6.2 Chevrolet vs. 6.9 Ford vs. Early Cummins Dodge
#34
05-11-2008, 03:49 PM
#35
05-11-2008, 03:56 PM
NickFordMan, maybe it's not a fair comparison but the 04, 6.0 we have at work is a Crewcab and a 4x4 which I'm sure effects the performance overall but the 6.9 I had was a screamer. Like I said, afterwards they lowered the compression ratio by quite a bit. If you have experience with the 6.9, it will make a difference as to the year model. The early ones were were strong as new rope.
I just remebered that I have time slips on that thing somewhere around here. I run it thru the lights one nite when it was free to race. Don't go run to the bank with this but as I remember, it was in the mid 14's. IF I can find them, I'll post the slips or PM you with them.
I just remebered that I have time slips on that thing somewhere around here. I run it thru the lights one nite when it was free to race. Don't go run to the bank with this but as I remember, it was in the mid 14's. IF I can find them, I'll post the slips or PM you with them.
#37
05-11-2008, 10:54 PM
I had an 83 F-250 with the then new 6.9. It was a regular cab, auto with 3.54 gears. I pulled a 5er with it and it did a fabulous job. I had only once pushed it beyond its capability and had 32,000 pounds of load and trailer behind it. It wouldn't pull it over 50 mph but I also wasn't going far with the load. It got great fuel mileage empty, 26-28 hiway at the speeds of those times. I had injector pump troubles with it though and Ford pretty much said it was my problem. I found an old boy that built me a pump and it lasted for as long as I kept up with the truck. I sold it to a friend and the truck all but fell apart on him at 30,000 miles. The bottom pulley came off of the crank and went out thru the radiator and A/C and ripped the alternator and fan off of the engine. Ford split the bill with him which I thought was pretty decent of Ford. The engine block cracked at 100,000 miles and he had it drilled and welded. I also had a bud with the Cummins. Mine would out pull his in a heartbeat and get about the same fuel mileage. This was before the torque wars of today and the diesel engines got great fuel mileage. The Cummins was probably the most reliable. The 1985 series of 6.9 was the most reliable for Ford. There was a head gasket issue and injector pump issues that they worked out for the 85 year model. After their modifications to the head gaskets, power suffered as they reduced the compression ratio a bunch. My 83 was running 24:1 compression and it was reduced somewhere around 18:1. My 6.9 at the time would stay with a 454 SS Chevy from light to light. It was quick and most didn't believe a diesel would move like that. The 6.0 seems to be close to being as quick. I always thought the 7.3 was a slug as compared to the 6.9, reliable yes, but slow. Great memories of that truck.
As others have said the Chevy diesel was a joke. Reliabilty and that engine can't be said in the same sentence. The Cummins was the most reliable as far as the engine goes. Dodge has had and continues to have problems with the lift pump (fuel pump) but that is a Dodge problem, not a Cummins problem. The Cummins has had some injector problems along the way but that has been addressed and corrected. The easiest to service was the Cummins by far. Everything you need to get to is at your finger tips. Too bad Ford doesn't try that with their present day diesel engine.
As others have said the Chevy diesel was a joke. Reliabilty and that engine can't be said in the same sentence. The Cummins was the most reliable as far as the engine goes. Dodge has had and continues to have problems with the lift pump (fuel pump) but that is a Dodge problem, not a Cummins problem. The Cummins has had some injector problems along the way but that has been addressed and corrected. The easiest to service was the Cummins by far. Everything you need to get to is at your finger tips. Too bad Ford doesn't try that with their present day diesel engine.
#38
05-12-2008, 02:11 AM
More Turbo
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: KS
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to the favor of which? i am not a fan of any of the designs that GM has used over the years, but in all honesty i was pretty impressed with the performance level of the optimizer 6500 (basically 6.5 turbo) in our 1114/1151's. they'd get up and go and the dang things topped the scales close to 15,000 lbs...now the non turbo 6.2 and 6.5's we had were total gutless unreliable junk...
#39
05-12-2008, 07:00 AM
Posting Guru
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: West Valley Utah
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short history lesson:
The 6.9L, 420-inch V-8 produced 175 hp and 318 lb-ft of torque with 20.7:1 compression. It featured IDI (Indirect Diesel Injection), which used a mechanical pump-line nozzle injection system that metered fuel into a small pre-chamber in the head before it was mechanically injected into the combustion chamber right before TDC. In 1984, a boost in compression to 21.5:1 jumped torque to 338 lb-ft, but there was no horsepower gain.
The 6BT 5.9 L B5.9 aka the Cummins "12-Valve" was the first member of the "B" engine family to be used in a light truck vehicle. This engine started life in 1984 as an agricultural engine, for use in Case agricultural equipment by a joint venture between Cummins Engine Corp. and Case called Consolidated Diesel Corp. Appearing in the 1989-1998.5 Dodge Ram pickup truck, it quickly became a popular alternative to the large V8 gasoline engines normally used in full-size pickup trucks.
The GM light-truck 6.2L and 6.5L diesel engines were optional in the 1982-2000 C/K series pickup trucks, and in the Suburban, Chevy Tahoe & Blazer, GMC Yukon & Jimmy, vans, and motor homes (RV) - in both turbo diesel (TD) and naturally aspirated (NA) versions. In addition, low cost and ready availability have made these engines extremely popular the world over for diesel conversion projects; powering Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and a host of other foreign and domestic production vehicles.
The 6.9L, 420-inch V-8 produced 175 hp and 318 lb-ft of torque with 20.7:1 compression. It featured IDI (Indirect Diesel Injection), which used a mechanical pump-line nozzle injection system that metered fuel into a small pre-chamber in the head before it was mechanically injected into the combustion chamber right before TDC. In 1984, a boost in compression to 21.5:1 jumped torque to 338 lb-ft, but there was no horsepower gain.
The 6BT 5.9 L B5.9 aka the Cummins "12-Valve" was the first member of the "B" engine family to be used in a light truck vehicle. This engine started life in 1984 as an agricultural engine, for use in Case agricultural equipment by a joint venture between Cummins Engine Corp. and Case called Consolidated Diesel Corp. Appearing in the 1989-1998.5 Dodge Ram pickup truck, it quickly became a popular alternative to the large V8 gasoline engines normally used in full-size pickup trucks.
The GM light-truck 6.2L and 6.5L diesel engines were optional in the 1982-2000 C/K series pickup trucks, and in the Suburban, Chevy Tahoe & Blazer, GMC Yukon & Jimmy, vans, and motor homes (RV) - in both turbo diesel (TD) and naturally aspirated (NA) versions. In addition, low cost and ready availability have made these engines extremely popular the world over for diesel conversion projects; powering Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and a host of other foreign and domestic production vehicles.
#40
05-12-2008, 09:53 AM
Short history lesson:
The 6.9L, 420-inch V-8 produced 175 hp and 318 lb-ft of torque with 20.7:1 compression. It featured IDI (Indirect Diesel Injection), which used a mechanical pump-line nozzle injection system that metered fuel into a small pre-chamber in the head before it was mechanically injected into the combustion chamber right before TDC. In 1984, a boost in compression to 21.5:1 jumped torque to 338 lb-ft, but there was no horsepower gain.
The 6BT 5.9 L B5.9 aka the Cummins "12-Valve" was the first member of the "B" engine family to be used in a light truck vehicle. This engine started life in 1984 as an agricultural engine, for use in Case agricultural equipment by a joint venture between Cummins Engine Corp. and Case called Consolidated Diesel Corp. Appearing in the 1989-1998.5 Dodge Ram pickup truck, it quickly became a popular alternative to the large V8 gasoline engines normally used in full-size pickup trucks.
The GM light-truck 6.2L and 6.5L diesel engines were optional in the 1982-2000 C/K series pickup trucks, and in the Suburban, Chevy Tahoe & Blazer, GMC Yukon & Jimmy, vans, and motor homes (RV) - in both turbo diesel (TD) and naturally aspirated (NA) versions. In addition, low cost and ready availability have made these engines extremely popular the world over for diesel conversion projects; powering Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and a host of other foreign and domestic production vehicles.
The 6.9L, 420-inch V-8 produced 175 hp and 318 lb-ft of torque with 20.7:1 compression. It featured IDI (Indirect Diesel Injection), which used a mechanical pump-line nozzle injection system that metered fuel into a small pre-chamber in the head before it was mechanically injected into the combustion chamber right before TDC. In 1984, a boost in compression to 21.5:1 jumped torque to 338 lb-ft, but there was no horsepower gain.
The 6BT 5.9 L B5.9 aka the Cummins "12-Valve" was the first member of the "B" engine family to be used in a light truck vehicle. This engine started life in 1984 as an agricultural engine, for use in Case agricultural equipment by a joint venture between Cummins Engine Corp. and Case called Consolidated Diesel Corp. Appearing in the 1989-1998.5 Dodge Ram pickup truck, it quickly became a popular alternative to the large V8 gasoline engines normally used in full-size pickup trucks.
The GM light-truck 6.2L and 6.5L diesel engines were optional in the 1982-2000 C/K series pickup trucks, and in the Suburban, Chevy Tahoe & Blazer, GMC Yukon & Jimmy, vans, and motor homes (RV) - in both turbo diesel (TD) and naturally aspirated (NA) versions. In addition, low cost and ready availability have made these engines extremely popular the world over for diesel conversion projects; powering Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and a host of other foreign and domestic production vehicles.
#41
05-12-2008, 11:43 AM
FTE Legend
I worked for a farmer that used a couple of chevy 6.2 diesel's. They werent much of a work horse type engine, but his were very reliable, and got great fuel economy.
His one 2 wheel drive half ton had a 6.2, a 3 speed with od manual tranny, and it got 30 mpg empty.
The truck was rusted all to hell and noisy but she kept on going.
His one 2 wheel drive half ton had a 6.2, a 3 speed with od manual tranny, and it got 30 mpg empty.
The truck was rusted all to hell and noisy but she kept on going.
#42
05-12-2008, 12:27 PM
Posting Guru
here is a simple way to put it
6.2 light duty
6.9 heavy duty
5.9 heavy duty
the 6.2 /6.5 was good for a pickup to haul light stuff if you start haulling and abusing it usally the cranks would go... that is the main fault of a 6.2/6.5...(got 2 with broke cranks)
now the 6.9 man I got two that have been beat to death.. hot ran low on oil (woulnd't show on stick) rattles horrible and they still will run..
the 5.9 don't know much about them except they are like the 350 of circle track racing.. lots of aftermarket goodies to make them a killer motor.. and last...
if ford or chevy would have used cummings first the other 2 would have went bankrupt... could you imagine a 5.9 in a 84 chevy or ford the sales would have went through the roof.... if a dodge truck was as good as the engine ford and chevy would have went under...jmo
6.2 light duty
6.9 heavy duty
5.9 heavy duty
the 6.2 /6.5 was good for a pickup to haul light stuff if you start haulling and abusing it usally the cranks would go... that is the main fault of a 6.2/6.5...(got 2 with broke cranks)
now the 6.9 man I got two that have been beat to death.. hot ran low on oil (woulnd't show on stick) rattles horrible and they still will run..
the 5.9 don't know much about them except they are like the 350 of circle track racing.. lots of aftermarket goodies to make them a killer motor.. and last...
if ford or chevy would have used cummings first the other 2 would have went bankrupt... could you imagine a 5.9 in a 84 chevy or ford the sales would have went through the roof.... if a dodge truck was as good as the engine ford and chevy would have went under...jmo
#43
05-12-2008, 12:33 PM
the 6.2 was a decent 1/2 ton motor in its day, my experience was that they would crack heads if you didn't let them warm up before you threw a load on them. if you were gentle til they warmed up they lasted. the 6.9 or 5.9 never even came in a 1/2 ton, so they don't really compare to chevy that way, they were generally more powerful and tougher for heavy applications. a 6.2 with overdrive could get around 32 mpg(cdn gallon) even the overdrive did alright if you didn't get crazy towing. with todays fuel prices i would love to be driving a 6.2 again, i generally don't need all the power i have, usually i'm accelerating a whole lot faster than the chevy would do anyway. for the guys with regular big loads its not an option, but for us more occasional types the reality is we could still pull anything we needed just a little slower accleration
#44
05-12-2008, 12:36 PM
#45
05-12-2008, 06:40 PM
Posting Guru