What is it about the 6.2L engine that makes you say that it looks converted? I'm not an expert on GM diesels by any means, but the only engines I was aware of that were based on gasoline engines were the earlier Olds and Caddy 350 diesels.

SteveM

__________________
'93 190E/D 2.5 Turbodiesel 5-speed (daily driver)
'87 190D 2.5 Turbo rustbucket - parts car
'84 Dodge Rampage diesel - Land Speed Record Holder
'13 Ram 2500 Diesel
'05 Toyota 4Runner

The 6.2 was a "from the ground up" diesel - but it has amazingly poor power output. As recall the 6.2 GM Diesel put put less power AND torque than the 3.0 liter 617 Turbodiesel!!!

I've driven a Chevy Suburban with a 6.2 Diesel - it kind of reminded my of a 240D automatic on a cold morning.

I'd love to have a 1996/97 Cummins diesel Dodge truck, but they are holding too much resale value for me.

Considering the 1984 GMC 6.2 diesels. Am I better off just getting a 350 gas GM?

Ken300D

__________________
--------------------------
1982 300D at 351K miles
1984 300SD at 217K miles
1987 300D at 370K miles

Ken,
It's kind of funny. A couple of guys will be talking. One will say something about his diesel truck, and the other guy will ask "Ford or Dodge". Chevy isn't even considered, and that's as it should be...

**edit** I'm sure someone will rave about his random chevy diesel being so reliable and long lasting, but like Volvo diesels, that is the exception, certainly not the rule...

__________________
Jimmy L.
'05 Acura TL 6MT
2001 ML430 My Spare

Gone:
'95 E300 188K "Batmobile" Texas Unfriendly Black
'85 300TD 235K "The Wagon" Texas Friendly White
'80 240D 154K "China" Scar engine installed
'81 300TD 240K "Smash"
'80 240D 230K "The Squash"
'81 240D 293K"Scar" Rear ended harder than Elton John

Yours was not running right. My 3/4 ton 4X4 will smoke the rear tires in two wheel drive. And they have WAY more torque than the 617, the HP figures are lower than you would think as its redline is at a lower RPM and its peak torque is too. But still higher than the 617.

It will eat my 300SD W116 alive in acceleration.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

We had a 6.5 Turbo in a '97 GMC Sierra.. it was rather bulletproof. It wasn't the quickest thing around, but strap ~12,000 pounds of our boat behind it and it would pull like hell and not gripe a bit. We have since traded that truck in on a Sierra with a Duramax in it, and I have to admit that I am highly impressed. It goes down the road like a gas truck, and it even makes our old 6.5 look weak in handling the boat's weight on mountain roads. IMHO.. if people can get over the GM diesel stigma, the Duramax will be a valiant competitor.
~D.J.~

They should, considering that the Duramax is built by Isuzu, a manufacturer that builds some of the most reliable trucks in the world.

The Isuzu Engine is one of the best.

My friend owns one I think 2004.

He told me his experience with that truck was unbelievable.

He was on the highway going 60 mph, suddenly he floors the truck and it burns rubber even at 60 mph!

Thats power!

You can say what you want about your American crap.

My friend owns an STS and there is no way that is better than a Mercedes.

If not even BMW is better....

My friend has been to the shop for fuel injectors and power loss for his STS with only 26K miles. I laugh and laugh! Plus it does 13 mpg! thats sick and stupid.

I ask him why get that car? All those horses and no place to gallop!

...if you want your diesel pickup to drive like a sports car, sure...

I agree. It is unbelievable.

Whoa, I agree with Mike on something Mike's completely right, and this is actually one of my reasons for actively boycotting GM. I just hope we're seeing the beginning of a new trend...the E320 CDi, Liberty diesel, etc...this could be the start of something new...

If that's truly the case, I think something's wrong with your 300SD. Granted I have a 123, but before adding the turbo to my Ford, my 123 could outrun my truck. This was with a 6.9l engine that's got a full 50 horsepower and 155 ft-lbs of torque on an OM617. The difference in my case is that the truck weighs almost double what my 300D weighs.

With the turbo, I haven't tried yet...

This explains a lot...

You are correct about the torque - An OM603, with three liters of displacement, equals the GM 6.2 Diesel with 150Hp +/- horsepower but the GM 6.2 makes the most of it's 3.2 liter displacement to enjoy a 50 lb/foot advantage over the Mercedes engine.

I realize I'm comparing a turbo to a non-turbo setup but I'm sticking to my observation - the 6.2 has a very low power output as a function of engine displacement. No real surprise there.

I think this was deliberate...IIRC, GM's IDI diesels were built primarily for fuel mileage, not brute power. They were also built lighter (this is why you find them in 1/2 tons and Blazers)...if memory serves, they don't weight that much more than a smallblock g@$$er, whereas other pickup diesels tend to weigh nearly double that of a g@$$er of similar displacement.

I rememebr hearing that a stock 6.2l driven lightly can get 25+ mpg...but it can't tow worth beans (at least compared to the Ford and Dodge diesels) and tends to go through auto trannies like they're going out of style...

Our '88 6.2 Diesel Chevy Conversion Van I elected to rebuild at 189000mi since it burned a couple quarts between changes otherwise took us to east and west coasts on many occasions. I added a turbo from a "98 Chevy Van and wow what a wake up for this motor.

Transmission failed several months later with only a blown nylon seal inside. The mechanic remarked how little wear were on the bearings in the motor and on the clutches in the transmission. The numbers were readable on the surfaces of the clutches.
The full size van accelerates effortlessly and my wife's mileage with our 6 children around town is at 17mpg. The range on this vehicle is terrific.

I owned 2 Olds diesels up to 167000mi and 186000mi respectively. The "82 I replaced head gaskets 3 times the other '83 ran with no problems till I sold it. I also owned an '84 Cadillac Fleetwood diesel and sold it with no problems at 189000mi. It was rare, beautiful and extremely comfortable long range driver.

I hope I didn't get to carried away in our forum with this dissertation on GM diesels

__________________
'96 C220 138,000mi, '95 E300D 239,000 mi., '87 300TD 214,000mi '88 6.2 Turbo Diesel Chevy Conversion Van 253,000 mi.