diesels?

[83' k5]

I have an 83 k5 that i am basically redoing the whole thing and i was thinking about either putting a 454 in it or maybe a 6.2 diesel. i will probably end up with 40" iroks. I am new to the whole scene and i am still young so i have a lot to learn. so if i say something stupid please excuse me.

 

[sled_dog]

what do you want to do with it?

6.2 vs 454 is two very different things.

6.2L:
Pros:
-Mileage
-Low rpm torque peak
Cons:
-power, stock form is less power than a 350...
-cost to build

454:
Pros:
-POWER
-good torque
Cons:
-mileage
-cost to build

 

[tRustyK5]

Daily driver and mileage matters...6.2

Rock crawler...6.2 or the 454 if it's injected ($$)

Mud warrior...454

They're both very good at what they do, but they both 'do' very different things.

Rene

 

[trailblazr81]

I would go 454... Unless you turbo the 6.2 Banks is a great place to get Diesel performance parts.

You could build a 383 to have good torque and HP to spin the 40" Iroks and have less weight than a 454. Probly be cheaper too.

 

[sled_dog]

Big Blocks have come a long way but you could definetally build a 383 cheaper than a Big Block unless you luck into cheap parts.

 

[TX_GLADIATOR]

Bb

FOR ME POWER I RUN THE BB IN MY RIG. BUT MY DD IS A DEISLE

 

[rjfguitar]

I'd build a turbo'd 6.2 if it was me, but I would try and stay away from banks. I don't like Banks.

There is an article in Diesel Power magazine last quarter all about building up a turbo'd 6.2.

 

[rjfguitar]

I would go 454... Unless you turbo the 6.2 Banks is a great place to get Diesel performance parts.

Not really, unless you like paying too much for so so overpriced kits. The thing with Banks is you pay for the name.

 

[colbystephens]

sorry for the hijack, but rjfguitar - can you expand on your reasons for not liking banks?i can appreciate not wanting to pay for a name, but what else turns you off to them?

 

[trailblazr81]

Not really, unless you like paying too much for so so overpriced kits. The thing with Banks is you pay for the name.

I was mainly using Banks because it is a rather well known n popular company that sells performance parts for diesel's. I know with Edelbrock you pay alot for the name as well but I have bought their manifolds, carbs, heads, and cams in the past.

 

[beastofablaze]

The torque of a turboed 6.2 would be about the same as a cammed 454 with a manifold and a good carb... but the bb would have the 6.2 beat for hp hands down.

As far as rock crawling goes... well lets just say not all courses are the same... some you need as much speed as you can to get to the top of a slick rock. simply having low end tq and almost no top end doesn't mean it'll be better. Just because it's a diesel doesn't mean it automatically has more tq.

 

[sled_dog]

The torque of a turboed 6.2 would be about the same as a cammed 454 with a manifold and a good carb... but the bb would have the 6.2 beat for hp hands down.

I don't agree with that at all. I don't think a 6.2L unless done up big time(like none I've ever seen), would match a cammed 454 on torque. Stock 6.2L is like 257ft lbs of torque, its just low in the RPMs. The recent Diesel Power article was very VERY vague about the actual power output they got with the turbo 6.2L. What I can find the 6.5L is about 389ft-lbs. stock. Mild 454s are known to make 500ft lbs of torque.

 

[colbystephens]

certainly there is a difference between 500ft lbs of torque and almost 400 - however, 400 is a he!! of a lot of torque, and i think that amount could easily accomplish what ever could be thrown at a blazer. i think figuring out the priorities for how the truck will be used is important. certainly there's a place where diesels just wont handle it, and there's situations where diesels would be preferred. figuring out how the truck will be used is a great way to save money, hassle and time, and in the end i think will produce a vehicle that is more satisfying.

 

[tRustyK5]

One of the 4x4 rags did the 6.2 buildup with the banks kit. End dyno numbers at the rear wheels was 175 hp and 451 lbs of torque. This was in a K5 with a 700R4...behind a manual tranny those numbers would be higher. Those are damn respectable numbers in my book.

That particular 6.2 was not rebuilt before the test either...although it must have been in reasonable shape before they started.

The governed limit on a 6.2 is a respectable 3600 rpm so it's not all 'low end'.

Rene

 

[rjfguitar]

sorry for the hijack, but rjfguitar - can you expand on your reasons for not liking banks?i can appreciate not wanting to pay for a name, but what else turns you off to them?

Well, I have never had a lot of interest in the 6.2, but I think there was some discussion i nthe diesel forum by Agdieseler about ways to turbo the 6.2 without using the banks kit. Unfortunately, banks is basically the only company that makes a strait forward kit for the rather neglected 6.2. Which I can't say I don't like their 6.2 kit, it seems to work fine.

As far as Banks with late model trucks like mine (2001 Ram Cummins) they advertise and have the attitude they are the best in the business when there are other companies that build better black boxes that are more aggressive, deliver more power, are more efficient, and are cheaper to boot. Most of their products are outdone by other competitors.

I was mainly using Banks because it is a rather well known n popular company that sells performance parts for diesel's. I know with Edelbrock you pay alot for the name as well but I have bought their manifolds, carbs, heads, and cams in the past.

Edelbrock actually offers competive products against someone like Holley, and they aren't more expensive than most of their competiters, if not are pretty good on price.

Banks is way overpriced for parts that can't compete with their competition. They build a truck with parts they don't even sell (project Sidewinder ring a bell?)that breaks a record at the salt flats and they advertise the living crap 'outa the thing so people will think "they have the fastest diesel truck, they must be the best!" I can't blame them, their advertising department is definantly earning their pay, but I don't the the designers of their products are. They are like K&N, HUGE name all over the place in motorsports, are overpriced, and deliver so so performance.

Ed

 

[rjfguitar]

I don't agree with that at all. I don't think a 6.2L unless done up big time(like none I've ever seen), would match a cammed 454 on torque. Stock 6.2L is like 257ft lbs of torque, its just low in the RPMs. The recent Diesel Power article was very VERY vague about the actual power output they got with the turbo 6.2L. What I can find the 6.5L is about 389ft-lbs. stock. Mild 454s are known to make 500ft lbs of torque.

I just read the article myself over again a few hours ago. Yeah, they don't really flat out say what it pulled on the dyno.

I'd have to agree that a mild 454 easily makes what a turbo'd 6.2 does, but it uses twice the fuel also.

certainly there is a difference between 500ft lbs of torque and almost 400 - however, 400 is a he!! of a lot of torque, and i think that amount could easily accomplish what ever could be thrown at a blazer.

I kind of disagree. I have a mild 406SBC that is making about 300HP and 400ft lbs at the flywheel(what it pulled on the rollers + 30% added from drivetrain loss) and I have found myself using near all of it in a few long mud runs where it was fairly thick and deep. I have 35x16 boggers. If I was running anything larger (like a 38") I'd be looking at some nitrous kits or a larger cam and heads.

It's pretty easy to use up near all of that 400ft lbs when you like to play in "skinng pedal friendly" types of wheeling like mud and sand.

 

[colbystephens]

yeah - i should have qualified my statement. i was thinking grunt - not high horse power situations - besides, check out my sig.

 

[rjfguitar]

yeah - i should have qualified my statement. i was thinking grunt - not high horse power situations - besides, check out my sig.

For the most part, I agree. The only thing I was thinking would be that a turbo'd diesel would be a little interesting trying to finess the throttle. Soon as the rpm's started to build the turbo would spool and you'd get a rush of power.

I don't know though, never wheeled a turbo diesel before.

 

[tRustyK5]

Assuming the same 30% drivtrain loss (this truck had a doubler behind a 700r-4) the banks 6.2 puts out 223 hp and 586 lbs of torque at the flywheel...

Assuming drivetrain losses of 20% it'd still be 206 hp and 541 lbs of torque at the flywheel...

Rene

 

[colbystephens]

Assuming the same 30% drivtrain loss (this truck had a doubler behind a 700r-4) the banks 6.2 puts out 223 hp and 586 lbs of torque at the flywheel...

Assuming drivetrain losses of 20% it'd still be 206 hp and 541 lbs of torque at the flywheel...

Rene

that's pretty freakin impressive! i'd love to see those numbers on my rig someday!

rjfguitar - from what most the guys are saying on the diesel board, it's difficult to get the turbo to spool up during crawling because it needs a load to produce the boost. don't know how much that figure into your statement. i'm not familiar with turbos yet.