|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Photo Album | Mark Forums Read |
| 6.2L Diesel 1982-93 6.2L Diesel - Member access forum for any questions or information exchange related to the 6.2L engine. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
12-16-2003, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I also posted this over on the 6.5 forum - I am posting here also to get opinions from the 6.2 crowd.
My project started as swapping a 6.2 into a Jeep Grand Wagoneer. I have been looking for an engine and just came across a 6.2 and a 6.5(non-turbo). They are both military engines, and both have been freshly rebuilt (at the local depot). Both are complete (except for alternators), and the 6.5 has no oil pan. So, it is decision time. The 6.5 is $400 more than the 6.2. Should I go with the 6.2 or the 6.5? I don't know if this will affect the decision, but I have been working with Banks to put together a turbo for my Waggy. Whichever engine I do install will get a turbo. Thanks! Mark
__________________
1987 Jeep Grand Wagoneer, 1997 6.5, 4911, gears, girdled, ARP studded, TE06H, 3.5" exhaust, Carr 700R4...work in process. |
|
#2
12-16-2003, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
IMHO, the 6.5LTD for the better designed pre-combustion chambers, slightly easier to access injectors, more displacement, increased heat rejection/better cooling and of course more power.
|
|
#3
12-17-2003, 10:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The larger 6.5 has better performance and more modern design features, but are they as reliable, or hopefully more reliable than the 6.2 without needing to replace water pumps, Injector pumps, oil pumps, FSD's, etc?
__________________
1998 K2500 Escalade/Suburban 6.5 TD<br />1997 K3500 Ext.Cab Dually 6.5 TD<br />1983 K2500 Suburban 6.2<br />1983 K1500 Suburban 6.2<br />1983 C1500 Suburban 6.2 |
|
#4
12-17-2003, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Keep in mind that this is a NON-turbo 6.5.
Interesting that the response from the 6.2 people is to go with the 6.5, and the response from the 6.5 board was to go with the 6.2. I guess the grass is always greener... Thanks for the input. Anyone else want to add anything?
__________________
1987 Jeep Grand Wagoneer, 1997 6.5, 4911, gears, girdled, ARP studded, TE06H, 3.5" exhaust, Carr 700R4...work in process. |
|
#5
12-17-2003, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
a 6.5 has all the latest enhancements to increase longivity/reliability. The 6.2 would give you slightly better mileage than the 6.5.
I would suspect those in the 6.5 world like the 6.2 world because the earlier 6.2's did not require any computer and all of its sensors to control the fuel timing and transmission shifting. A 6.5 with a mechanical injection pump and a transmission w/out computer support would be the best of both worlds... |
|
#6
12-18-2003, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I love my 6.2L way too much to drift over to the other side.
 In all seriousness, this engine has been easy to work on, had great parts availability, and had decent power even without the turbo. Power after the turbo is a whole other story. 
|
|
#7
12-19-2003, 08:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One thing to sway you to the 6.2 - if it's an 83 block. That's the high nickel content block and has purportedly had superior durability and is supposedly less prone to cracking.
However, since these are supposed to both be military blocks, I've heard that this factoid is irrelevant. Otherwise, I have to agree - newer is better.
__________________
Eric D<br />\'83 Southwind 6.2L diesel puller<br />88 K5 Blazer FOR SALE -> <a href=\"http://www.lvmt.net/1988k5/page_01.htm\" target=\"_blank\">http://www.lvmt.net/1988k5/page_01.htm</a> |
|
#8
12-21-2003, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
WOW, I never knew that Eric. I guess thats why my three 1983's have been so good to me (knock wood).
__________________
1998 K2500 Escalade/Suburban 6.5 TD<br />1997 K3500 Ext.Cab Dually 6.5 TD<br />1983 K2500 Suburban 6.2<br />1983 K1500 Suburban 6.2<br />1983 C1500 Suburban 6.2 |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
