6.2
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
This is the craptastic reworked gas big block that GM turned into a diesel. They suck, have no power, and inf used to any degree of hard work tend to break.
The 6.2 was a detroit diesel and like another person posted, did what it was supposed to. Last forever, move things, be reliable, and run on diesel. They were a little slow, but that's because they were naturally asperated. If you put a Banks turbo system on the 6.2, it makes more power than the stock 6.5 that replaced it.
Oh the the 5.7 was totally built as a diesel engine. The problems it had are very similar to the problems of the 6.0. Not enough head bolts, using torque to yield head bolts, rushing to production, not having adequately trained mechanics and a problem that it doesn't share with the 6.0 is the lack of a water separator.
Supposedly after these things were worked out the 5.7 was a decent engine, but the damage was already done.
Oh the the 5.7 was totally built as a diesel engine. The problems it had are very similar to the problems of the 6.0. Not enough head bolts, using torque to yield head bolts, rushing to production, not having adequately trained mechanics and a problem that it doesn't share with the 6.0 is the lack of a water separator.
Supposedly after these things were worked out the 5.7 was a decent engine, but the damage was already done.
The 5.7 is somewhat based on a gasser (because it was to be used in vehicles that were also sold with a 350 gas), but a 6.2 is not AT ALL.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,096
Likes: 0
Our 6.2 diesel always got 20-26 mpg and outlasted the Suburban it came in.
I remember an annoyance was you could not remove the rocker covers without removing the injection lines which you could not remove without removing the intake manifold. In retrospect, after looking at some of the modern diesels of today, it was easy to diagnose and work on
I remember an annoyance was you could not remove the rocker covers without removing the injection lines which you could not remove without removing the intake manifold. In retrospect, after looking at some of the modern diesels of today, it was easy to diagnose and work on
More Turbo
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
From: KS
they might have done well in the GM pickups, but not HMMWV's. they were junk there, all of ours broke continuously when we had them over seas, but they were beat the hell up when we got them.
finally got outfitted with 1114's with the 6.5 turbo and for pushing 14 to 15000 lbs they have a LOT of guts to them, plus the brakes work surprisingly well. we had relatively few problems with them when we got 'em.
finally got outfitted with 1114's with the 6.5 turbo and for pushing 14 to 15000 lbs they have a LOT of guts to them, plus the brakes work surprisingly well. we had relatively few problems with them when we got 'em.
Junior User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: northport NY
The 6.2 was a good little engine. They were around for the first low sulfur diesel fuel and their cheap inj pumps suffered. The cranks didn,t break, but around 250000 miles, the harmonic damper falls apart, the engine vibrates a lot and the snout breaks off, pretty quickly. They are slow, but reliable otherwise. I drove mine for 20 years and still liked it. It's too bad they got confused with those converted 350's. By the way I likr my Ford better.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,293
Likes: 10
From: Parker, CO
My parents owned an old 84 Suburban with the 6.2L. Guaranteed the trans would break every year. Nothing like driving down the highway and see the rear glass covered in trans fluid. I lost count of how many times it happened.
The engine blew with less than 150K miles on it, cracked the block. My dad found a replacement block, took the heads in and had them reworked, put it together and sold it. That was one of the most problematic vehicles they owned. Trans couldn't handle the amount of torque at such low RPM's. Engine was gutless and could barely get out of it's own way at sea level. At altitude, you were lucky to make it up a mountain pass at 20 mph, and that was without a trailer behind it.
The engine blew with less than 150K miles on it, cracked the block. My dad found a replacement block, took the heads in and had them reworked, put it together and sold it. That was one of the most problematic vehicles they owned. Trans couldn't handle the amount of torque at such low RPM's. Engine was gutless and could barely get out of it's own way at sea level. At altitude, you were lucky to make it up a mountain pass at 20 mph, and that was without a trailer behind it.
FTE Legend
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 37,887
Likes: 20
From: North Central Rural Sask.
I used to drive one as a farm vehicle/company truck for this one farmer I worked for. It was an 81 chevy half ton 2 wheel drive 6.2 with a 3 speed standard with overdrive. The thing got amazing fuel economy, and with the lighter truck, and manual transmission it could move along really nice.
It had around the 600k mark on it for mileage, and I was young and didnt drive it nice at all. We had to change glow plugs on it in the few years I drove it, and that was it.
The rest of the truck basically rusted right out from underneath the motor, but its still used to this day, as a farm truck, running the original engine.
It had around the 600k mark on it for mileage, and I was young and didnt drive it nice at all. We had to change glow plugs on it in the few years I drove it, and that was it.
The rest of the truck basically rusted right out from underneath the motor, but its still used to this day, as a farm truck, running the original engine.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
From: northern Michigan
My dad had one of the 6.2's in a suburban. It lacked power but a Banks turbo kit rectified that issue. The suburban sucked, lots of issues with water leaks around the rear doors, side doors and automatic transmission don't hold up well with a diesel.
Elder User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
From: northern Michigan
My dad had one of the 6.2's in a suburban. It lacked power but a Banks turbo kit rectified that issue. The suburban sucked, lots of issues with water leaks around the rear doors, side doors and automatic transmission don't hold up well with a diesel. The engine also had issues with crankcase oil leaks around the oil pan.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,267
Likes: 5
they might have done well in the GM pickups, but not HMMWV's. they were junk there, all of ours broke continuously when we had them over seas, but they were beat the hell up when we got them.
finally got outfitted with 1114's with the 6.5 turbo and for pushing 14 to 15000 lbs they have a LOT of guts to them, plus the brakes work surprisingly well. we had relatively few problems with them when we got 'em.
finally got outfitted with 1114's with the 6.5 turbo and for pushing 14 to 15000 lbs they have a LOT of guts to them, plus the brakes work surprisingly well. we had relatively few problems with them when we got 'em.
HUmmers suck, engine wise. I was in one once, no leg room, powertrain leaves lots to be desired.
6.2's have nothing to do with 5.7's. , or DD for that matter.
6.2's and 6.5's are simply light duty engines. For light daily driving, they can last a long time. Nothing like the 7.3 IDI's or 5.9 cummins.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post