I received the following email this morning about the 6.5 compression ratio. I thought that putting the message and my reply here might help answer any questions 6.5 owners might have about this subject and allow me to respond to some of the comments being circulated.
Hi Nate,I have a '95 6.5TD in need of a rebuild. In looking for a long block, I came across a website, and was impressed with their product. In their FAQs, they specifically said 18:1 pistons are a bad choice in a vehicle. I emailed requesting more info., and this is what they sent me.
"Nate,
We agree that the loss of power and economy from lowering the compression cannot be made up with the factory turbo. 18:1 is strictly a Marine compression ratio for engines that will be required to run wide open for many hours on end. The marine applications use the lower compression ratio to keep from building up too much heat in extended duration full throttle situations. This will never be the case with a truck.
Over the years there has been many fixes, band-aids and patches for the old weak 6.5 blocks: main girdle kits, arp stud kits, sleeving, lowering the compression ratio, using the old 6.2 block and a myriad of other expensive and ineffective substitutes for fixing the real issue, the metallurgy of the block.
With the introduction of the improved block and heads from AM General, (and now available through aftermarket companies like us), there is no need to sacrifice power and economy for durability.
-- Jeff"
I respect your opinion. Please help me sort this out.
~Nate
Businesses push what they sell and usually put down what they don't. That’s just the nature of selling engines and engine components. We don't sell engines or engine components. Our goal is to help 6.5 owners achieve the best possible result by providing the best possible information – based on facts and real-world tests (that's what the Pull-Offs were all about). But, we do have advertisers who sell engines equipped with either compression ratio, so we don’t necessarily push one compression ratio over another. Both have their place.
I've seen several 6.5s (running performance programming) with damaged pistons due to excessive heat and I've heard of many-many more. Piston durability is the primary reason for using 18:1 pistons, and lower compression could have helped to prevent those failures. This is why we put together a performance-oriented 18:1 engine in 1999 - to learn more about lower CR. The truck this engine was installed in accumulated more than 250,000 miles before we sold the truck, so we know quite well how a lower CR engine performs.
Our 4.10 geared K2500 with an 18:1 6.5TD would routinely deliver 17+ mpg, with a best tank of 21-mpg. I've owned and/or driven enough 6.5s to know this is as good as or better fuel economy than most. Not till the more recent use of the Holset turbochargers on the 6.5 has the on-road performance of our original 18:1 engine been surpassed. We used a factory GM-8 turbo on our 18:1 engine, which was not the best choice for ultimate performance. I could go on with other examples of how an 18:1 engine performed better than the stock CR 6.5... we’ve written extensively about this subject.
In my opinion, cold start-ability is the only drawback to lower CR. The 18:1 engines require a longer initial glow cycle to start well in temperatures lower than about 30 degrees F. With a 15-17 second first glow, it'll start normally down to about 10 degrees. All 6.5 owners, owning either 18:1 or stock CR engines, should use the block heater at lower temps anyway.
I recommend the 18:1 CR if the truck will be used to tow heavy a significant portion of the time. If your use of the truck is mostly not towing, then a stock 20.2:1 CR might be a better choice because the glow system won't need to be modified and cold start-ability will be what 6.5 owners are used to.
You can read more about the 18:1 CR here:
http://www.thedieselpageforums.com/t...ad.php?t=29913
Jim