally aspirated
Fuel system 1993 And older-Mechanical rotary pump. 1994 And newer-Electronic rotary pump
Fuel type Diesel Chronology
Predecessor LF9 350 cu in (5.7 L) diesel
Successor Duramax V8 engine
Unlike the 5.7 diesel from the late 70's early 80's that was a converted oldsmobile gas engine....the biggest diesel engine mistake GM made!
Detroit Diesel/General Motors V8 Diesel
General Motors introduced a line of Diesel V8 engine engines for their C/K pickup trucks in 1982. This engine family, designed by GM division Detroit Diesel, was produced by GM through 2000, when it was replaced by the new Duramax line. AM General's subsidiary General Engine Products (GEP) still produces a military variant of this engine for the HMMWV.[1]
OverviewManufacturerDetroit Diesel division of GM
Production 1982-1993 and 1992-current
Combustion chamber Displacement 6.2L/379cid and 6.5L/395cid Cylinder bore 6.2L: 3.98 in (101 mm); 6.5L: 4.06 in (103 mm)
Piston stroke 6.2L: 3.80 in (97 mm); 6.5L: 3.82 in (97 mm)
Cylinder block alloy Iron
Cylinder head alloy Iron
Valvetrain 16 OHV Compression ratio 21.5:1, Marine 18:1
Combustion Turbocharger Borg-Warner GM-X series, also available naturally aspirated
Fuel system 1993 And older-Mechanical rotary pump. 1994 And newer-Electronic rotary pump
Fuel type Diesel Chronology
Predecessor LF9 350 cu in (5.7 L) diesel
Successor Duramax V8 engine
Unlike the 5.7 diesel from the late 70's early 80's that was a converted oldsmobile gas engine....the biggest diesel engine mistake GM made!
Marty says no. the reason is that when ever Detroit or Allison builds something they have a warranty. If you bring you silverado with an allison into a allison dealer and they will warrenty it. They would not work on a 6.2 or 6.5. It was designed by a detroit but after the accountants got done it was all on GM.
They certainly leak like a Detroit...
I dont think Detroit is very proud of them really either...the only reference to the 6.2's being made by Detroit Diesel is in the "facts" books and when a seller or owner wants to impress a buyer or someone who doesn't own one..
I often wonder how they ever got to be put in military trucks ..especially the Humvees...I would think a gas V8 would have been better,easier to repair in the field,and more reliable in the long run....GM must have greased some palms ?..
Russ is right,mine oozes from every possible point,but its probably my fault for not doing any gasket or rotted oil pan replacement..
I often wonder how they ever got to be put in military trucks ..especially the Humvees...I would think a gas V8 would have been better,easier to repair in the field,and more reliable in the long run....GM must have greased some palms ?..
Russ is right,mine oozes from every possible point,but its probably my fault for not doing any gasket or rotted oil pan replacement..
This ^^^
the 6.2 carries a bad rap from everyone because it wont burn the tires off or pull a house down..... really for the trucks they were put in who cares 
I frickin loved mine
it wasn't a race truck or a semi to start with. my 87 2wd burb was a family hauler that seen a LOT of miles all over the country with an unblemished reliability record and an average of 24 mpg on the interstate and a best trip (55mph roads) of 27. I haven't seen a diesel pickup do that since, without mods. excluding the new dodge that isn't even out yet
. not to mention hauling the 24' bumper mount camper and getting 11 through the hills on top of that. the 6.2 was a great motor for what it was designed for. reliable DD duty and decent mileage to go with it.
so the new ones can hit 1000hp and 2000ftlbs.......... Why the h3ll does anyone NEED that
yeah its cool... but really Im currently looking for another 2wd burb to use as a travel rig and I WANT a non turbo, unmolested 6.2 in it 
sorry if it seems like a rant but its a soft spot of mine and this seemed like a good place to speak my thoughts...
Im off
I frickin loved mine it wasn't a race truck or a semi to start with. my 87 2wd burb was a family hauler that seen a LOT of miles all over the country with an unblemished reliability record and an average of 24 mpg on the interstate and a best trip (55mph roads) of 27. I haven't seen a diesel pickup do that since, without mods. excluding the new dodge that isn't even out yet. not to mention hauling the 24' bumper mount camper and getting 11 through the hills on top of that. the 6.2 was a great motor for what it was designed for. reliable DD duty and decent mileage to go with it. so the new ones can hit 1000hp and 2000ftlbs.......... Why the h3ll does anyone NEED that
yeah its cool... but really Im currently looking for another 2wd burb to use as a travel rig and I WANT a non turbo, unmolested 6.2 in it sorry if it seems like a rant but its a soft spot of mine and this seemed like a good place to speak my thoughts...
Im off
Well, I don't need a Playboy Bunny for a girlfriend, or $500k per year job, but given the choice...so the new ones can hit 1000hp and 2000ftlbs.......... Why the h3ll does anyone NEED that
I really like my little stock 6.2 SWB step-side beater, and I love my chipped crew cab DMax, each has their place.
The 6.2 was supposed to be a donor for a conversion in my 1-ton K5, but I liked it so much, in didn't have it I me to tear it part it out...
Somewhere I saw original blueprints for the 6.2 and they said Detroit diesel on them. They were a division of gm so this might not never be truly answered.
I agree with Rick love my 6.2 would I love to have a 800 HP durmax in my jimmy hell yes. But 35" tires and averages 19 mpg out on the highway at 70, I can live with that. Although I think a turbo only helps and it as far as I have seen would add a couple mpg to my rig.
So back to the original question as far I can see the 6.2 was designed by Detroit for gm for use specifically as a light duty gas milage option. Never designed as a power motor it was touted by gm as their economy motor
I agree with Rick love my 6.2 would I love to have a 800 HP durmax in my jimmy hell yes. But 35" tires and averages 19 mpg out on the highway at 70, I can live with that. Although I think a turbo only helps and it as far as I have seen would add a couple mpg to my rig.
So back to the original question as far I can see the 6.2 was designed by Detroit for gm for use specifically as a light duty gas milage option. Never designed as a power motor it was touted by gm as their economy motor
So back to the original question as far I can see the 6.2 was designed by Detroit for gm for use specifically as a light duty gas milage option. Never designed as a power motor it was touted by gm as their economy motor[/quote]
Crazy thing is when they had the gas guzzler government buy back I thought of trading in my old M1009 and getting a good trade in. I wanted to trade for a small pickup. Turns out when they compared the MPG ratings of my 6.2 to any of the smaller pickups I was looking at there wasn't enough difference to qualify! Seems the 6.2 got too good of mileage.
This I already knew and still know. Why the 6.2 gets a bad rap I just don't know. Maybe people are expecting it to pull like a Freightliner because it's diesel. Others try and say it's a converted gas engine when that is BS. I love the engine and have had many with most going over 200k.
My brother has an old 6.2 repair manual and right on the binding it says "Detroit Diesel".
Crazy thing is when they had the gas guzzler government buy back I thought of trading in my old M1009 and getting a good trade in. I wanted to trade for a small pickup. Turns out when they compared the MPG ratings of my 6.2 to any of the smaller pickups I was looking at there wasn't enough difference to qualify! Seems the 6.2 got too good of mileage.
This I already knew and still know. Why the 6.2 gets a bad rap I just don't know. Maybe people are expecting it to pull like a Freightliner because it's diesel. Others try and say it's a converted gas engine when that is BS. I love the engine and have had many with most going over 200k.
My brother has an old 6.2 repair manual and right on the binding it says "Detroit Diesel".
It might sound like I hate my 6.2's,but I dont really,I'm just not that big a fan of them either..If I hated them ,I wouldn't have bought another truck with one..one reason I bought another one was even if it never ended up road driven, it could be used as parts to keep one or the other running..
I will say my diesel pickup has been reliable and probably the best one I've had so far for plowing..it pushes effortlessly at fast idle with no wheelspin,unlike my 77 GMC K2500 with the 400 SB or the 71 K1500 I had with a 305 & a 350 ,those liked to spin the wheels too easily and get stuck..
Mostly what I dont like about the 6.2 's is they can be hard to start in winter,and the cost of diesel fuel sucks compared to gas,and I am not very well versed in diesel repair and I dont feel confident working on one like I would a 350 or 454..
When its time for injector pump repairs or injectors,all you "saved" on gasoline and tune ups goes towards getting it running again..and I have never put either of them on myself,and I dislike the fact the injector lines and intake needs to all be removed to do a stupid valve cover gasket..
The 6.2 has its issues--some swear by them,some swear AT them it seems.. many break the cranks,(I have one on an engine stand from a C30 that broke)--and they often blow head gaskets,at fairly low miles,and I dont think the balancer is what makes the cranks break so much as the crank itself wasn't up to the task...bottom ends crack at the main bearing webs too...they could have built them a bit better,but GM's bean counters cut corners and made it less than it could have been..its too bad because if not for those faults it wouldn't have that bad reputation they have for being unreliable..
Though I agree maybe the military wanted to stay "all diesel",I wonder why GM got the contract for the trucks ,when Ford's 6.9 and 7.3's built by IHC were better engines in my opinion than a 6.2...
I will say my diesel pickup has been reliable and probably the best one I've had so far for plowing..it pushes effortlessly at fast idle with no wheelspin,unlike my 77 GMC K2500 with the 400 SB or the 71 K1500 I had with a 305 & a 350 ,those liked to spin the wheels too easily and get stuck..
Mostly what I dont like about the 6.2 's is they can be hard to start in winter,and the cost of diesel fuel sucks compared to gas,and I am not very well versed in diesel repair and I dont feel confident working on one like I would a 350 or 454..
When its time for injector pump repairs or injectors,all you "saved" on gasoline and tune ups goes towards getting it running again..and I have never put either of them on myself,and I dislike the fact the injector lines and intake needs to all be removed to do a stupid valve cover gasket..
The 6.2 has its issues--some swear by them,some swear AT them it seems.. many break the cranks,(I have one on an engine stand from a C30 that broke)--and they often blow head gaskets,at fairly low miles,and I dont think the balancer is what makes the cranks break so much as the crank itself wasn't up to the task...bottom ends crack at the main bearing webs too...they could have built them a bit better,but GM's bean counters cut corners and made it less than it could have been..its too bad because if not for those faults it wouldn't have that bad reputation they have for being unreliable..
Though I agree maybe the military wanted to stay "all diesel",I wonder why GM got the contract for the trucks ,when Ford's 6.9 and 7.3's built by IHC were better engines in my opinion than a 6.2...
The "Ford" 6.9 and 7.3 isn't a Ford motor at all. Its a International DT444. Ford, like Dodge, sought out a real diesel from a real manufacturer rather than use their own design. Early Ford and Dodge diesels are known for their durability, and (surprise surprise) early gm diesels being junk.
And if you talk to many truck drivers you will start to hear a lot of them say the Detroit Diesel's in the big rigs are all junk too.
Exactly. They are known primarily for their leaks, and higher maintenance/downtime with less power. I think the only Detroits I've ever heard anything good about are the old blown 2 strokes, and they've got a whole set of their own issues. The 6.2/6.5 are what they are regardless of pedigree. Some good, some bad, some mediocre; but if it fits your needs, great...
cowboy_tech
1/2 ton status
The Detroit 60 series is one of the more reliable and efficient truck engines. Even with the new emissions (DPF and DEF), the DD15 has the the best track record. The only downfall is that you can only get them in a Freightliner. As for oil leaks, I just got one on my S60 14L after 630k miles. For new trucks, I would choose a Detroit over a Cummins(Scania fuel system), Volvo, Maxforce (MAN engine), or Pacar MX. The good old days are gone with DPF and DEF. Right now, Detroit has a good unit.
I like the sound a 2 cycle detroit makes,and they were decent engines in heavy machinery...had a 4 cylinder one in our Trojan loader at the boneyard and that thing would start easily even in frigid weather,we often jumped it with our trucks to start it--if you got it to spin 3 times it would fire up..I loved the sound of that thing wound up wide open..
A guy I know bought an old '65 GMC dump truck,that has a "Toro-Flow" diesel,it runs decent and sounds a lot like the 2 stroke detroit but its a whole different animal...pretty strange looking engine,glad I'm not the one who has to fix it..
I've read in various manuals and my GMC parts counter book ,that some "P" series step vans and 60-63 GMC pickups were offered with a 3-53 Detroit,but I have never seen one that was a bona fide factory installed one,I have seen some at truck shows people built..I wonder if any ever made it off the assembly line?..
A guy I know bought an old '65 GMC dump truck,that has a "Toro-Flow" diesel,it runs decent and sounds a lot like the 2 stroke detroit but its a whole different animal...pretty strange looking engine,glad I'm not the one who has to fix it..
I've read in various manuals and my GMC parts counter book ,that some "P" series step vans and 60-63 GMC pickups were offered with a 3-53 Detroit,but I have never seen one that was a bona fide factory installed one,I have seen some at truck shows people built..I wonder if any ever made it off the assembly line?..
Mine is slow and it kills ip's
