1998 6.5 2Dr Tahoe

[8Bucksagallon]

Hi All, Long time lurker. I currently own a '97 K2500 Suburban, since new, love it and with only 70,000 miles on it, and never having done a days work in its life its a keeper. I have seen a '98 2dr Tahoe diesel(4WD) for sale, great condition, 138,000KMS, and my question is, when I go to view it, is there anything transmission/motor related I should be looking for?
If I do buy it which is more than likely if its not a complete shed, then what would you all recommend to make it reliable, and or enhance it? Truck will be used as a daily driver and longer trips, As me, and it are based in Italy, parts are available but very spendy, so not particularly interested in customising too much, but any thing that improves it, I will consider.
As far as I know (language barrier!) its standard, but I don't know what that means in terms of rear end etc.
Max towing limit in Europe is 3.5MT, how do these tow regarding power and stability? I don't imagine it will do much, but occasionally. Do these have a fuel economy benefit over a similar 5.7? Ive owned those before and averaged 14MPG.
Any info and advice greatfully received.
N

 

[Schurkey]

Everything rubber is suspect--from tires to body mounts to hoses and belts, and suspension bushings.

All fluids and filters are probably due for changing.

Verify everything safety-related: Steering, suspension, brakes.

"I" would not touch a 6.2L--6.5L diesel, but that's me.

Verify the transmission--4L60E vs. 4L80E. Most likely the '80E, which is good.

 

[8Bucksagallon]

Everything rubber is suspect--from tires to body mounts to hoses and belts, and suspension bushings.

All fluids and filters are probably due for changing.

Verify everything safety-related: Steering, suspension, brakes.

"I" would not touch a 6.2L--6.5L diesel, but that's me.

Verify the transmission--4L60E vs. 4L80E. Most likely the '80E, which is good.

Hi, Thanks for that, all good advice. 80E is a good shout so I will see if it has that, was that a feature of the diesel trucks? As to the. rest of it, these things in Europe tend to be toys and don't get worked much, so don't anticipate something that's been flogged to death, just something that is unloved. I will upload any thing I have If I buy it.

 

[618 Syndicate]

@giaguaro may be able to help you with the language issue, he's a 400 owner also in Italy.

 

[someotherguy]

"I" would not touch a 6.2L--6.5L diesel, but that's me.

You'll get plenty of agreement, and only a little disagreement, on that..

Richard

 

[618 Syndicate]

A 6.5 has its place.
From my perspective as a former owner that place is underwater at the end of a chain keeping a boat from moving, but others have different feelings...

 

[giaguaro]

A 6.5 has its place.
From my perspective as a former owner that place is underwater at the end of a chain keeping a boat from moving, but others have different feelings...

I'm a gasoline man too, also if I am Italian

 

[8Bucksagallon]

Well! Didn't know they were so reviled. Been on the Tube and they seem to like em! Appreciate all the opinions though.

 

[Schurkey]

Unlike the Duramax, the 6.2L and 6.5L were less-reliable, less durable, and significantly less-powerful. And even with the turbo on some of the 6.5L, they never made Duramax power or had their reliability.

A diesel without a turbo is a guaranteed turd. A diesel with a turbo can be bad, indifferent, or excellent depending on it's other qualities.

The Duramax was a total game-changer for GM light-vehicle diesel engines. It was everything the Olds and the 6.2L wasn't.

I'm certainly no "Diesel" guy even if I worked with and around them for a long time.

 

[haroldwca]

I will chime in with favor toward the 6.5. Although my experience is limited to my brother-in-law's 2500, the 6.5L was quite a good engine for him. No, it does not have the same torque as a Duramax. It was never intended to be a torque monster. It (and the 6.2L before it) were both intended for fuel economy. This it does well. Reports of 20 mpg loaded have been made. It is very efficient. This is the downfall of a Duramax. I drove a friend's Duramax to tow a C2500. On a 350 mile round trip, it used almost 30 gallons of fuel. As the largest load I would ever tow, I did not need the extra torque of the Duramax, but I would have appreciated the economy of the 6.5L on that trip. I lost enough money on that deal without adding insult to injury by the Duramax' incredible thirst. If that is your situation as well, you may appreciate the 6.5L.