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.
Anyone have a 6.5L TD in a tow rig or otherwise?
- Thread starter BurbinOR
- Start date
My cousin has a backhoe service and used to haul equipment around on a rather large tandem dual gooseneck (I'm guessing at least 15k) . He bought a 6.5TD dually shortly after they were introduced which took the place of another Chevy dually with a TBI 454. He said that overall the 6.5 pulled the trailer a little better than the 454, but got twice the mileage. Empty the 454 was a little quicker in accelerating.
He was pretty happy with the setup, which he was towing several days a week, and only got rid of the truck after stepping up to a medium duty truck (backhoes kept getting bigger).
He was pretty happy with the setup, which he was towing several days a week, and only got rid of the truck after stepping up to a medium duty truck (backhoes kept getting bigger).
My 99 6.5 doens't have any problems pulling a 18' car trailer full of firewood.
Pookster
1/2 ton status
I honestly dont know where the 6.2/6.5's got such a bad rep from. I just loaded up my bed the other day with 2000+ lbs of bricks, and the suspension sagged just slightly, (the D rated tires were the limiting factor). The 6.2 didnt even care that the weight was back there.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly dont know where the 6.2/6.5's got such a bad rep from.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's because they dont have the same power that the competition (cummins) was offering at the same point in time.
I honestly dont know where the 6.2/6.5's got such a bad rep from.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's because they dont have the same power that the competition (cummins) was offering at the same point in time.
Diesel Dan
1/2 ton status
My current tow rig is the '00 6.5 in my sig. The only reason that is now was someone wrecked my '98 CTD. Biggest reason I didn't get another CTD was I decided I wanted another crewcab, which Dodge still does not offer.
Haven't towed anything major with this one yet. We do have a trip planned for silver lake sand dunes in July. I will be hauling a 8 1/2' camper and pulling my 18' car trailer WITH the Dodge Ram on back for a sand ride. I haven't even left yet and know I will wish the CTD was under the hood for the tow rig /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif.
I like my 6.5 crewcab, but dang I have more fun in the CTD. And I haven't even started too bomb it yet. Turbo wine is way cool with the 4" exhaust /forums/images/graemlins/woot.gif.
Haven't towed anything major with this one yet. We do have a trip planned for silver lake sand dunes in July. I will be hauling a 8 1/2' camper and pulling my 18' car trailer WITH the Dodge Ram on back for a sand ride. I haven't even left yet and know I will wish the CTD was under the hood for the tow rig /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif.
I like my 6.5 crewcab, but dang I have more fun in the CTD. And I haven't even started too bomb it yet. Turbo wine is way cool with the 4" exhaust /forums/images/graemlins/woot.gif.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly dont know where the 6.2/6.5's got such a bad rep from.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's because they dont have the same power that the competition (cummins) was offering at the same point in time.
[/ QUOTE ]
When the 6.2's first came out Dodge didn't even have a diesel on the market and the Ford had the NA 6.9 Navistar which wasn't exactly dripping with a whole bunch of extra power either. It wasn't until the Cummin's was intro'd that either were outclassed. Yet the 6.2 already had an undeserved bad rep at that time. Consumers have a very long memory...it's just not that accurate a memory and there are a great number of people that still believe the 6.2 was a converted gas engine. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
I got to drive an E450 with the 6.0 PSD the other day. A bit heavier than my K5 (not by much) and I wasn't all that impressed. I did like the 5 speed auto, but the power wasn't exactly awe inspiring. Off idle it wasn't any different than my 6.2, once the turbo began to spool up it did pull decently though. Definitely didn't like the 'drive by wire' gas pedal...
Rene
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly dont know where the 6.2/6.5's got such a bad rep from.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's because they dont have the same power that the competition (cummins) was offering at the same point in time.
[/ QUOTE ]
When the 6.2's first came out Dodge didn't even have a diesel on the market and the Ford had the NA 6.9 Navistar which wasn't exactly dripping with a whole bunch of extra power either. It wasn't until the Cummin's was intro'd that either were outclassed. Yet the 6.2 already had an undeserved bad rep at that time. Consumers have a very long memory...it's just not that accurate a memory and there are a great number of people that still believe the 6.2 was a converted gas engine. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
I got to drive an E450 with the 6.0 PSD the other day. A bit heavier than my K5 (not by much) and I wasn't all that impressed. I did like the 5 speed auto, but the power wasn't exactly awe inspiring. Off idle it wasn't any different than my 6.2, once the turbo began to spool up it did pull decently though. Definitely didn't like the 'drive by wire' gas pedal...
Rene
Pookster
1/2 ton status
Maybe I'd upgrade in the future- but for now, i really like the 6.2. Fully mechanical, no electronic dibobulators fly-by-wire-/ yad yada. So it doesnt have 500ft lbs of torque. I guess if your towing 12000 every day, thats nice to have, but I tow maybe 6-10 times a year, vs driving almost every day.
But I really like the mileage- makes me wish I had one in my blazer. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
But I really like the mileage- makes me wish I had one in my blazer. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
BlueBlazer
1/2 ton status
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Posts
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 1
Although I wont own a non mechanical diesel ever, I have got to point out that every class 8 truck made in the last 5-10 years has been electronic which means they all have a "drive by wire" system so it isnt all that bad.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly dont know where the 6.2/6.5's got such a bad rep from.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's because they dont have the same power that the competition (cummins) was offering at the same point in time.
[/ QUOTE ]
As already mentioned, most of the "bad rap" the 6.2 has comes from GM's failed attempt with the converted 350 diesel. I still have people to this day ask me how many problems I have had with the "converted diesel" engine....usually don't even bother trying to explain it to them.
Power-wise, when first introduced the 6.2 was pretty comparable to the other engines available in trucks at the time. Remember, carb'd and emissions choked 305's were pretty common in the mid-80's and even the 350 was only rated at around 160 hp at the time. When I bought my '90 6.2 K5 in '94 my dad had a TBI 305 pickup, he test drove the Blazer and said he thought it was comparable to his truck.
The same goes with the 6.5TD as it had decent power when compared to other vehicles at the time it was introduced. Sure, the early Cummins had more torque at low rpm and could pull a heavy trailer well, but they were extremely SLOWWWWW when empty. My cousins 6.5TD also was comparable to another guys Ford 7.3 with an aftermarket Hypermax turbo setup.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly dont know where the 6.2/6.5's got such a bad rep from.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's because they dont have the same power that the competition (cummins) was offering at the same point in time.
[/ QUOTE ]
As already mentioned, most of the "bad rap" the 6.2 has comes from GM's failed attempt with the converted 350 diesel. I still have people to this day ask me how many problems I have had with the "converted diesel" engine....usually don't even bother trying to explain it to them.
Power-wise, when first introduced the 6.2 was pretty comparable to the other engines available in trucks at the time. Remember, carb'd and emissions choked 305's were pretty common in the mid-80's and even the 350 was only rated at around 160 hp at the time. When I bought my '90 6.2 K5 in '94 my dad had a TBI 305 pickup, he test drove the Blazer and said he thought it was comparable to his truck.
The same goes with the 6.5TD as it had decent power when compared to other vehicles at the time it was introduced. Sure, the early Cummins had more torque at low rpm and could pull a heavy trailer well, but they were extremely SLOWWWWW when empty. My cousins 6.5TD also was comparable to another guys Ford 7.3 with an aftermarket Hypermax turbo setup.
[ QUOTE ]
Although I wont own a non mechanical diesel ever, I have got to point out that every class 8 truck made in the last 5-10 years has been electronic which means they all have a "drive by wire" system so it isnt all that bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
It just felt odd to me, I could feel a definite delay between my foot and the response which I hated. My 6.2 will rev quick the instant my foot tells it to...not wait a 1/2 to full second to finally get around to it. I'm just not used to it I guess...and fortunately I don't have to get used to it.
How much has this new tech for diesels really gained anyone? My mileage is comparable or better than most newer trucks that have computer controlled diesels, overdrive tranny's, more favorable gearing and better aerodynamics. I could make my truck run using nothing more than a couple of 6 volt lantern batteries and some electrical tape...
If efficiency is the attempted gain with the new trucks I'm not convinced they have succeeded. Even if I were to concede that they had made the newer trucks more efficient...you have to compare that to the cost and added complication. It's just not worth it to me. I can add a turbo eventually and an overdrive and still have a simple fuel efficient truck with as much power as I'll ever need.
Rene
Although I wont own a non mechanical diesel ever, I have got to point out that every class 8 truck made in the last 5-10 years has been electronic which means they all have a "drive by wire" system so it isnt all that bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
It just felt odd to me, I could feel a definite delay between my foot and the response which I hated. My 6.2 will rev quick the instant my foot tells it to...not wait a 1/2 to full second to finally get around to it. I'm just not used to it I guess...and fortunately I don't have to get used to it.
How much has this new tech for diesels really gained anyone? My mileage is comparable or better than most newer trucks that have computer controlled diesels, overdrive tranny's, more favorable gearing and better aerodynamics. I could make my truck run using nothing more than a couple of 6 volt lantern batteries and some electrical tape...
If efficiency is the attempted gain with the new trucks I'm not convinced they have succeeded. Even if I were to concede that they had made the newer trucks more efficient...you have to compare that to the cost and added complication. It's just not worth it to me. I can add a turbo eventually and an overdrive and still have a simple fuel efficient truck with as much power as I'll ever need.
Rene
BlueBlazer
1/2 ton status
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2001
- Posts
- 1,940
- Reaction score
- 1
The EPA is the main reason since it is impossible to meet the EPA regs for on highway diesels without full electronic control of things like timing, fueling, wastegate, EGR, etc. In all fairness to newer trucks, although they may get worse mileage than our 6.2s, they make WAY more power and they put out WAY less emissions. If it wasn't for the EPA, most likely a new truck would still have a fully mechanical fuel injection system.
[ QUOTE ]
Great info guys, thanks.
So, guys with 6.5TD, what is the gas mileage you are getting?
/forums/images/graemlins/deal.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I can get almost 20 if I keep it easy, no towing. That is with 4.10s and 33" tires.
Great info guys, thanks.
So, guys with 6.5TD, what is the gas mileage you are getting?
/forums/images/graemlins/deal.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I can get almost 20 if I keep it easy, no towing. That is with 4.10s and 33" tires.
I have a 97 6.5TD. I really like the truck, but have not been overly impressed with the mileage. First of all, I drive fast, which doesn't help fuel mileage on these diesels. Around town, I get 14 or so. Highway empty, 14-15. Towing my Blazer (which it does a decent job), average 10. I recently took a trip to NYC towing my trailer (a little heavy, 2K or so) and a 2003 Buick Lesabre, and returned with a 1994 Caprice wagon and averaged 11.5. Again, I drive fast, 72-82 depending on speed limits and traffic.
My truck has an ATS exhaust, aftermarket intercoler (or really an aftercooler), and K&N air filter.
My truck has an ATS exhaust, aftermarket intercoler (or really an aftercooler), and K&N air filter.
Yeah, alive and well. Look at the time I posted that last post. My schedule is all wrong.
Latest Posts
-
-
-
'99 4 Door Tahoe SAS Build, Taking it back a few years
- Latest: Truckman4life
-
-
