What's new
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.

Crews and worthy rigs Around the country

They drive good on stock tires with 4.56 with a manual trans. Auto or higher ratios make it worse than that. Problem with 4.56 is they are so noisy you don’t want to drive em.
 
folkenheath said:
That's a nice truck, although I feel the same way about the old square body diesel, my father had an 84 K20 diesel for a short time, that thing wouldn't get out of it's own way. It pretty much needed a turbo to be sufficient if you ask me. Is that the way they all felt? It seemed like it was running fine, just gutless.
Click to expand...
They do much better with 4.56 gears on 28" tires until you hit 50 mph and cannot go faster.
 
Mine felt like any stock 350 I've ever driven :dunno:
 
I got it from an old diesel mechanic who bought it new, so I don't know if there's tricks he could have done.
But as far as I know it was a stock 87 half ton burb.
He said he'd unplug the AC compressor when he towed the camper is all.
 
I just looked up the factory specs, explains why they felt slow..130 HP vs 210 HP

1766071054485.png

Stock wimpy 87 TBI

1766073345011.png
 
folkenheath said:
I just looked up the factory specs, explains why they felt slow..130 HP vs 210 HP

View attachment 518956

Stock wimpy 87 TBI

View attachment 518957
Click to expand...
When the 6.2L was developed for release in 1982 model year, at that time the 350 carbureted engine was only at 165 HP. The 250 I6 was about 100 HP. So it landed in the middle. And I believe the J-code was slightly higher HP than the C-code. Since all of the 6.2L engines I've driven were the 145-160 HP variety, they are were similar to the comparable carbureted 165-175 HP small blocks.

1766076171826.png
 
Well if you compare the strongest 6.2L diesel to the weakest 350 in only the early years, then I suppose the diesel was only a little short on power. But if you compare them year for year it seems, and felt, worse than that to me, even a 84 J code was only 135 HP, and a 1987 J code diesel at 160 HP was way short compared to a 1987 TBI 350, And the C code was still 143 HP even in 1993. That's 31 - 47% more power for the stock TBI 350 of the same year.

I did see those numbers, but I guess I assumed the J code was not in squares back in 1987, perhaps I was wrong and I shorted it 5 HP up to 84 and a whopping 17 HP for 85 plus. :woot:
 
I always liked the torque. Sorta like an I-6 it was just always there. Not fast, not powerful, but they motorvated along well.

I just don’t want to deal with the diesel BS any more. Everything costs more. Fuel. Additives. Parts. Maintenance. ****, a lot of the 6.2 parts were uncommon 15 years ago.
 
folkenheath said:
Well if you compare the strongest 6.2L diesel to the weakest 350 in only the early years, then I suppose the diesel was only a little short on power. But if you compare them year for year it seems, and felt, worse than that to me, even a 84 J code was only 135 HP, and a 1987 J code diesel at 160 HP was way short compared to a 1987 TBI 350, And the C code was still 143 HP even in 1993. That's 31 - 47% more power for the stock TBI 350 of the same year.

I did see those numbers, but I guess I assumed the J code was not in squares back in 1987, perhaps I was wrong and I shorted it 5 HP up to 84 and a whopping 17 HP for 85 plus. :woot:
Click to expand...
The year for year comparison is lacking a little in HP, but the HP and torque are lower on the RPM band and more comparable for normal street driving and towing than peek numbers. HP junkies will never be happy with either of those stock options though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom