The1980BEAST
1/2 ton status
Looking at a 84 K30 CC on CL it has a 6.2L Diesel. Is that a turbo diesel?
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.
Question about 6.2L in a K30
- Thread starter The1980BEAST
- Start date
In a word: no. GM didn't turbo the 6.2 until the 90's.
The1980BEAST
1/2 ton status
Does that mean it's gonna be a slug?
Pretty much.
I don't know why people say that.
I drove quite a few CC with a diesel 6.2 and none was a slug.
I have on now that I am trying to get running, and I have a few 6.2 engines waiting to go in every vehicle I have including my Jeep wagoneer.
There was never a factory turbo 6.2, but there was a GM certified dealer installed option which consisted of a Banks turbo for a few years in the early 90's.
The power of the 6.2 is all relative to what you are comparing it to. Put it up against the other engine options in '84 and it had comparable power with much better fuel mileage. Compare it to a Duramax or 300 hp 6.0L gas and it is a slug.
The one thing I always say in regards to some people's opinion on the 6.2 is that many of those have never driven a 6.2 truck, or never driven a properly maintained and good running 6.2. Can't count the number of 6.2 trucks I have seen personally with 150k hard miles on the odometer and half plugged fuel filters that obviously run crappy with the guy saying it only runs crappy because it's a 6.2.
The power of the 6.2 is all relative to what you are comparing it to. Put it up against the other engine options in '84 and it had comparable power with much better fuel mileage. Compare it to a Duramax or 300 hp 6.0L gas and it is a slug.
The one thing I always say in regards to some people's opinion on the 6.2 is that many of those have never driven a 6.2 truck, or never driven a properly maintained and good running 6.2. Can't count the number of 6.2 trucks I have seen personally with 150k hard miles on the odometer and half plugged fuel filters that obviously run crappy with the guy saying it only runs crappy because it's a 6.2.
...or 3.08 geared half tons and guys wonder why they're so slow...
...must be because it's a diesel!
...must be because it's a diesel!
gt1009
1/2 ton status
It obviously won't be as fast as a new duramax or even a 90's 6.5 with the turbo, but I have owned K5's with the 6.2 and a 350 and driven suburbans with the 350 from 90 and a vortec from 98, and honestly the 6.2 drives just as well as the 350 trucks, but gets about twice the gas mileage. You just can't really expect any squarebody to be "fast" unless you have a hot V8 in it. I can't really speak of the crew cab, but if you properly maintain the 6.2 it should be just as good as a gasser.
The 6.5 can be made into something that competes with stock Duramaxes, and from what I have learned, the 6.2 can do better than that.
Linky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17YQ71mxAGE&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.thedieselpage.com/finale.htm
Linky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17YQ71mxAGE&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.thedieselpage.com/finale.htm
Last edited:
chulisohombre
1/2 ton status
the 6.2 is twice as reliable and has better fuel mileage than the 350 that it was up against.if taken care of and is kept up mechanically,it will last way longer than a gasser also.anything that came with 3.08 gearing pretty much is a slug if you up tire size anywhere more than stock.its all about how much money you wan to put into the engine,same as a gas engine.banks makes a good turbo/ intercooler kit that can up the power substansially.
quinryan
Registered Member
The 6.2 was not designed for speed or performance. GM (and Detroit Diesel) were seeking a clean-sheet designed oil-burner to replace the boat anchor converted Olds 5.7. They also wanted an engine with some fuel economy, especially as compared to the SBC gas engines. This they got.
I'd offer that the 6.2 has about the same performance (for want of a better word) as did the 305s. Naturally, the 6.2's best power (YMMV) is found at tip in, whereas with the 305 you need to be a little deeper into the tank before it starts making any power.
If you can find a turbo for it (Banks "Sidewinder" or GM OEM equivalent), the difference is HUGE. They're out there and worth the trouble.
I'd offer that the 6.2 has about the same performance (for want of a better word) as did the 305s. Naturally, the 6.2's best power (YMMV) is found at tip in, whereas with the 305 you need to be a little deeper into the tank before it starts making any power.
If you can find a turbo for it (Banks "Sidewinder" or GM OEM equivalent), the difference is HUGE. They're out there and worth the trouble.
bailey9r
1/2 ton status
I really don't know how that happened...hey nice song with a catchy little tune, now back yo the 6.2...
http://www.thedieselpage.com/finale.htm
Go for it. My K5 is a 6.2 and so is my suburban. I have the banks kit on my burb, and a pieced together 6.5 on the blazer. They are easy to turbo, and great motors. Don't listen to the nay saying about their reliability. We use them in our humvees, and after three tours in the hottest, ****tiest countries in the world, they have never failed me. Even when I have treated them like red headed step children. They are great motors, no duramax, but they also don't carry that price tag.
