6.2
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
6.2
My buddy is looking at a nice '85 3/4 ton suburban. It has a good running and sounding 6.2 Diesel. Are these decent engines? I have heard they are tough and long lasting, just shy on the "power" side of things. Thanks
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Black Hills, South Dakota
Originally Posted by Lead Head
I heard the 6.2s were decent, just low on power.
I also heard of a crank shaft breaking problem, but I believe that was on the 6.5, not the 6.2
I also heard of a crank shaft breaking problem, but I believe that was on the 6.5, not the 6.2
To the O.P.: Run away. Far far away.
Why are you still sitting here reading this. RUN
FTE Leadership Emeritus
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 18,787
Likes: 30
From: Melbourne, Aus
Originally Posted by Hobo
This is the craptastic reworked gas big block that GM turned into a diesel.
I have always heard (no personal experience with the 6.2) that apart from being slow... they were alright.
My dad installed a 6.5 turbo in his Nissan Patrol Cab Chassis - apart from 2 injection pumps, was a good motor.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,868
Likes: 9
From: Rhode Island
The 6.2 and 6.5 are Detroit diesel engines. They were fine motors for what they were supposed to do. Be fairly reliable and get decent mileage.
The older 5.7/350 GM Diesel was the reworked gasser that had tons of problems.
If the truck has no problems, runs good, and doesn't make any odd noises, I would take it.
The older 5.7/350 GM Diesel was the reworked gasser that had tons of problems.
If the truck has no problems, runs good, and doesn't make any odd noises, I would take it.
Postmaster
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: None of your business
Originally Posted by Hobo
The 6.2L GM V8 diesel came before the 6.5L. They are horrible motors in my opinion, and I have had the displeasure of using quite a few of them in HMMV's. 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.
To the O.P.: Run away. Far far away.
Why are you still sitting here reading this. RUN
To the O.P.: Run away. Far far away.
Why are you still sitting here reading this. RUN
The only part right is that the 6.2 was in the HMMWV, which bye the way is really, really heavy and not built for speed at all.
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.
Mike
Trending Topics
Postmaster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,511
Likes: 0
From: Marion, VA
Originally Posted by BLK94F150
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The only part right is that the 6.2 was in the HMMWV, which bye the way is really, really heavy and not built for speed at all.
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.
Mike
The only part right is that the 6.2 was in the HMMWV, which bye the way is really, really heavy and not built for speed at all.
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.
Mike
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
Posting Guru
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
6.2's are decent motors but as everyone said they are low on power. With the price of diesel though I'd like to have my 83 6.2 back since it got 20mpg in town. Mine ran awsome for 250k miles, got rid of the truck about 5 years ago.... I had more probs with the OD transmission than the engine!
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
A good friend of mine had a 6.2 in a 3/4 ton Chevy in high school and it was a GOOD ENGINE. It made ample power (I thought) and got WAY better mileage than I did w/ my Ford I6. However on the flip side I have a cousin who put 3 different 6.2's in a 1 ton Chevy in a matter of 8 or 9 years. So its a toss up I guess, the big factor would be if they know where the vehicle has been and how well it has been treated.
Tuned
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 311
Likes: 3
From: Arkansas
A well treated 6.2L will last forever. I worked for a lady who owns a Suburban with a 6.2L in it and it's nearing 400,000 problem-free miles. Just now acquired a minor fuel leak but an easy fix from what I can see. It's ugly and noisy but it will get from A to B.
New User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
mine got 22 consistently, and the only problem was that it fried the 700r4, which I knew was a guarantee going in to the Suburban.
I may use a 6.2 to power the new Ford creation actually, thanks for this thread. Forgot how happy I was with that motor til I read this thread.
I may use a 6.2 to power the new Ford creation actually, thanks for this thread. Forgot how happy I was with that motor til I read this thread.