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.

It's time for opinionated replies. It's open to all responses. Gas or diesel?

i can understand that but it doesn't say what the torque is at 1600 for the mpfi... i would bet its still more than 380.

the TD 6.5 didn't do any better than the TBI 454.

made 5 ft lbs less than the 454 at 100 more rpm than the 454.

i don't see why gm would give false ratings... there are plenty of mods that would affect torque and not hp....

I don't want to argue but it seems like nobody has brought any of this up.

just my two cents x 2

if anybody is gonna start pissing and moaning about how diesels are better do it at my email...

[email protected]

im not saying that all gas are better just the bbc during those 10 years.
 
I dont really know how to compare the two. But, for such "similiar" performance numbers, in "real world" usage, the diesel will be better, especially after the usage of the turbo.

Altitude increase kills NA motors. (refer to Steve's MPFI Burb and the lack luster hill climbing performance at altitude). If the BBC had a turbo, things would be a little different. :xmas:

The other thing is, (and I dont have) is that one might have a flatter torque rating... but I dunno...
 
keep in mind that was the diesels best year... the 454 carb, tbi, or mpfi has all chevy diesels beat 88-98on the dyno and does it at a lower rpm with 50 to 100 more hp... some like the td 6.5 would be better for general towing but would get killed by the bbc on highway hills because of the extra hp. the 6.2 best year only made 280 tq at peak and 155 hp. in my opinion the 6.2 is obsolete... the 6.5 is better but i would take a modded tbi 454 any day as long as it was mated to an sm465 or built 700 for the low 1st gear. otherwise i would go with a 97(380 ft lbs 190 hp naturally aspirated) 6.5 and put a turbo on it but once your spending that much money for a turbo its gets pointless...you mide as well buy a new cummins. if you turboed the bbc it would be right there with the diesel with but loads more hp. off idle torque is the only place the diesel prevails and the sm465 can solve that problem.
 
Gm has given plenty of false ratings. Rene has dyno results of a stock C-code 6.2 putting down over 300 ft/lbs at the rear wheels, yet GM claims for that year it made 240 at the flywheel. Every manufacturer has given false and skewed ratings, both overrating and underrating. Like i said, the real world is a lot different than your "manual". Im done with this thread, because you probobally still wont get it.
 
Let's let this hi-jack die. Suffice it to say reality versus published ratings is very different. I'll just add that unless you chassis dyno two identically spec'd trucks then there really isn't any point discussing the differences.

Rene
 
How is this a hijack? the post is called gas or diesel...

I have no clue why gm would post crap like that but regardless a big block will lay down 300 or more at the rw.
 
Last edited:
sucks2.jpg



oh wait i have a better idea

dirtwarrior17 This user is on your Ignore List.
Click to expand...


aahhhh the silence is so refreashing.
 
dirtwarrior17 said:
Really the only thing that those years of diesels have over the bbc is getting the load moving from a complete stop, longer life, and gas mileage..
Click to expand...

And what, exactly, is so bad about that? Am I totally missing the boat here, or are they precisely the attributes we all want in a truck engine?!


Oh, by the way... Don't forget about far better compression braking from a diesel, and the ability to produce your own fuel for cheap/free.
 
They don't stink from the drivers seat...and I find not having to deal with a carb or ignition to be so much less hassle. :) Spending half as much on fuel is also less hassle...:D

Rene
 
If he is set on a dies I'd say nothing short of a 96 or 97 6.5 or any of the 6.5 as long as they are turboed. the 96 and 97 made as much NA as the factory TD did back in 93. a turboed 6.2 wouldn't be too bad but why not go 6.5?
 
Last edited:
Because the turbo setup on the 6.5's is a less efficient design and generates less power, plus it has the electronically controlled IP which was a dissaster, and that didnt get cleared up until ~98. It can be easily fixed, but you still need to deal with the electronics. Overall a turbo'd 6.2 would generate more power, be more reliable, and purely mechanical making installation and maintinence a lot easier.
 
Thunder said:
Diesels stink........ Aint worth the hassle............. And thats all i got to say about that
Click to expand...

Diesel fuel smells good. But I also think 36 year old 90w gear lube smells good, too. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom