While laughable by today's standards, light duty trucks with diesels were scarce back in 1986. Take a look back at the 6.2 Diesel and how hard GM wanted to promote it!
My 1984 Chevy K20 with the 6.2L diesel has 200,000 trouble free miles on it and I've worked the shit out of it. Not very powerful by todays standards but fuel mileage is great and it has been very reliable.
Just got my grandpa's 83 gmc high Sierra 4x4 with the 6.2 liter has easily 300,000 miles she's starts right up every time she's asked and has never let the family down so glad to have her in my fleet now
That's a weak point with these engines ..cold starting..better have a block heater/ keep it inside if you want it to start at -40..and never, ever use Ether with these..
My dad worked on the Alaskan pipeline when it was first being done. Said most engines were gas powered with some equipment running diesel. He said even the gas engines ran 24 hours a day cause once shut off they wouldn't restart, and also they added oil instead when needed of changing it. Times have changed for sure.
Great engine for what it is, I own two trucks with them and banks turbos. Needed upgrades to take it to the next level would be: 1. Forged pistons with ceramic coating 2. Forged crank 3. Beef up the heads and block by adding more nickel back into it like the original design plan. 4. Bigger turbo options 5. bigger exhaust system 6. Better cooling system
The Chevy dealerships seem pretty offended if I pull in driving a square body lol. You can more easily pick out how cheap the new trucks are when you have the old one side by side.
Last time I drove my '96 OBS into the Ford lot for parts (for a customer's much newer truck btw 😆), the sales floor mostly emptied out & 2 of the blood suckers were trying to buy it off me. The further along we slip into this dystopian future, the more old iron is going to be in demand.
@@acemobile9806 ageed..the new diesels are great on power, but have so many more- stressed parts / problematic emissions systems that they're not as reliable..and cost WAY MORE to fix/ keep running..
I have a '86 diesel lol. It's a c20 has 116k miles and has no issues. It's a great truck but I have a turbo400 in it so not great for highway. Still get great fuel mileage.
Can be done, but not worth it. You'll save some fuel but not enough for the cost. , and you can make more power easier and cheaper, than rebuilding your 454. If you wanna go diesel, it would honestly be a better route to cummins swap. And I've had a 6.2 blazer, and currently have a 6.5 suburban, and love the motors.
@@jacobeldredge803 lolwut, not worth the cost... but then you say cummins swap... something that is 10x the cost + tons of fab work... 6.2 is drop in...
@@mattlane2282 yeah, 6.2 is drop in, but not worth the cost and effort. Better to build the 454 if you're on a budget. Cummins would be worth it, and wouldn't be 10x the cost. More expensive yes, but not 10x.
If you want a gas gussler with 240-290 HP/385-410 TQ,stay with the 7.4L/454.If you want a 155 HP/250 TQ slug,but that will have greater fuel efficiency,do with the Detroit N/A 6.2L.If you want torque and a diesel truck,like already said,get a Cummins 12V 6BT with 160-235 HP/400-460 TQ.It all depends on the price or what you even want.Honest,if you want to stay G.M.,a 6.5L would be better with 180-205 HP/360-430 TQ,even though you'll be -10-30 behind the 5.9L depending if it's a later 175-215 HP/430-440 TQ or foreign 6BT with 235 HP/460 TQ,but who cares,it can still stay on the tier. I own a 6.2L D10 M1009 and had a 6.2L D30 M1010,great engines but not workers for heavy duty things,and I did 60 MPH in one with 4:56 gears and do 70-80 MPH in the Blazer with 3:08 gears.I also own a 6.5L M1025 HMMWV,which only puts out 190 HP/390 TQ but it gets the job done,even with 55 MPH and 5:24 gears. But if we are going by torque,in diesel trucks,both of my 7.3L PSD F250 XLT's and my 12V 5.9L 3500 would put both of them to shame.Those Detroits are great engines,but they always were in third place compared to Navistar in Ford and Cummins in Dodge at the time,even though they had the best fuel efficiency,and were far more reliable than the hunk of junk Oldsmobile 4.3L & 5.7L that G.M. use to have.
@@jacobeldredge803 If you paid someone yes 100% 10x the cost... and unless your time is 100% free it is still 10x the cost... a 6.2 depending on location can be as cheap as $300 lol... a 12v? 2grand? and then you need everything to make it work... oh wait... in parts you are at... 10x the cost...
Take one of these over three brand new HD diesels , not discriminating on anyone cuz over the years I’ve had a pickup from the three important vehicle brands manufactured her in the USA
The Detroit 6.2L was discontinued in 1992,but was still for sale as crate engines for another year.But why would you put a slow and older engine in a new truck out of all things? The 6.2L is a great engine,but it is a slug,even though the H1,HMMWV,and CUCV all had them until the 6.5L came out a decade later. Most 6.2L's,particularly the J Code,were 155 HP/250 TQ,if you had a Banks that added 60 HP/115 TQ,that is 215 HP/365 TQ.But still,the Cummins 6BT is 160-235 HP/400-460 TQ.The only thing it doesn't have is 20-25 MPG like the 4 stroke Detroits,even though it's still good enough at 16-18 MPG.In the Dodge Rams,the 5.9L was 160-215 HP/400-440 TQ depending on the years,but the 12V 6BT with 235 HP/460 TQ is what Alvis uses in the Sabre,Sultan,and Spartan for the U.K..The Cummins also would highly last longer than the Detroits on a far notice,even more than the 7.3L PSD many times,even though the Navistar Powerstroke crushed Cummins and Detroit with torque numbers.
With enough patience and $ you can fit anything into almost anything but why on earth would you want to do that? U been watching Tokyo Drift or something?
Hmm good to know I was looking to buy a 86 m1009 old military surplus blazer while this seems like a good engine I'm probably going to swap it out for a 350 or 454 crate engine instead
The point of it was fuel economy not power or speed. They used it because the government was going crazy with emissions and fuels. And those engines lasted quite a while. They where proud because it actually has great fuel economy
They’re slow sure, but they’re a great, economical, reliable engine when you use them for their intended purpose and address their few issues. I have two of them and I’ve got nothing bad to say about them.
My 1984 Chevy K20 with the 6.2L diesel has 200,000 trouble free miles on it and I've worked the shit out of it. Not very powerful by todays standards but fuel mileage is great and it has been very reliable.
Do happen to know the starter part # for the 6.2
@@brianvasquez3900 if you can ask on RUclips, you can call a parts store, or Google it.
@@jacobeldredge803 No shit, right?
Amazing how many small town Volunteer Fire Departments have 3/4 and 1 ton trucks powered by the 6.2!
I had a 1992 GMC C1500 with a 6.2 and a NVG 4500 , put 300,000 miles on it . Very economical and reliable pickup. Thanks for the video.
83 GMC 6.2 K2500 , 500,000k, best truck Iv ever owned, still gets 24 mpg , loves to eat starters but outside of that best truck Iv ever owned period.
Thats bullshit
Just got my grandpa's 83 gmc high Sierra 4x4 with the 6.2 liter has easily 300,000 miles she's starts right up every time she's asked and has never let the family down so glad to have her in my fleet now
I never had one but my dad did and that truck never let us down it would fire up all the time
“When the weather is 40 below these run around the clock” yeah cuz they won’t start back up 😂 to cold
That's a weak point with these engines ..cold starting..better have a block heater/ keep it inside if you want it to start at -40..and never, ever use Ether with these..
My dad worked on the Alaskan pipeline when it was first being done. Said most engines were gas powered with some equipment running diesel. He said even the gas engines ran 24 hours a day cause once shut off they wouldn't restart, and also they added oil instead when needed of changing it. Times have changed for sure.
Facts!!!
Correct, nothing wants to start in temps that low.
Russians do the same thing in Siberia.
Fluids almost turn to solids.
Great engine for what it is, I own two trucks with them and banks turbos. Needed upgrades to take it to the next level would be:
1. Forged pistons with ceramic coating
2. Forged crank
3. Beef up the heads and block by adding more nickel back into it like the original design plan.
4. Bigger turbo options
5. bigger exhaust system
6. Better cooling system
Hey goober you would be better off swapping to a Cummins!!
I drive a 87 Chevy and I love it
The Chevy dealerships seem pretty offended if I pull in driving a square body lol. You can more easily pick out how cheap the new trucks are when you have the old one side by side.
Last time I drove my '96 OBS into the Ford lot for parts (for a customer's much newer truck btw 😆), the sales floor mostly emptied out & 2 of the blood suckers were trying to buy it off me. The further along we slip into this dystopian future, the more old iron is going to be in demand.
@@acemobile9806 Stock pile it while its cheap!
@@acemobile9806 ageed..the new diesels are great on power, but have so many more- stressed parts / problematic emissions systems that they're not as reliable..and cost WAY MORE to fix/ keep running..
I have a '86 diesel lol. It's a c20 has 116k miles and has no issues. It's a great truck but I have a turbo400 in it so not great for highway. Still get great fuel mileage.
The 6.2 in my '85 M1009 was replaced in '92. The replacement engine is stamped 'Toole Army Depot.' It's the same truck from my profile picture.
I take it the folks at GM had a different team on this engine versus the Oldsmobile
That I really liked lol, almost forgot to finish the point I was making
Damn Oldsmobile should have taken notes
Wondering about putting in a 6.2 Diesel in place of the 454 in a 83' dually C20 with the TH400. And with 33 inch tires.
Can be done, but not worth it. You'll save some fuel but not enough for the cost. , and you can make more power easier and cheaper, than rebuilding your 454. If you wanna go diesel, it would honestly be a better route to cummins swap. And I've had a 6.2 blazer, and currently have a 6.5 suburban, and love the motors.
@@jacobeldredge803 lolwut, not worth the cost... but then you say cummins swap... something that is 10x the cost + tons of fab work... 6.2 is drop in...
@@mattlane2282 yeah, 6.2 is drop in, but not worth the cost and effort. Better to build the 454 if you're on a budget. Cummins would be worth it, and wouldn't be 10x the cost. More expensive yes, but not 10x.
If you want a gas gussler with 240-290 HP/385-410 TQ,stay with the 7.4L/454.If you want a 155 HP/250 TQ slug,but that will have greater fuel efficiency,do with the Detroit N/A 6.2L.If you want torque and a diesel truck,like already said,get a Cummins 12V 6BT with 160-235 HP/400-460 TQ.It all depends on the price or what you even want.Honest,if you want to stay G.M.,a 6.5L would be better with 180-205 HP/360-430 TQ,even though you'll be -10-30 behind the 5.9L depending if it's a later 175-215 HP/430-440 TQ or foreign 6BT with 235 HP/460 TQ,but who cares,it can still stay on the tier.
I own a 6.2L D10 M1009 and had a 6.2L D30 M1010,great engines but not workers for heavy duty things,and I did 60 MPH in one with 4:56 gears and do 70-80 MPH in the Blazer with 3:08 gears.I also own a 6.5L M1025 HMMWV,which only puts out 190 HP/390 TQ but it gets the job done,even with 55 MPH and 5:24 gears.
But if we are going by torque,in diesel trucks,both of my 7.3L PSD F250 XLT's and my 12V 5.9L 3500 would put both of them to shame.Those Detroits are great engines,but they always were in third place compared to Navistar in Ford and Cummins in Dodge at the time,even though they had the best fuel efficiency,and were far more reliable than the hunk of junk Oldsmobile 4.3L & 5.7L that G.M. use to have.
@@jacobeldredge803 If you paid someone yes 100% 10x the cost... and unless your time is 100% free it is still 10x the cost... a 6.2 depending on location can be as cheap as $300 lol... a 12v? 2grand? and then you need everything to make it work... oh wait... in parts you are at... 10x the cost...
Take one of these over three brand new HD diesels , not discriminating on anyone cuz over the years I’ve had a pickup from the three important vehicle brands manufactured her in the USA
Will a 6.2 Diesel engine fit into a 1998-2000 Dodge Ram Cummins truck in place of the Cummins turbo diesel engine?
I like the way you think
who would want to do that unless you have a carcass without the cummins in it
Thats about the most opposite thing ive ever heard. Usually its a cummins swap in an old squarebody
Edit: but yes i think it would
The Detroit 6.2L was discontinued in 1992,but was still for sale as crate engines for another year.But why would you put a slow and older engine in a new truck out of all things? The 6.2L is a great engine,but it is a slug,even though the H1,HMMWV,and CUCV all had them until the 6.5L came out a decade later.
Most 6.2L's,particularly the J Code,were 155 HP/250 TQ,if you had a Banks that added 60 HP/115 TQ,that is 215 HP/365 TQ.But still,the Cummins 6BT is 160-235 HP/400-460 TQ.The only thing it doesn't have is 20-25 MPG like the 4 stroke Detroits,even though it's still good enough at 16-18 MPG.In the Dodge Rams,the 5.9L was 160-215 HP/400-440 TQ depending on the years,but the 12V 6BT with 235 HP/460 TQ is what Alvis uses in the Sabre,Sultan,and Spartan for the U.K..The Cummins also would highly last longer than the Detroits on a far notice,even more than the 7.3L PSD many times,even though the Navistar Powerstroke crushed Cummins and Detroit with torque numbers.
With enough patience and $ you can fit anything into almost anything but why on earth would you want to do that? U been watching Tokyo Drift or something?
Hmm good to know I was looking to buy a 86 m1009 old military surplus blazer while this seems like a good engine I'm probably going to swap it out for a 350 or 454 crate engine instead
Built from the ground up To be a diesel, Designed For severe Trailer towing !
Sorry but no, the 6.6 was.but the 6.2 NA is a beast of a motor! Just did the heads on mine and replaced the bolts with ARP head studs!
@@1979rm250 Back in 1982, The 6.2, It was the greatest thing since sliced bread !
Towing what?! A porta potty?!!
Coming from an era when high horsepower for a semi was like 250.
Qwantuz HP? ?
Qwantwz hp??
Did he say gas mileage?🤦♂️
We all know what he meant. No big deal
Um...........what's with the music?!!
Lol they were so proud of that slug it's just comical.
The point of it was fuel economy not power or speed. They used it because the government was going crazy with emissions and fuels. And those engines lasted quite a while. They where proud because it actually has great fuel economy
Compared to the 6.9 idi it was competitive
It was the best thing going at the time.
They’re slow sure, but they’re a great, economical, reliable engine when you use them for their intended purpose and address their few issues. I have two of them and I’ve got nothing bad to say about them.
At a time when gas trucks were getting single digit mpg the 6.2s regularly got 17-21. Slow, yes, but that was amazing economy for the time
Aww man one dislike
Honestly underpowered , badly utilized engine
Its for economy you knob. engine was designed in the late 70s
this vid is racist! white People working with white people , not enough majority minorities !
lets go Brandon!