What diesels...

[BlueBlazer]

Those are estimated ratings Tyler

Estimated from where? Chiltons says 240 for the C code, Banks site says 265 (they do not specify C or J code). Some posts from the archives (by arveetek)back up these numbers. I find it hard to believe that 100 ft lbs is gained on a chassis dyno.

Edit: I reread what you said about GM's ratings being estimated and I will tell you that when we (Cat) put out an engine, our ratings are not estimated, they are within 1% of advertised power and I should hope that GM was just as precise or at least close. If not, it is not only unethical, but probably against the law.

Regardless, CTD trucks here are not as cheap or cheaper than the 6.2 trucks. We don't have a huge selection of rotted out late model trucks dragging the values down.

I did not realize this was the case. I was under the impression that you guys were close enough to the border that anything we had down here you guys could get up there.

 

[FWP]

Here's my .02 on towing with a 6.2. First the specs on what I'm driving, and what I base my opinion on. 84 K30 CC, 4.10 gears, TH400, gear vendors over/under, 6.2 with Banks sidewinder. Truck alone weighs 7100 lbs. I pull a 20' goose, with the the blazer on it, weighs 11,000 lbs combined. Total CVW= 18000 lbs give or take few lbs.

This thing is VERY slow. Forget keeping up with the newer diesels. 65 MPH max on a flat grade, and takes a long time to get to that speed. At the slightest grade, your downshifting, and going much slower. 40-50 MPH on the easy grades, usually in 2nd or 2nd over. On a 6% grade (2-4 miles long average) my speed is 20 MPH, 1'st gear, 2800 rpms. The upside to all this is money. My initial investment was relatively low (around 6K) compared to what's out there for tow rigs.

I'm seriously considering throwing in a 6BT or a 454. I want more power, and I have a really nice clean truck in the K30, I like driving it. The base is there to handle big power, but the wimpy (relative) 6.2 is not up to what I want out of it. I want 400 horse and 600 ft lbs. It's just a matter of time and money. But for now, the 6.2 gets me there, albeit slow, and I take a bit of ribbing, but hey, it's paid for

 

[big_truxx]

thanks for the info. had i known what IIRC meant i would have used that in my first post. also i really wish we had one post that had a list of engines and hp/tq specs. once day i just may have to work on that to get it going... but lets look at some #'s for a minute. i have a mr goodwrench 350 in my 82. the specs on that motor are supposed to be around 250hp/350tq desktop dyno 2000 says 250hp/377tq with headers. and a 454 is suposed to be around 250hp/350tq what the factory says on an 89tbi 454. i have a carbed 454 in my 84. the desktop dyno says 263hp/469tq with headers. i used dyno at 8.5:1 comp ratio just for comparison. now a 6.2 diesel is at about 150hp and 335tq..... cant run that on my dyno so in cant compare the "dyno results" here. so it all depends on what type of hauling you want to do. serious hauling may be better of with a 454. while a mr goodwrench 350 will do ok also. i haul with a 20' gooseneck hooked to my 82 and its not that bad. and i believe i have 3.73 in the rear, this is also not tuned right with an exhaust leak in 2 places on the drivers side but she still does well. the 84 isnt on the road yet. (brake line problems) so i cannot tell you how that one hauls yet. but i know how an 89 crew dually with 454 tbi and auto trans running 4.10 out back will haul: 70 mph up hill loaded i wish i had the oportunity to seriously haul with a 6.2 to speak from experience. but i havent so i cannot. i hear good mpg reports being 17ish but then i also hear hauling reports not quite as impresive from a diesel as most would expect. yeah 17mpg better than the mr goodwrench thats got me 10mpg but.... also means lacking the torque i do now with a basically stock engine. i have edelbrock intake and a holley carb but the engine is a stock mr goodwrench. so there ya have it my 5 dollars worth for the day

 

[big_truxx]

also another thing i forgot to mention. the lack of hp on the 6.2 being at about 150 stock, means not being able to maintain speed as well as a more powerful engine. you need hp to maintain speed. and the 6.2 stock version isnt into the 200's. so it would stand to reason that if you want to haul hard and fast with a heavy load hp is also necessary. i like to haul at the average speed. meaning i drive the speed limit unless i am running a hill when i will be speeding and when im on a good hill ill be a little under.

 

[BlueBlazer]

now a 6.2 diesel is at about 150hp and 335tq..... cant run that on my dyno

Did we not just go over this, 335 is not close to any actual 6.2 torque rating.

 

[tRustyK5]

I'd love to see a engine dyno sheet on a 6.2. I'm only going by what I've seen and read.

At any rate, they're not fast...and they certainly don't compare to the newer diesels, but as Fred pointed out the initial investmant is pretty low which is something to consider. In Steve's case I'm gonna assume the budget is not huge which was the only reason the 6.2 was ever brought up in this post.

As for CTD trucks here, I wish the older ones would rot and fall apart a little faster. By the time the body's go on them here the trucks have a half million miles on them.

Rene

 

[BlueBlazer]

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2168#specifications


Scroll down a bit for 6.2 ratings. Looks like 255 for NA and 360 for turbod 6.5.

 

[big_truxx]

ok you win but you only helped my argument toward a gasser for hauling look at mr goodwrench 350 specs Steve. if its something to haul on a budget then for the money initially invested almost twice as much hp and more tq with a mr goodwrench 350 setup over the 6.2 diesel. 250ish hp and 350ish tq at low costs. and if mr goodwrench 350 is harder to get in yer area used and whatnot, can always throw in something like a summit 1102 SBC cam. summit cams run $60 by themselves and it puts out a lil more power than a mr goodwrench cam. also a port job and bigger valves on a stock set of heads make a good difference. headers obviously help. i havent priced machine work on heads recently, but i am fairly confident that you can find somewhere to do that reasonably in your area. also compression is a factor. you, as i know would like to rebuild an engine or two, so why not throw in a set of new pistons? if you can afford another couple hundred on a rebuild itd boost your compression making you more power. but to look at it from a budgeted build/rebuild point of view, a 350 with stock type heads, maybe an edelbrock intake and carb or holley if you preffer, summit cam, with headers at an 8.5:1 comp ratio, yer lookin at 284ish hp and 363ish tq. thats stock rebuilt 350 with aftermarket intake, carb and a cam. nothing super fancy or exciting but it'd get the job done well. and on the cheap too.

 

[Leadfoot]

but you only helped my argument toward a gasser for hauling

How so?

Peak HP/TQ values mean nothing when hauling.

Yes a Goodwrench 350 will smoke a 6.2 unloaded for acceleration, but that is because of the torque curve vs. RPM's. Peak Torque and HP happen in the upper RPM's with a gasser, whereas a diesel has a flatter torque curve and stays low (RPM wise). You will feel more pull with the diesel than with a gasser (more true with a heavier load). I have a mildly built 350 in a half ton that will scream unloaded and has much more HP than my buddy's 6.2, but he can tow my trailer (same load) up steeper grades more steadily than I can, plus he doesn't use as much fuel as I do.

Neither one is what I would call and awesome tow rig (especially with the new offerings out there), but I would say a 6.2 is a better choice for pulling than even a mildly built 350 and that is from real world experience.

Remember it's not a function of peak power, but where the power is made (and most importantly used).

 

[Fubeca]

Look at the very bottom at the Dyno results for their 6.2 blazer.

http://www.fourwheeler.com/projectbuild/7914/

 

[BlueBlazer]

Yep, I have seen that many times before, whats your point?

 

[tRustyK5]

I'd say the point would be this:

Chassis dyno, measurements at the rear wheels, through an automatic tranny and the rest of the drivetrain and NA with the 'C' code manifold it put down 329 lb/ft of torque. It does mention that gearing can multiply engine torque 'somewhat'. It does not say drastically.

I'd love to understand the discreptancy, or better yet see an engine dyno sheet on an NA 6.2 and put this to bed already.

Rene

 

[BlueBlazer]

Flywheel hp and tq is all that matters when it comes down to it. The factory rated that at 240 (C code) and 270ish (J code). If the engine actually made 300+ ft lbs stock wouldn't that advertise it as such? I know it is hard to believe that the torque is that low, believe me, the seat of the pants feeling feels like much more than that, and it is obviously at a very low rpm which is why I like them for wheelin, but to tout (sp?) the engine as more than it really is is misleading, especially to those who do not know the 6.2 "personally". Its a decent engine, reliable, cheap to maintain, great mileage, but it is not very suitable for towing heavy loads (in a naturally aspirated configuration) and that is what the original poster wanted to know about.

Edit: This is a dyno sheet from Banks which seems to prove the 270ish torque figure.

http://bankspower.com/tr_graphs/AC02_turbo-graph.gif

 

[big_truxx]

so whats the peak rpm of the 6.2? my dyno is showing that the mr goodwrench 350 and a stock 454 make peak tq at or below 2000 rpm. thats where the graph starts so i cannot say if it peaks lower... but i also have driven military stuff with 6.2 in them and they leave a little to be desired. i just remembered the mil stuff had 6.2 yes acceleration and towing are different... but the mil stuff didnt like ot tow a lot either

 

[Blazr77400]

http://coloradok5.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1093138&posted=1#post1093138

 

[84gmcjimmy]

Holy! A lot of replies!
I have been looking at the paper to see if there is anything local that I could consider down the road... I found a 91 dodge cummins, 3/4 ton, 5 spd, regular cab, 1 owner.... FOR... 11,500 canadian! Thats outragous (to me) Anyways...
I don't really know what would be better for me... some are saying that the 6.2 is gutless and won't work very well, while others are saying the opposite... then the dodge cummins will cost me an arm and a leg. Is there any mods for the 6.2 to mke it tow better without killing fuel economy too much?
For now i will keep my eyes open for a 6.2 and a crew cab dually, and hopefully find one for a good price, then find a good running 6.2 to put in. Unless I find a dodge for a little bit more than the GM, I will just get the 6.2 and use it until I am 30 and buy a better tow rig
Rene,
Do you have any pictures of what the diesel looks like in your Jimmy? Thanks

One last thing, what would be a good price for a stock running 6.2? I will probably be asking a lot more questions before I think about buying one. Before I carry on any longer, I just want to say i am preparing for when I do need one. I won't have the money until I "finish" the blazer and the Jimmy... so that will be a while. Plus I wouldn't mind buying a few miscelanous tools.
Oh, and someone suggested I could use a 350 for cheaper... I haven't driven a diesel before, so I think it will be a good new learning experience, and also I don't know where the gas prices will be in a few years, so I will just get a diesel...

Thanks for the help!!

 

[tRustyK5]

Flywheel hp and tq is all that matters when it comes down to it.

I disagree, because what's getting to the ground is what you feel and what is doing the work. Nobody questions chassis dyno number on any CTD truck or D-max truck when they're posted, yet this dyno sheet is treated as if it's pure fiction. The Banks graph is more conservative but is an illustration, not a dyno sheet.

The factory rated that at 240 (C code) and 270ish (J code). If the engine actually made 300+ ft lbs stock wouldn't that advertise it as such?

Since when has GM ever rated any motor in any light vehicle honestly or accurately? At best their ratings are a ballpark number. IMO if it doesn't come with a dyno sheet you'll never know exactly. The majority of hp and tq numbers are massaged for advertising purposes. I saw a TBI 350 dyno sheet, and it made 121 hp (rear wheel hp), yet was 'rated' at 210. 90 hp loss through the drivetrain??

I know it is hard to believe that the torque is that low, believe me, the seat of the pants feeling feels like much more than that, and it is obviously at a very low rpm which is why I like them for wheelin, but to tout (sp?) the engine as more than it really is is misleading, especially to those who do not know the 6.2 "personally".

I agree, and it's not my intention to mislead anyone. I certainly have never towed with my 6.2, nor do I intend to.

Its a decent engine, reliable, cheap to maintain, great mileage, but it is not very suitable for towing heavy loads (in a naturally aspirated configuration) and that is what the original poster wanted to know about.

Well, the 6.2 was offered as a budget alternative in this post. Kenny doesn't seem to mind it and he does tow a lot <shrug> Canmore used his stock 6.2 pick-up for years towing a 20-someodd foot travel trailer through the Rockies until he got his recreational property. I do know it'd be a slow ride, but when I towed with my 350 it was no screamer either, and that never stopped me.

Rene

 

[joez]

Im late to the party, but ive been on vacation.

Im gonna agree with RJF (eek!) about the early fords. The 6.9's cavitation has been blown out of proportion more than the "Killer dowel pin" in the dodges tranny's. Head issues are just like the 6.2's, if you reuse the head bolts, you are gonna have major problems. The 6.9's are good motors, and put out a decent ammount of power for being a N/A diesel.

As for the 6.2's towing, i have towed with mine, and while it is a dog, it still gets the job done. I loose a lot of power with my tranny and gearing, but it still tows. No, it will never be a D-max, but my mild N/A 6.2 does fine for what it is. Steve, if you can, i would look at getting either an early ford, or a CUCV chevy. While the dodges are stout, they are more expensive as of late because of the "Bombing" craze.

And there is no way a 6.2 has 355 ft/lb of torque. My buddy with a 7.3 N/A will walk all over my 6.2, and he only has 380 ft/lb of torque with the same HP as me. He has way more power than i do, and my 6.2 actually has a few tweaks done to it. Id say 280-300 is a good number. it doesnt have 355, but it also doesnt have 240.

 

[imiceman44]

Holy! A lot of replies!
I have been looking at the paper to see if there is anything local that I could consider down the road... I found a 91 dodge cummins, 3/4 ton, 5 spd, regular cab, 1 owner.... FOR... 11,500 canadian! Thats outragous (to me) Anyways...
I don't really know what would be better for me... some are saying that the 6.2 is gutless and won't work very well, while others are saying the opposite... then the dodge cummins will cost me an arm and a leg. Is there any mods for the 6.2 to mke it tow better without killing fuel economy too much?
For now i will keep my eyes open for a 6.2 and a crew cab dually, and hopefully find one for a good price, then find a good running 6.2 to put in. Unless I find a dodge for a little bit more than the GM, I will just get the 6.2 and use it until I am 30 and buy a better tow rig
Rene,
Do you have any pictures of what the diesel looks like in your Jimmy? Thanks

One last thing, what would be a good price for a stock running 6.2? I will probably be asking a lot more questions before I think about buying one. Before I carry on any longer, I just want to say i am preparing for when I do need one. I won't have the money until I "finish" the blazer and the Jimmy... so that will be a while. Plus I wouldn't mind buying a few miscelanous tools.
Oh, and someone suggested I could use a 350 for cheaper... I haven't driven a diesel before, so I think it will be a good new learning experience, and also I don't know where the gas prices will be in a few years, so I will just get a diesel...

Thanks for the help!!

Hey
Just get a 6.2 for now, and if you want more power and better mileage add propane injection.
I could give you details how to do it cheap and you can tow much easier and faster that way.

 

[big_truxx]

anyone know the peak rpm for tq on the 6.2?