CK5 Network
Become a member of the largest online community for Chevy K5 Blazer, Suburban and C/K series truck owners!

PAD - Photo-A-Day

ZooMad75

#crawlabago
Premium Member
GMOTM Winner
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Posts
7,294
Reaction score
15,185
Location
Pueblo, CO
I agree. Underpowered & obsolete? Yeah, the platform is long in the tooth after 40 years. But it doesn't deserve the rest of the bad rap that it gets. It's actually pretty good compared to the other malaise-era smog engines. That era set the bar pretty low... :doah: :rolleyes:
Keep drinking the Kool aid. If you are comparing to an olds 350 diesel sure, a 6.2 is better. Beyond that the possibility of crank failure is a known problem that many on this site have been bit by. The reputation is well earned by failure. The 6.5 improved the mechanical issues to get saddled with a crappy failure prone computer controlled injection pump. It did not make the reputation better.
 

obijuank5

3/4 ton status
Premium Member
GMOTM Winner
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Posts
6,753
Solutions
1
Reaction score
18,207
Location
Central Texas

fourwheelerjeff

Jeff's Offroad Emporium
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 16, 2001
Posts
4,838
Reaction score
2,264
Location
somewhere in Texas
Hey I remember the Alamo!

From that first picture, if you turn around 180 you'll see a monument with Andrew Kent engraved in the list of names. That is my Alamo defendant family member.

Kent is a lot easier to say than your last name
this is what I look like when I say it
1637966245030.png
 

bigjbear

1 ton status
Staff member
Moderator
GMOTM Winner
Joined
Feb 18, 2000
Posts
16,717
Reaction score
8,148
Location
Marietta GA
Hey I remember the Alamo!

From that first picture, if you turn around 180 you'll see a monument with Andrew Kent engraved in the list of names. That is my Alamo defendant family member.
That is an impressive monument.
 

sweetk30

I build stuff
Premium Member
GMOTM Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Posts
37,906
Reaction score
15,410
Location
horsenads , ny 14845
Oooooooh this looks good.

Intended on putting the two inch torsion keys in this truck today, but it was too cold.

Went ahead and put the jack under it to see how it would look two inches higher, and damn, I like.

View attachment 396515
Hope you got longer shocks or taller brackets . And they ride stiffer after keys as your just winding the bar tighter .
 

The Griff

1/2 ton status
Premium Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Posts
4,048
Reaction score
5,628
Location
Fieldon Illinois
Hope you got longer shocks or taller brackets . And they ride stiffer after keys as your just winding the bar tighter .
Yes, longer shocks.

And this truck actually needs to ride a little stiffer in the front, when I go over something like train tracks or an expansion joint the front floats like a Cadillac, and then the rear hits it like a normal 3/4 ton truck.

Compared to my 2500 non-hd truck on 245s, the nose of the 2500hd on 285s actually sat almost a solid inch lower to the ground, even before the heavy bumper went on.
 

campfire

Adventure is out there!
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Posts
25,483
Reaction score
14,840
Location
Northwoods Wisconsin / da U.P.
Keep drinking the Kool aid. If you are comparing to an olds 350 diesel sure, a 6.2 is better. Beyond that the possibility of crank failure is a known problem that many on this site have been bit by. The reputation is well earned by failure. The 6.5 improved the mechanical issues to get saddled with a crappy failure prone computer controlled injection pump. It did not make the reputation better.

I didn't say it was better, I said it was good relative to other engines of that miserable era.

I'm comparing it to failed fiber timing gears, carburetors that need regular tuning, annual smog testing, burned-out points, cracked distributor caps, restrictive intake & exhaust systems, plugged catalytic converters, peanut port heads, coolant-leaking intake gaskets, annoying air injection systems, endless vacuum leaks, adjusting valve lash, etc.

The 6.2 managed to solve or avoid all of these problems that affected the SBC and other engines of that early smog era. It's not an especially bad engine, when seen in the context of the other junk on the road during that time. When normal engines are miserable, even a mediocre engine doesn't seem so bad...
 

ZooMad75

#crawlabago
Premium Member
GMOTM Winner
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Posts
7,294
Reaction score
15,185
Location
Pueblo, CO
I didn't say it was better, I said it was good relative to other engines of that miserable era.

I'm comparing it to failed fiber timing gears, carburetors that need regular tuning, annual smog testing, burned-out points, cracked distributor caps, restrictive intake & exhaust systems, plugged catalytic converters, peanut port heads, coolant-leaking intake gaskets, annoying air injection systems, endless vacuum leaks, adjusting valve lash, etc.

The 6.2 managed to solve or avoid all of these problems that affected the SBC and other engines of that early smog era. It's not an especially bad engine, when seen in the context of the other junk on the road during that time. When normal engines are miserable, even a mediocre engine doesn't seem so bad...
I got to give you credit for the commitment to the platform. But let's be realistic. Had the feds not forced the emissions requirements on the OEMS some of the problems relating to the emissions systems some of those issues wouldn't have been. Some were beancounter cheapness like the fiber timing gears. A lot of the problems got better when fuel injection came on and computer controls got the engines running clean enough AIR injection, EGR and miles of vacuum lines were no longer required.

Even with all those issues, you didn't see ANY small blocks, 267, 305 or 350's snapping crankshafts like the 6.2 does. Nor do you see any stock 80's small blocks cracking blocks around the main bearing journals like so many 6.2's did. My Dad drove a bone stock '79 El Camino with a factory 267 small block topped by a Rochester duojet carb for 25+ years. He changed the oil and regular maintenance and the sucker started every time, cold or hot. Yes, it was gutless but it was mated to a just as impressively wimpy rear axle ratio due to the lack of OD. It never failed. He never touched the rockers as they never fell out of adjustment. It just ran. We had 4 other G-body Malibus from a wagon and 3 2-door coupes with 305's. Same story. We never had to open one up. I beat on the 4-speed 2-dr like a stupid teenager because I was. Point being, not all of them were junk.

We can agree the performance of anything in the '80s was weak. But you also didn't see folks swapping in 6.2's into other vehicles. You did see folks swapping in Small blocks to replace broken 6.2's.
 

Bent77

lil meanie
Staff member
Moderator
GMOTM Winner
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Posts
37,035
Reaction score
53,943
Location
SoCo
I got to give you credit for the commitment to the platform. But let's be realistic. Had the feds not forced the emissions requirements on the OEMS some of the problems relating to the emissions systems some of those issues wouldn't have been. Some were beancounter cheapness like the fiber timing gears. A lot of the problems got better when fuel injection came on and computer controls got the engines running clean enough AIR injection, EGR and miles of vacuum lines were no longer required.

Even with all those issues, you didn't see ANY small blocks, 267, 305 or 350's snapping crankshafts like the 6.2 does. Nor do you see any stock 80's small blocks cracking blocks around the main bearing journals like so many 6.2's did. My Dad drove a bone stock '79 El Camino with a factory 267 small block topped by a Rochester duojet carb for 25+ years. He changed the oil and regular maintenance and the sucker started every time, cold or hot. Yes, it was gutless but it was mated to a just as impressively wimpy rear axle ratio due to the lack of OD. It never failed. He never touched the rockers as they never fell out of adjustment. It just ran. We had 4 other G-body Malibus from a wagon and 3 2-door coupes with 305's. Same story. We never had to open one up. I beat on the 4-speed 2-dr like a stupid teenager because I was. Point being, not all of them were junk.

We can agree the performance of anything in the '80s was weak. But you also didn't see folks swapping in 6.2's into other vehicles. You did see folks swapping in Small blocks to replace broken 6.2's.
I worked on a shit ton of fleet vehicles for a period. Smog era SBC and BBC trucks, 6.9 idi navistars, 7.3s of each variation, 6.5s, 6.0 fords

by far the most reliable were the Chevy gas engines. None of the complaints listed above were ever addressed. Didn’t need to

all the 6.2L diesels I’ve ever seen personally broke the crank. (David’s as the only exception) I think I count 8

After that the biggest piece of crap was the 6.5, then the 6.0L Ford diesel

the 6.9/7.3 idi engines were light years better than any GM diesel of that era. The one that had to get fixed, we melted it forcing air into it without an intercooler. Any of those trucks made more miles than the 6.5 trucks and 6.2 trucks combined

In terms of maintaining the valves and carburetors, they took less time to service than the fuel system and glow plugs
 

shady

1 ton status
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Posts
13,181
Reaction score
10,841
Location
iowa
My granddaughter is definitely following in grandpa's foot steps... She doesn't like the stuffed animals, fancy girly flew flew chit, etc. She wants cars and trucks, then immediately flips them over and plays with the tires and such like she's working on it :haha: :waytogo:

IMG_20211127_090247909.jpg
 

Bent77

lil meanie
Staff member
Moderator
GMOTM Winner
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Posts
37,035
Reaction score
53,943
Location
SoCo
I wonder what the 6.2l legacy would have been if GM hadn't cheaped out and stuck with the forged crank that Detroit originally spec'ed...
Well the other issue was the 22:1 CR. They also broke blocks. By comparison, the 6.9 Navistar engines were 15:1. I think if GM had gone forged at 18:1 or less, this would never have been a topic. And those 6.2 engines were more efficient than the 6.9, so yeah
 
Top Bottom