|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
603VNT ideal for swap?
How would a 603 with a VNT compare to a GM 6.3 in a Tahoe/Suburban sized vehicle?
I'm just daydreaming, I can't even afford a gasser Tahoe
__________________
$60 OM617 Blank Exhaust Flanges $110 OM606 Blank Exhaust Flanges No merc at the moment |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
The 3L stock puts out about as much horsepower as the 6.2L in the tahoe. For just driving, it would be ok. I don't know about the other complexities of installing the engine.
__________________
All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing. Too many people tip toe through life, never attempting or doing anything great, hoping to make it safely to death... Bob Proctor '95 S320 LWB '87 300SDL '04 E500 wagon 4matic |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The 6.2L has an extra 50lb/ft of torque. For a driver, it wouldn't be much different than having a g@sser instead, just a bit slower.
For any kind of towing, stick with the 6.2 or find a 6.5t. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
the horsepower might be about the same cause i think the 6.2 is about 180hp but the V8 is going to produce a lot more torque. I've been thinkin about a 617 in a 4 wheel drive S10.
__________________
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
The 6.5T has in general been a terrible engine. It's kinda the GM version of the 603 3.5 liter.
__________________
All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing. Too many people tip toe through life, never attempting or doing anything great, hoping to make it safely to death... Bob Proctor '95 S320 LWB '87 300SDL '04 E500 wagon 4matic |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thats not in the least bit true.
The 6.5 was designed from the start to be turbocharged and, although it's design is a little funky, its a good engine that can support around 300hp with marine components. It wouldn't be used in one of the most successful military vehicles (Hummer) if it wasn't good. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
that is the exact same thing i tell people. i dont see H1s with a 12/24 valve cummins or a 7.3 powerstroke. The 6.5 got a bad rep in the early 90s when the injector pumps failed but GM replaced them with the newer version used on late model 95s and newer.
__________________
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
The civilian H1 is a troublesome beast, I've had one. The reason that the GM diesel was used is that it is a simple throw-away engine, the military drops in a new one when it wears out, had to be a diesel, ... military bidding system and all, ... often the lowest bid wins and once you're in, ... you're in.
__________________
Gone to the dark side - Jeff |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
6.2 was definately not 180 hp. It was 130 if I recall. The latest 6.5 turbo was 215
__________________
'83 300D 198,000mi Howard '03 Saturn Vue CVT 75,000mi(wifeys) |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
OBD-II 6.5L Chevrolet Diesels were 195 hp.
__________________
91 350SD 14 F150 Eco 19 Fusion Hybrid 11 GT500 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta love how people with NO experience with a 6.5 think they are crap. I've got one with 250K, trouble free, though it does need injectors right now. If you believed all the BS dimwits post on every diesel forum you wouldn't buy anything. RT
__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops! 84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K 03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K 93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Hmmm. Didn't know they made a stock turbo engine (go on, laugh at me)
Sounds like sticking with a GM engine would save alot of headaches
__________________
$60 OM617 Blank Exhaust Flanges $110 OM606 Blank Exhaust Flanges No merc at the moment |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
i have never had a problem with a 6.5 and i strongly prefer the V8 powerband over that of a 5.9 cummins. the best thing to do with i 6.5 is lower the compression ratio and throw in more boost...this is all excluding the fact that nothing beats a chevrolet in handling. trying to keep a straight axle dodge or ford on the road is not pleasant.
__________________
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|