Towing with a 6.2?

[camok5]

So I have been looking for a cheap tow vehicle lately and have found plenty of 454 rigs but was woundering how a 6.2 would do. It would be nice for the gas mileage and I could always put a turbo on it for more power? Here is one I might look at. Is it a waste of time and money to try and make a 6.2 tow a blazer on a trailer and maybe put a camper on the back?

http://www.tradeexpress.com/details.aspx?adnum=581981

 

[noahrob]

Depending on the tow configuration, frequency, and how far you plan to go, it might make more sense to pursue a two wheel drive gasser dully. If you want a diesel, which I do, a two wheel drive for tow but would be awesome, but a 4x4 with more than 6L would help.

 

[camok5]

Yeah I have seen tons of 2wd 454 trucks but was hoping to find something that gets a little better gas mileage because it might become my daily driver.

 

[tRustyK5]

So I have been looking for a cheap tow vehicle lately and have found plenty of 454 rigs but was woundering how a 6.2 would do. It would be nice for the gas mileage and I could always put a turbo on it for more power? Here is one I might look at. Is it a waste of time and money to try and make a 6.2 tow a blazer on a trailer and maybe put a camper on the back?

http://www.tradeexpress.com/details.aspx?adnum=581981

So you're hoping to add 1500 lbs of camper and 7-8000 lbs of K5 and trailer to a 6500 lb truck with a 6.2...and hope it'll tow OK? Don't get me wrong, I really like the 6.2 (i have two of em) but I'd never recomend one for towing like that. Even turbo'd it'd still be a complete dog with that load. As for mileage when empty, that combo of tranny, truck and gearing is not gonna get you more than 16 max.

I'd spend a few more $$ and get an older CTD Dodge. It'll tow that load much better and get better mileage empty.

Rene

 

[Rob 85K5]

It took me about 2-3 years to find a 2wd Crew with a 6.2 to dd and tow occasionally.
With 4.10 gears and 285/65 tires, I only fill it up once a month, 40 Gallons.
I have pulled a 7k lb enclosed trailer around without problems. If you're not in a hurry, I don't see why the 6.2 won't work for pulling the Blazer, but adding a camper might be pushing it.

 

[camok5]

Yeah I guess they were just high hopes making that engine work for what I want. I most likely will end up getting a truck with a 454 in it because they can be found cheap. What year CTD Dodge's should I look for that could handle towing and a camper on back?

 

[1-tonmudder]

I agree on the older CTD,and you might want to consider a Ford with the 7.3 Power stroke engine.I have a 96 crew cab 2wd F-350 with the PSD and it gets around 18mpg and is my DD.

 

[MaxPF]

Yeah I guess they were just high hopes making that engine work for what I want. I most likely will end up getting a truck with a 454 in it because they can be found cheap. What year CTD Dodge's should I look for that could handle towing and a camper on back?

The later the better. The first year for the CTD in the Dodge was 1989. From 1989 through 1993 the engines were rated for 160HP @ 2500RPM and 400lb/ft torque @ 1700RPM. As a comparison my 1991 6.2 out of a 1-ton was rated at 165HP @ 3500RPM and 285lb/ft @ 2000RPM. Yup, the late NA 6.2's actually had a tad more HP than the same year Cummins It makes it at a higher RPM and has less torque, so if the trucks are geared the same the Cummins will walk away from the 6.2 (this was typically the case). In 1994 the manual tranny equipped Dodge Cummins got bumped up to 175HP @ 2500 and 420lb/ft at an even lower 1500RPM. By 1998 this had grown to 215/440 for the manual trannys and 180/420 for the autos. The thing is, 1994-1998 were the years of the "P-Pumped" Cummins. With minor, fairly inexpensive mods 300+HP and 500+lb/ft were easy to get The pre-94's with the rotary pump could be cranked up to about 220HP max, according to what I've read. From late 1998 on up the engine changed to the ISB. Same basic engine, but with 24V heads and electronic controls. They tend to cost more, but you can get a significant power boost with an aftermarket programmer - no mechanical mods needed.

A late 165HP 6.2 won't be a sled compared to the 160HP Cummins if it is geared properly. Nevertheless, 160-165HP isn't going to be a rocket when hauling a GCVW of 16,000 lbs, regardless of the engine. If you're not in a hurry either will work. The advantage with the Cummins is that even the rotary pump version can be easily tweaked to get an extra 40-60HP, and the P-Pump can cheaply get even more. Not to mention the Cummins will handle that power with ease, whereas the 6.2 or 6.5 will need to be built to reliably handle higher power levels. Don't forget to add an EGT gauge before you bomb any diesel - a meltdown will ruin your day

Also, keep in mind that the high HP tow rig thing, while popular these days and nice to have, isn't strictly necessary. As a reality check, a semi with a 500HP Cat/Cummins/Detroit loaded to 80,000lbs had a power to weight ratio of 160lbs per HP. A dually loaded to a GCVW of 16,000 lbs with a 160HP Cummins or 6.2 will have a P/W ratio of 100lbs per HP. So, while you aren't going to screaming up a 6% grade with a loaded 160HP tow rig, you will still be able to wave to the guy in the loaded Pete/KW/FL as you pass him

 

[6.2Blazer]

The HP to weight of a big rig versus a pickup is not a very good example. Do a torque output to weight comparison and the answers change a little. In any case, I'd really like to see a N/A 6.2 L with 16,000 total lbs. walk past a 500 hp big rig while going up a 6% hill.

 

[tRustyK5]

53 lbs per ft/lb for a big rig (plus about 10 more gears to choose from)

58lbs per ft/lb for a 6.2 with 16000 lbs GCW.

33 lbs per ft/lb (older Cummins as a comparison with 16,000 GCW)

The biggest thing is gearing in my opinion. It's way easier to keep a big rig in the rpm range where it's pulling best, not so much with a 6.2. If the gear is low enough that it pulls OK the rev's get very high before you're making any road speed...then the next gear up makes it fall on it's face.

Rene

 

[MaxPF]

The HP to weight of a big rig versus a pickup is not a very good example. Do a torque output to weight comparison and the answers change a little. In any case, I'd really like to see a N/A 6.2 L with 16,000 total lbs. walk past a 500 hp big rig while going up a 6% hill.

Torque doesn't haul a vehicle up a hill, horsepower does. This misconception gets thrown around so much nowandays. Torque is simply a measure of turning effort, nothing more. Horsepower is a measure of work, and work is required to haul a load up a hill. Given proper gearing a 160HP engine, whether a Cummins 6BT, a NA 6.2, or a 350 gasser, will haul 16,000lbs up the hill at exactly the same speed. Any of those engines (again, properly geared) will haul 16,000lbs up a 6% grade faster than a 500HP semi will haul it's 80,000lbs up the same grade. I never said it would walk pass the semi - crawl would be more like it.

I will acknowledge that things aren't this simple in real life. Transmissions have limited numbers of gears, and the vehicle needs to be able to haul a load up a hill at it's HP peak and also be able to cruise at 65MPH at it's torque peak (for maximum efficiency). There would have to be a gearing compromise made no matter what.

Anyway, this is getting off on a tangent.The OP asked about a 6.2 to tow 16,000 lbs, and an older 160HP Cummins powered Dodge was mentioned as an alternative. The reality is both are going to be slow, even the Cummins with it's 400lb/ft. A TBI 454 (230HP, 385lb/ft) will pull the load better than the 6.2 or Cummins, but the penalty will be fuel economy. The Cummins will outlast the other motors, but will cost a lot more if something goes wrong. Again, compromises. The best bet would be a late 98.5-2000 Dodge with the Cummins ISB. More stock HP & torque, and a wider RPM band - it is governed at 3200RPM vs. 2500, which will let you hold a gear longer before shifting. This is a Good Thing. Not to mentioned it can be easily "Chipped" for more HP

 

[Hogback Fabrication]

Torque doesn't haul a vehicle up a hill, horsepower does. This misconception gets thrown around so much nowandays. Torque is simply a measure of turning effort, nothing more. Horsepower is a measure of work, and work is required to haul a load up a hill. Given proper gearing a 160HP engine, whether a Cummins 6BT, a NA 6.2, or a 350 gasser, will haul 16,000lbs up the hill at exactly the same speed. Any of those engines (again, properly geared) will haul 16,000lbs up a 6% grade faster than a 500HP semi will haul it's 80,000lbs up the same grade. I never said it would walk pass the semi - crawl would be more like it.

I will acknowledge that things aren't this simple in real life. Transmissions have limited numbers of gears, and the vehicle needs to be able to haul a load up a hill at it's HP peak and also be able to cruise at 65MPH at it's torque peak (for maximum efficiency). There would have to be a gearing compromise made no matter what.

Anyway, this is getting off on a tangent.The OP asked about a 6.2 to tow 16,000 lbs, and an older 160HP Cummins powered Dodge was mentioned as an alternative. The reality is both are going to be slow, even the Cummins with it's 400lb/ft. A TBI 454 (230HP, 385lb/ft) will pull the load better than the 6.2 or Cummins, but the penalty will be fuel economy. The Cummins will outlast the other motors, but will cost a lot more if something goes wrong. Again, compromises. The best bet would be a late 98.5-2000 Dodge with the Cummins ISB. More stock HP & torque, and a wider RPM band - it is governed at 3200RPM vs. 2500, which will let you hold a gear longer before shifting. This is a Good Thing. Not to mentioned it can be easily "Chipped" for more HP

Agreed

BTW, my brothers chippped '99 Cummins is quicker than my truck (with a 434 hp 383). Nothing beats a turbo diesel for towing. Oh yeah, it gets nearly 20 mpg too

 

[rjfguitar]

1. A 6.2N/A will either pull your K5 on a trailer....or haul a slide in camper. It will do just fine with either, but not both at the same time.

2. You could look into turbo charging the 6.2, it likely would have the power for both components, but on an engine thats 20 years old, you might want to be concerned with pushing more power out of it than it was rated for, with more weight behind it than GM ever really designed it to pull.

3. Any Dodge Cummins, Ford 7.3, or even the later GM 6.5TD trucks would likely be a better choice.

A. IF you look for a Dodge, avoid the 1989-1991 trucks. The auto in that range is a 3 spd 727 with 3.07 gears, not to mention they are non intercooled. Forget those early piles.... '92-93 are great years if you like those square Dodge bodies. The rotary Cummins 6BT can be taken well past the 300HP mark. 94-98 Rams would be even better. The truck is a much better vehicle than the earlier trucks and the P pumped 6BT can be taken to 1000HP. Just a couple of tweaks and you are making 300HP/800+ft lbs with this motor.

The 98.5-2002 trucks would be the one's to aim for, they are the nicest, and have the 24v electronic engine. Super easy to make big power, I love my fully loaded 2001. I can outrun Mustangs, Camaros, and hopped up Imports/pickups. Then, haul any of my trailers anywhere up any grade trying not to break the speed limit with the heated seats on siping my coffee.

B. Any earlier Ford diesel would be a great option. I would take a non turbo N/A 7.3 over a 6.2 anyday, they are just much bigger tougher engines that make more torque than a 6.2. The non PSD 7.3 turbo is also a good choice, and the later (1995-) PSD 7.3 is one of the best engines Ford has ever used. Stock out of the box, a 95-97 F350 4x4 with the PSD gives a 12v P-pumped Dodge a run for it's money. Infact, I'd almost say the PSD would outrun the Dodge empty. The only thing though that keeps Dodge on top back then, is that the chassis and suspension is slightly better under the Rams. Look out for F250's though, they use an HD Dana 44 TTB front setup....undesirable to say the least. The F350 with a D60 and leaf springs is the setup.

C. A GM truck would be a good choice with the 6.5TD. Any of those 92-00 trucks should handle a K5 and camper. You would have to live with IFS though, where the Rams and F350 PSD's have a D60 under them.

 

[DEMON44]

be wary the electronic VP44 hasn't been "hurt" by low fuel transfer pressure, before you buy a '98.5-2002 Dodge w/Cummins. if the fuel delivery system has not been addressed...be wary. If theres no fuel pressure guage.....be wary. Scan any trucks ECM before you buy it. If you see a P0216 or P1688, or some other no good codes just walk away.


It can throw a P0216 and still run great. But the VP44 is done for.....its just a matter of time. ASk me how I know 8 months it took my Vp44 to die with electronic timeing failure.

I wouldn't recommend avoiding a 24v second gen.........I would just recommend you know exactly what state of affairs you've got before you buy it.

 

[6.2Blazer]

Torque doesn't haul a vehicle up a hill, horsepower does. This misconception gets thrown around so much nowandays. Torque is simply a measure of turning effort, nothing more. Horsepower is a measure of work, and work is required to haul a load up a hill. Given proper gearing a 160HP engine, whether a Cummins 6BT, a NA 6.2, or a 350 gasser, will haul 16,000lbs up the hill at exactly the same speed. Any of those engines (again, properly geared) will haul 16,000lbs up a 6% grade faster than a 500HP semi will haul it's 80,000lbs up the same grade. I never said it would walk pass the semi - crawl would be more like it.

So you are saying that a N/A 6.2 will pull a load exactly the same as an older Cummins because the HP is the same???

If that's the case then there is obviously something wrong with my truck because a buddy with the exact same year and make of truck but with the stock 6.6 Duramax versus 6.0 gas pulling similiar weights up a hill, he can smoke me. I'll be foot-to-the-floor in 2nd gear and he will fly by me at 10-15 mph faster easily.

 

[rjfguitar]

The hidden variable to maxPF's theory is the amount of torque.

Horsepower is a measurement of how fast an engine builds it's torque.
The 160HP Cummins is a measurement of how fast it builds it's 400ft lbs.

The 6.2's 165HP is a measurement of how fast it builds it's 250( what was it's torque again?) ft lbs or torque.

This is why a 300HP Dmax will walk all over a 300HP 6.0 SBC pulling a grade.

So, an old Cummins is going to outrun a 6.2 with the same HP because the Cummin's HP packs a bigger punch because the engine overall builds more torque.

 

[MaxPF]

So you are saying that a N/A 6.2 will pull a load exactly the same as an older Cummins because the HP is the same???

First, the only NA 6.2 I was reffering to was the late model J code like I have, which is rated at 165HP. It's the only one I have ever seen - most are rated 155HP or less. Second, I pointed out that they each need to be geared optimally, which is never the case for a 6.2. Finally, since climbing a hill implies an increase in altitude, then the 6.2 will quickly be at a disadvantage due to lack of a turbocharger, which would maintain power output with the gradually thinning air as you climb. My point was that HP is HP - it is a measure of an engines ability to perform work. Any two engines with the same HP can perform the same amount of work. It's all a matter of gearing so that the engine stays at it's power peak.

If that's the case then there is obviously something wrong with my truck because a buddy with the exact same year and make of truck but with the stock 6.6 Duramax versus 6.0 gas pulling similiar weights up a hill, he can smoke me. I'll be foot-to-the-floor in 2nd gear and he will fly by me at 10-15 mph faster easily.

First, see my above post about optimum gearing. Second, as with the 6.2 the 6.0 is naturally aspirated. It makes max HP at sea level, less at higher altitude. Finally, you said similar weight, not the same weight.

When you are floored in second, what RPM is the 6.0 turning? IIRC the newer 6.0's HP peak is at 5500RPM.

 

[rjfguitar]

My point was that HP is HP - it is a measure of an engines ability to perform work. Any two engines with the same HP can perform the same amount of work. It's all a matter of gearing so that the engine stays at it's power peak.

Thats where you are getting off track. Yes, HP is a measure of an engine's ability to perform work, with what it has to work with. If that 165HP only makes 250ft lbs, it can only work with and apply 250ft lbs worth of 165HP.

If thats not how it worked, my 355HP Dodge Cummins could pull 80K identically like my 14L Cummins engines can in our Freightliners, but it can't.... because my Dodge can only apply 810ft lbs of torque when it builds peak 355HP worth of work.

That 14 Litre Cummins applies 1,300ft lbs worth of work, kicking the crap out of my little engine rated at the same amount of HP.

Torque is the magic important number, HP is only a measure of how fast you can build that torque and apply it to work.

You can make all the horsepower you want, but if the torque isn't there to back it up, it will be gutlless.

A Honda 2L engine can build 165HP, but it can't even come close to pulling a grade loaded to the same weight that a 6.2N/A even can......because that little Honda engine builds 165HP worth of work, but can only apply say 75ft lbs worth of torque to work with.

 

[MaxPF]

Thats where you are getting off track. Yes, HP is a measure of an engine's ability to perform work, with what it has to work with. If that 165HP only makes 250ft lbs, it can only work with and apply 250ft lbs worth of 165HP.

If thats not how it worked, my 355HP Dodge Cummins could pull 80K identically like my 14L Cummins engines can in our Freightliners, but it can't.... because my Dodge can only apply 810ft lbs of torque when it builds peak 355HP worth of work.

That 14 Litre Cummins applies 1,300ft lbs worth of work, kicking the crap out of my little engine rated at the same amount of HP.

Torque is the magic important number, HP is only a measure of how fast you can build that torque and apply it to work.

You can make all the horsepower you want, but if the torque isn't there to back it up, it will be gutlless.

A Honda 2L engine can build 165HP, but it can't even come close to pulling a grade loaded to the same weight that a 6.2N/A even can......because that little Honda engine builds 165HP worth of work, but can only apply say 75ft lbs worth of torque to work with.

If I gear the Honda accordingly I can get the same torque at the wheels as the 6.2. Torque and HP are direcltly related. However, horsepower measures the rate at which work is done. You maintain a given speed up a given hill with HP, NOT torque. Torque is a component of horsepower, but so is RPM. They are inescapably linked, and gears let you trade torque for RPM. If I have one engine that makes 1000lb-ft at 2000RPM, and another that makes 500lb-ft at 4000RPM, then both make 380HP. If I gear the first 2:1, then I have 2000lb-ft at 1000RPM. If I gear the second one 4:1, I also have 2000lb-ft at 1000RPM. They will both exert the same force and perform the same amount of work. If I take a 160HP 6BT Cummins, which makes 336lb-ft at it's 2500RPM HP peak, and a 165HP 6.2, which makes a measly 247lb-ft at it's 3500RPM HP peak and gear them both to turn 100RPM at the axles, how much torque will I get at the axles? The answer is 8400lb-ft for the Cummins and 8645lb-ft for the 6.2. In the real world the 6.2's don't have good gears for towing, which is why they are slugs

I googled up a couple of sites that explain the relationship of HP and torque. They do a fairly good job of explaining the relationship.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

http://www.largiader.com/articles/torque.html

 

[BKinzey]

Somebody should make this post a sticky and move it to the diesel forum

Lots of excellent info batted around.