And the HP Wars Begin

[RobertN]

Oh, I agree!

Even a smaller straight six would be great; many US trucks came with those over the years. I just like the inline diesels

I think it is part HP driven market, and part EPA. I think the US EPA should look at the other equivalents(equivalent EPA type governance) around the world. Other countries have as tight of emission standards. And then there is California; We(Ca) should look closer at other state and national programs. Not just in the US, but other countries programs too.

Most of them DO have the equivalent of a "small block" or sawn off V8 as a V6.
They just don't sell them in the U.S. due to mumble_mumble_mahhkettiing_speak lack of market demand or somesuch nonsense.
See Ford (Europe) vans for example.

 

[Reg]

Oh, I agree!

Even a smaller straight six would be great; many US trucks came with those over the years. I just like the inline diesels

I think it is part HP driven market, and part EPA. I think the US EPA should look at the other equivalents(equivalent EPA type governance) around the world. Other countries have as tight of emission standards. And then there is California; We(Ca) should look closer at other state and national programs. Not just in the US, but other countries programs too.

In most of Europe PART of.... Errr, what to call it ?
Lets call it "the EPA fuel economy function" is fulfilled by engine size taxes.
This explains high HP small displacement engines and the much earlier development and general acceptance of EFI and turbos - EFFICIENCY !!! from relatively small displacement engines.
PLUS the VERY HIGH fuel prices, a lot of which is TAX !

In Suisse a 250 Cu in Ford straight 6 is NOT a small displacement engine (-:

 

[RobertN]

That was Ford's small inline 6; the "Big" one was a 300Cu/5.0l inline 6

In Suisse a 250 Cu in Ford straight 6 is NOT a small displacement engine (-:

 

[Lt CHEG]

Perhaps 315 horses is a bit much. Perhaps I should more accurately say that I would want a diesel which would allow me to tow 12,000 to 13,000 pounds in a half ton truck, but would give similar performance when not hauling a load to my 315 horse gas engine. I wouldn't want something that would be a total dog in accelerating, and overall performance when driven without a load.

And I'm glad that others have had good luck with the older 6.2L diesels. I know of at least 3 or 4 other people that had horrible luck with them, even though they took excellent care of them, bought them new, etc. I wonder if part of the bad luck that I've experienced with that engine and witnessed other people experience is due to the colder temps around my neck of the woods.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Perhaps 315 horses is a bit much. Perhaps I should more accurately say that I would want a diesel which would allow me to tow 12,000 to 13,000 pounds in a half ton truck, but would give similar performance when not hauling a load to my 315 horse gas engine. I wouldn't want something that would be a total dog in accelerating, and overall performance when driven without a load.

And I'm glad that others have had good luck with the older 6.2L diesels. I know of at least 3 or 4 other people that had horrible luck with them, even though they took excellent care of them, bought them new, etc. I wonder if part of the bad luck that I've experienced with that engine and witnessed other people experience is due to the colder temps around my neck of the woods.

11,000# to 15,000# is a load for a 3/4 ton truck. Anything more is 1 ton territory. Just because it will have a diesel you will be limited by the tires, suspension, and chassis on a 1/2 ton truck. People say the brakes also but in reality the brakes on the 1/2 ton trucks today are amazing and much better than the brakes on any 3/4 or 1 ton of the early 90's.

What I am saying is you are asking a little much wanting 13,000# tow rating in a 1/2 ton. Maybe in 20 years but not today. It took the manufactures 20 years to get out of the 7,000# tow ratings to the 10,000# tow ratings we have today in the 1/2 tons.

As for the HP, it means very little in a truck. Torque and more importantly where its made at in the rpm band is the key.

The only GM diesels I was around were the Olds that was junk, a 6.2 my Father-N-Law had in a truck that was junk and replaced with a 350, and my uncles 6.5. It has not been too bad but has had its fare share of issues. The Isuzu DuraMax was the saving grace for GM. The hit a home run when they teamed up with Isuzu.

Chris

 

[TheGoose]

Sorry you had such trouble with your engine. It seems like those engines had a love/hate fan club. They came out back when it was not the norm to have a diesel powered ANYTHING. Even a lot of tractors back then were gas. As such there was a learning curve by not only GM but the mechanics/technicians as well. This was before the Powerstroke, cummins, etc. They were designed during the oil embargo of the late 70's and were designed to replace a 305/350 small block. They were never designed to be the powerful diesel engines we have today, they were designed with fuel economy in mind.

I don't know why we think we should be able to tow 13K with a half-ton truck. I would prefer if GM, or Ford, or Dodge, or even Toyota would come out with a 4L diesel engine that made about 200-230HP, and about 300-400 ft-lbs of torque, that could comfortably tow about 7-8K lbs, and get about 25 MPG unloaded. THAT is the truck that I want. I could care less if it can tow 13K like today's 3/4 ton trucks. If it gets less than 20+ mpg unloaded then you defeat the whole purpose. Most people only use the full capability of their truck engines very few times. Most people probably NEVER use the full capability of their engines.


BTW: That 5.7L diesel truly was JUNK.

While I agree with you in spirit, as a former GMC 6.2 Liter diesel owner (my first truck was a 2wd Sierra 1/2 ton with that engine) I believe that that particular engine was junk. I'm not alone in that assessment either, I know a few people that owned those engines and had nothing but problems with them. The GM 5.7 Liter diesel was even worse.

The idea was certainly sound though. I would love to have a not overly large diesel engine in a half ton truck that will put out about 315 horsepower and about 450 pounds feet of torque with a 13,000 pound or so tow rating that still rides like a half ton.

 

[TheGoose]

I heard that if you ever used ether to start those engines it was very bad.

I forgot to mention that I am fixing up a '83 model Chevy Stepside 1/2 ton with a 6.2L diesel. It was originally bought by my father in law new. He drove it, and then his kids drove it (2 teenagers). 210,000 miles on the original odometer and the engine has never been touched except for superficial things like water pump etc. So I don't think that they were all junk.

What was the problem with yours?

Perhaps 315 horses is a bit much. Perhaps I should more accurately say that I would want a diesel which would allow me to tow 12,000 to 13,000 pounds in a half ton truck, but would give similar performance when not hauling a load to my 315 horse gas engine. I wouldn't want something that would be a total dog in accelerating, and overall performance when driven without a load.

And I'm glad that others have had good luck with the older 6.2L diesels. I know of at least 3 or 4 other people that had horrible luck with them, even though they took excellent care of them, bought them new, etc. I wonder if part of the bad luck that I've experienced with that engine and witnessed other people experience is due to the colder temps around my neck of the woods.

 

[Lt CHEG]

I heard that if you ever used ether to start those engines it was very bad.

I forgot to mention that I am fixing up a '83 model Chevy Stepside 1/2 ton with a 6.2L diesel. It was originally bought by my father in law new. He drove it, and then his kids drove it (2 teenagers). 210,000 miles on the original odometer and the engine has never been touched except for superficial things like water pump etc. So I don't think that they were all junk.

What was the problem with yours?

I went through a couple sets of head gaskets, a couple injectors and an injector pump all in about 8,000 miles on a truck that only had about 120,000 miles on the odometer. Plus the thing HATED the cold.

As for the other people I knew with them, they also had problems with head gaskets and to a lesser extent heads. Injector pumps seemed to be a fairly common problem as well. A mechanic that I trust and that I believe is skilled at his craft was talking to me the other day about the 6.2L diesel. He also remembers head problems and he added that he felt that the fasteners were undersized for that engine, which to me makes a lot of sense.

I sure hope your project goes better than my experience with the 6.2L. I guess I would just recommend making sure that your diesel fuel is coming from a good source, keep your filters changed often and watch the temperature. I don't ever remember running my truck hot, but it sure can't help a truck if it has some head gasket issues. Good luck.

 

[TheGoose]

Thanks. We plan on getting the truck running again, it has been sitting for 10+ years.

120K miles out of your 6.2L wasn't bad back then. The odometers back then only went to 99,999 miles on those trucks. They definitely had some head issues relating to design that were later corrected. The 6.5L block and the 6.2L block are essentially the same engine with minor changes, but those changes made a big effect on durability. The 90's with electronic fuel injection had issues with the fuel pump getting too much heat from where it was located.

What kind of mileage were you getting out of yours?

 

[Lt CHEG]

What kind of mileage were you getting out of yours?

It's been so long that I honestly don't remember. I think my uncle with a lead foot and all got about 25 mpg highway out of his 4wd Blazer with the 6.2L diesel. This was always the reason why diesel appealed to me. It's also why I'm not as enamored with the modern diesels, the fuel economy has gone in the crapper.

 

[TheGoose]

Exactly. I love the fact that you can get ~400 HP out of a Duramax or powerstroke but at what point does it just get silly? We keep increasing the HP but the fuel economy either stays the same or goes down, and the vehicles just keep getting heavier.

I don't understand why they don't make a turbo ~4L diesel that gets good mileage, ~200-275HP, and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

 

[timswi]

11,000# to 15,000# is a load for a 3/4 ton truck. Anything more is 1 ton territory. Just because it will have a diesel you will be limited by the tires, suspension, and chassis on a 1/2 ton truck. People say the brakes also but in reality the brakes on the 1/2 ton trucks today are amazing and much better than the brakes on any 3/4 or 1 ton of the early 90's.

What I am saying is you are asking a little much wanting 13,000# tow rating in a 1/2 ton. Maybe in 20 years but not today. It took the manufactures 20 years to get out of the 7,000# tow ratings to the 10,000# tow ratings we have today in the 1/2 tons.

As for the HP, it means very little in a truck. Torque and more importantly where its made at in the rpm band is the key.

The only GM diesels I was around were the Olds that was junk, a 6.2 my Father-N-Law had in a truck that was junk and replaced with a 350, and my uncles 6.5. It has not been too bad but has had its fare share of issues. The Isuzu DuraMax was the saving grace for GM. The hit a home run when they teamed up with Isuzu.

Chris

I had a 6.2 in a 3/4 ton 4wd Suburban. Never had a problem with it in 175,000 miles. Got around 20-22 mpg all the time with gobs of torque. no turbo with that one. Had to replace the water pump once. When the flat rate book said 8hrs, they weren't kidding

 

[Paystar]

My Caterpillar's still got them beat :laughing::laughing:

 

[timswi]

My Caterpillar's still got them beat :laughing::laughing:

If I remember correctly, mine was a Detroit Diesel.

 

[TheGoose]

Yeah, the 6.2's and 6.5's were detroit diesels. GM owned Detroit Diesel for a long time, but they sold them off several years ago. I have been doing a lot of research on the engines so I can fix up my wife's old Step-Side. There is a nasty rumor floating around that the engines are gas conversions, which they are not. The old 5.7L diesels were supposed to be the "gas conversion" motors, but I think that too is a fallacy. I think they used some basic common measurements for the 5.7L diesel as the 5.7gas, but it is supposed to be a completely different block. GM just made it too weak in the head area etc. and it blew a lot of gaskets.

 

[TheGoose]

How much HP does the Cat put out and what does your rig weigh empty?

My Caterpillar's still got them beat :laughing::laughing:

 

[schmism]

HP wars....

I really dont get caught up on marketing BS and numbers people pull out of thin air to make there product look better than the next guy.

when any one of the big 1/2 ton trucks can increase the HP output significantly with just a plug in "tuner" then all the manufactures have to do to "best" the next guy is tweak a software number and rerelease a "new and improved 10 billion more hp than the next guy" version.

I'll pass on the hype

 

[jcmseven]

I don't buy that the new diesels get necessarily worse fuel economy than their predecessors. I have owned diesel trucks all the way back to the mid 1990's and my current diesel gets consistently the best fuel economy of any truck I have owned, save my first truck (a 4 cylinder Ford Ranger) which got 3 mpg better on highway and bogged hauling a loaf of bread from the store. My much-mileage maligned Ford 6.4L did not do too bad either. Both these trucks were post DPF, and both got better mileage than my old 7.3L in both my 1999 model and in my 2002.

John M

 

[Reg]

One of my sons had a 5.7 Olds diesel.
The engine was totally trouble free and I used to joke with him that he probably had the last surviving one on the planet - he should glass case it.
I had always impressed on him to start it, put it in gear after a couple of seconds, leave it on idle down the driveway and the hundred yards or so to the corner intersection, drive it GENTLY to the stop sign (about 1/4 mile).
IOW, warm it up gently, but put SOME load on it, don't just let it sit idling.
That was about how I was taught to treat diesels, it also worked on my 6.2, everything since and I still do about that with the D'max, all of which have had no engine problems.

 

[Reg]

I don't buy that the new diesels get necessarily worse fuel economy than their predecessors. I have owned diesel trucks all the way back to the mid 1990's and my current diesel gets consistently the best fuel economy of any truck I have owned, save my first truck (a 4 cylinder Ford Ranger) which got 3 mpg better on highway and bogged hauling a loaf of bread from the store. My much-mileage maligned Ford 6.4L did not do too bad either. Both these trucks were post DPF, and both got better mileage than my old 7.3L in both my 1999 model and in my 2002.

John M

Hehh, heh.

I "buy" it if /when owners USE the higher power that they offer (-:
They are more efficient, so while in THEORY one COULD get better fuel economy IF one were to drive them using ONLY the same power output (say 75 HP) then they would get much better mileage.

Fact o' the matter is we LIKE the POWER !
We get USED TO the way they can pull out into traffic "just like that" without having to wait for a 200 yard gap between vehicles.
So in ACTUAL USAGE - Sure, they get worse fuel economy, but we can solve that by driving them like we had 35 HP under the hood (-:

Personally I drive very gently for the sake of the horses, so yes I get better fuel mileage with newer trucks, at least I do when I have a live load behind me (-: