Diesel Jimmy?? how are they

[Disciples Performance]

hey guys my friend is lookin a buying a 1986 Full Size Jimmy 4x4 now its got the 6.2 diesel in it now how are those engines gutt less? or what its just stock right now but he would more then likely swap 3/4 suspension and what not into it so just let me know thanx

Nick

 

[1-tonmudder]

They are a commuter engine,not intended for any real work(at least not any I seen).If you are wanting it to pull much of a trailer with you are wasting your time.I have seen them with a 700R4 and 308 gears before.

 

[Disciples Performance]

well this one would not really be bagged on he doesnt really know how to 4x4 lol but he wants something to go camping in so would it be an alright platform for that?

 

[1-tonmudder]

yeah it should be fine for that.A diesel motor is as good as or better than a FI gas motor for dependability as they are almost all mechanical and not very electrical like a FI motor.

 

[Russell]

As mentioned, they can be awesome for a daily driver. They get good milage, and many people compare the acceleration to be similar to that of a mid 80's stock 350.

Definitely not for a race car, nor is it designed to be towing large loads. Its a light duty commuter type engine.

 

[RootBreaker]

I was going to convert mine to the 6.2 turbo diesel until I saw the numbers.. then figured alot of $$$$$ to get it moving...

estimated numbers as I dont remember exacts...
non turbo
135hp/295lb ft torque

turbo'd
155hp/320lb ft torque

that was enough for me to change my mind....

 

[grimjaw]

GM states for the 85-88 6.2L 155HP and 250TQ. The Banks Sidewinder Turbo kits adds +60 hp and +115 lb-ft torque. Then there is turning up the IP and/or propane injection.

Stock they leave you wanting.

 

[NYDIESELDAVE]

Well, I have a 6.2 in my Jimmy and this is what I would say. The truck is not really made to haul heavy loads, nor does it have alot of power stock. With that said, I get awsome mileage, super reliable, great on inclines, pretty simple engine. I like the compact package of the Jimmy which is nice and you can tune the engine to make some realy nice power. You can also pretty much direct swap in a 6.5 NA. Just need to make a few changes.

 

[colbystephens]

just for the record, i've seen dyno specs on an old tired 6.2 w/ a turbo putting out 200hp and 500lbs tq. i really dig my 6.2 - doesn't feel gutless, but definitely not a racecar. i suppose my sig gives away my bias.

 

[tRustyK5]

I was going to convert mine to the 6.2 turbo diesel until I saw the numbers.. then figured alot of $$$$$ to get it moving...

estimated numbers as I dont remember exacts...
non turbo
135hp/295lb ft torque

turbo'd
155hp/320lb ft torque

that was enough for me to change my mind....

Those numbers are pretty far off...

Peterson's did a Banks kit on a 6.2 with several chassis dyno pulls along the way. After having the injectors rebuilt as well as the injector pump, adding a 'J' code intake and decent exhaust it put down 135 hp and 340 lbs of torque to the rear wheels. With the turbo it put down 172 hp and 451 lbs of torque at the rear wheels.

The 6.2's biggest downfall IMO hasn't got anything to do with the motor at all. It's the horrible factory gearing...with decent gears they get up and get moving just fine.

Rene

 

[NYDIESELDAVE]

Those numbers are pretty far off...

Peterson's did a Banks kit on a 6.2 with several chassis dyno pulls along the way. After having the injectors rebuilt as well as the injector pump, adding a 'J' code intake and decent exhaust it put down 135 hp and 340 lbs of torque to the rear wheels. With the turbo it put down 172 hp and 451 lbs of torque at the rear wheels.

The 6.2's biggest downfall IMO hasn't got anything to do with the motor at all. It's the horrible factory gearing...with decent gears they get up and get moving just fine.

Rene

I agree gearing plays a huge part. I changed mine and I felt like I had rebuild the engine also. It had alot more get up and go. Also, running good fuel will make a big difference. If you can get off-road diesel fuel; you can definintely feel a difference IMO. Just don't get caught doing it.

 

[dyeager535]

The 6.2's biggest downfall IMO hasn't got anything to do with the motor at all. It's the horrible factory gearing...with decent gears they get up and get moving just fine.

The ones I've driven (all TH400's) I noticed that even with the crummy 3.08 gearing, the transmission shifts way too soon. I'm not sure if all the 6.2 trucks with autos were this way or not, but I found that it felt much better acceleration-wise manually shifting it a bit later than stock. The difference was actually night and day to me. Not that it was a screamer either way, just got it moving a lot better.

Of course, with a manual, this would be much less of an issue.

 

[steve_kibbe]

You can adjust when the tranny shifts

I had a 83 3/4 diesel with a 4 speed, 33" tires, and 4.10 gears, it wasn't fast, but I could get it moving pretty quick. I also had the chance to drive a cucv with 4.56's and 30-31" tires, it accelerates pretty quick, but you're wide open at 55mph

My truck averaged 17 mpg, and driving the cucv for 560 miles @ 55mph, I got 17 mpg aswell, and it has a flat bed on it.

I wish my 88 blazer had a 6.2 in it with the 700r4. If it had 3.08's or 3.42's, I'd swap them out for 4.10's and still get 20mpg.

 

[grimjaw]

I also had the chance to drive a cucv with 4.56's and 30-31" tires, it accelerates pretty quick, but you're wide open at 55mph

My truck averaged 17 mpg, and driving the cucv for 560 miles @ 55mph, I got 17 mpg aswell, and it has a flat bed on it.

Thats good to know.... An OD trany and 37" tires will fix that.