PDA

View Full Version : First impressions of cold weather and my low-comp engine



arveetek
11-22-2005, 07:29
It's finally started getting cooler here in the Ozarks. I've been wondering if I would be able to tell if the new lower-compression engine would have any trouble starting in that cooler weather, and now I can begin to find out.

What I have been doing is comparing how my rebuilt 6.2L compares to my stock 6.5L. The 6.2L has around 4,000 miles, and the 6.5L has around 165,000 miles. Both are running 60G glow plugs. The 6.2L glows for about 12 seconds with a home made controller. The 6.5L glows for about 7 seconds with the stock controller.

Both engines start fine at 30 degrees F. However, the 6.2L belches a rather large cloud of blue/white smoke, which clears up pretty quickly. The 6.5L starts with just a barely detectable puff of smoke which vanihes even quicker. The 6.2L will spit and sputter for a few moments, and then smooth out. The 6.5L runs smooth as silk.

While the 6.2L starts fine, I can definitely tell the 6.5L starts easier with less smoke, less glow time, and smaller batteries. The only conclusion I can draw is that the 19.75:1 compression doesn't fire up as well as the stock 21:1 does. It doesn't seem like much, but I guess it does make a difference.

In warm weather, though, the mechanically-injected 6.2L fires up faster than the electronic 6.5L. Just one quick turn of the crank, and the 6.2L is running. The 6.5L has to spin over a few times for the computer to get up to speed on what's happening. The 6.2L's advantage has disappeared with the onset of cooler weather.

However, my hot-rod 6.2L will run circles around the stock 6.5L! :D There's no comparing the two as far as power goes. At the same time, though, the stock 6.5L runs much, much smoother than the 6.2L. I'm still not sure about that. Even though the 6.2L has the timing gears and is new from top to bottom, the stock 6.5L with timing chain runs even smoother, and is much more pleasant to drive on long distances. Perhaps that's an advantage to the DS4 pump system?

Just thought I'd share my experiences so far. I'll have to see what happens when it gets really cold this winter!

Casey

NH2112
11-22-2005, 08:03
Well I have somewhat of an idea how my 6.5lTD will start, with its 19:1 CR. When did the CR change? Was it in 97 when the 506 block came out?

john8662
11-22-2005, 08:56
The lowest C/R I've seen on the 6.5 is 20.2:1 which is a sheet I had pulled up at the dealer for a '99. The compression ratio was never any lower than that from factory.

Casey, so am I crazy now for considering the DS4? Just thought I'd poke at you there..

Thats good to hear your results of the lowered c/r 6.2 and starting, I was curious how that would contribute.

One more thing, the 6.5 will start better cold, mainly because of the computer control. The computer will advance the timing to where the engine starts better in cold weather, this is done on the fly. The 6.2 on the other hand relys upon the HPCA to lower the housing pressure in the pump to advance the timing, but it can only go so far, and only so much during starting.

arveetek
11-22-2005, 10:53
Originally posted by john8662:
Casey, so am I crazy now for considering the DS4? Just thought I'd poke at you there..
Yeah, yeah, yeah..... I figured you'd say something about that... :rolleyes: tongue.gif ;) Truth be told, the 6.5L DS4 system is actually pretty nice, once you get the bugs worked out of it and upgrade it to make it reliable.

Phil,

6.5L advertisments and promotional literature stated that GM was going to lower the compression, but it never actually made it into production. I think they decided to ditch the 6.5L earlier than anticipated and gave up on trying to improve it any further by lowering the CR and adding an intercooler, which was also advertised. All GM 6.2L and 6.5L engines came from the factory with CR's over 20:1.

I suppose that by the time GM hinted at lower CR and intercoolers, they had decided to drop the 6.5L and started working on the 6.6L Duramax.

Casey

NH2112
11-22-2005, 13:05
Well I finally finished up the 6.5l install today, after working on it for like 4 or 5 times as long as possible due to environmental conditions - dirt driveway, puddles, temps <=40, wind, rain, etc - and the laundry list of little things I had to repair, adapt, or replace. Boy, did that thing start easily - it would have started the first try if I'd given it a little more fuel! Of course, pulling the glow plugs to prime the fuel system helped a lot. So, with the CR still being relatively high, I don't think I'll have any more problems with this engine than I did with the 6.2l.

I still have to make an exhaust - it's quiet even with the downpipe off - get a boost gauge and pyro, wait for my aftermarket air cleaner to come from the eBay seller, and make an adapter for it out of 3" exhaust pipe so I can weld on a tube for the CDR hose. Oh, and clean up the bird's nest of wiring once I have access to a shop. There's also a crack on the driver's side engine mount bracket that I have to weld, and I need to find my other fan shroud as well. Now I can't wait to finish everything up, load it full of construction debris, and feel the difference on my trip to the dump! :D

Portland Suburban
11-22-2005, 16:34
so, just for comparison, what engine would prefer in the following scenarios?

1. Low cost/parts availability/fix on the fly
2. End of organized civilization?

I think the old 6.2 would be ideal. smile.gif

NH2112
11-23-2005, 04:33
Or a mechanical 6.5l TD smile.gif