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.

Should I swap to a 6.2/6.5?

How do you carry 100 extra gallons of gas?

Also, the 40-gallon Suburban tank doesn't fit in a K5. It will be above the axle or stick through the rear bumper.
 
Yep, trailer. Made some mounts to secure a semi-truck tank to the trailer. Hardest part was setting it up with a fuel filter. It's fairly ghetto....big surprise from me I know, but safe (as far as I'm concerned) and works.

If I can find some stencils, I intend to mark the tank "Exxon Valdez II". I'm sure it looks safe going down the road with that tank, a 75G water tank, 5+ 20lb propane cylinders, and the CO2 tank.
 
dyeager535 said:
I normally head up to the mountains for ~10 days, each day is probably spent gaining 5-10000ft, no idea on mileage, it varies. But under those conditions I'm lucky to see 10MPG all day. As it is, with the 100 gallon spare tank I've got plenty, but that's now because I'm the only one running gas. When more rigs ran gas, it was just about right. As it is now, all the diesel guys have to run back out at least once to fill up. Depending on conditions, it is a run you might not want to do if you had a choice.
Click to expand...

If 100 gallons was plenty for the crew, why not carry 100 gallons of diesel and throw a smaller gas tank in for your own rig? Then everyone is happy, right?



dyeager535 said:
But this is just shop talk now, it's pretty obvious the 6.2 is not a wonder motor. The 4BT is quite tempting (30MPG? 900 mile range?? drool) , but I think that opens up another can of worms that begins to approach the "just forget the idea" zone.
Click to expand...

The 6.2 is a wonder motor, for certain things and purposes. For my purpose of on-road expeditions, I wouldn't be willing to own a sub-20MPG truck. I also think you would be happy if one magically appeared in your truck. I just think that it's not worth swapping out an operational small block unless you really are looking for overall efficiency or low-end torque. The gains for your application probably won't justify the effort.



dyeager535 said:
I suppose if the right one fell in my lap I'd be inclined to take it. All my emotional attachment can be unbolted.
Click to expand...

This is sig-worthy! :thumb:
 
Russell said:
Actually, it is a Detroit diesel engine. GM didn't make them.
Click to expand...

It is not a Detroit Diesel. It was not made by Detroit, and Detroit does not claim it, nor offer any parts for them.

I use to think it was a Detroit when I was younger before I worked for Detroit. It is not a Detroit engine, GM sold Detroit off in 1987, and continued to sell them. They are not a Detroit engine.

Detroit had a small part in the original design and production. That means nothing. Early 60 Series Detroit Diesels were cast by John Deere, they have JDFW (John Deere Foundry Works) cast all over them. A Series 60 is not a John Deere engine.

John Deere has also cast blocks for GM.

dremu said:
I think what Martin means, in his typical excessively wordy style :haha: is that it's not a "real" Detroit Diesel in his mind.

-- A
Click to expand...

Nope, I meant what I said. It is kind of a pet peeve of mine.

Martin
 
I think you are geared too high to see good MPG/range with the 6.2/6.5L family off-road. It would do well on the road though.

My '79 K10 with 6.2L/SM465/NP205/10b/14SF/285-75-16 tires and 4.10 gears would run 3-4 days on one 20 gallon tank wheeling in Naches. Way better than the stock carbed 350 that made it about a day on the same tank.
 
kennyw said:
I think you are geared too high to see good MPG/range with the 6.2/6.5L family off-road. It would do well on the road though.

My '79 K10 with 6.2L/SM465/NP205/10b/14SF/285-75-16 tires and 4.10 gears would run 3-4 days on one 20 gallon tank wheeling in Naches. Way better than the stock carbed 350 that made it about a day on the same tank.
Click to expand...

Too high? Why would you want lower gears with a 2200RPM cruising speed? That's already excessively fast for a 6.2... :dunno:
 
campfire said:
Too high? Why would you want lower gears with a 2200RPM cruising speed? That's already excessively fast for a 6.2... :dunno:
Click to expand...
I'm talking about lack of power hurting the offroad performance, thus hurting range offroad. 3.42s are good for high speed cruising, not climbing steep hills in the mountains.
 
That was long before the 60 came around.

But if a guy was dedicated enough with a torch and welder you could put a Series50 in a pickup I'm sure of it.
 
Add a few years to that for development. I know when the release dates are for those engines. I spent five years with Detroit. The 60 practically built my kids college fund. MTU and 149s bought me my first house.
 
I worked for Interstate Power Systems for three years, so I know what you mean. We didn't see many two strokes though. No oil fields here. The majority of the business was over the road. I was the only field service guy the branch had when I was there, and most of my work was back up power generators.

Martin
 
Waterous Power Systems. Field service. I did everything. There was between three and five of us. I got 50% power generation. 50% oilfield. 50% OTR. 1% ag.

Worked on an industrial MBE in a barn once. In some sort of silage chopping machine. That was enough of that for a career right then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom