Pics of my new truck!

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

phule

Back in a 400 again
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,358
Reaction score
145
Location
Southern nh
Nice truck, god I love me the crew cab

Sent from a wannabe ipad
 

GMT400FAN

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
73
Reaction score
48
yeah i have a 454 and a 6.5... 454 is way more reliable and a lot stronger..

Yeah thats why I did my research before I went out and bought my truck. The 454 is the best choice for power and dendebility.
 

GMT400FAN

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
73
Reaction score
48
Nice truck wish mine was a long bed

Lol yeah the long bed was a must have for me. The crew cab short beds are pretty rare. I think it was only 1999 and 2000 you could get them on a GMT400.
 

great white

Retirement countdown!
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
6,266
Reaction score
210
Yeah thats why I did my research before I went out and bought my truck. The 454 is the best choice for power and dendebility.

Cant argue that statement!

My 6.5 will out haul, out live and out mpg a 454 now, but I had to spend almost 12 grand to get to this point.

Would have been cheaper and less frustrating in the long run to have gone Rat the first time around....
 

GMT400FAN

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
73
Reaction score
48
Cant argue that statement!

My 6.5 will out haul, out live and out mpg a 454 now, but I had to spend almost 12 grand to get to this point.

Would have been cheaper and less frustrating in the long run to have gone Rat the first time around....

Yeah it sucks that the 6.5 had so many problems, and GM did nohing to fix them. Actually a friend of mine is running a '93 mechanical 6.5, he has had no major problems with it. I think he did put an injector pump in it. But its got like 275,000 miles on it. I think the old '92 and '93 mechanical 6.5's were better. You obviously can't chip them, But i'd take reliability over more performance any day. I was very close to buying a 6.5. I went and looked at a '97 GMC K2500 ECLB 6.5, it was a nice truck, But I didn't have a very good feeling about it. The owner acted like he was hiding something so I walked away. About a week later I found the '98 GMC K3500 with the big block. When I got to the guys house the owner came right out and gave me a walk around of the truck, showed me all the receipts of recent parts he put in it. But as soon as I got in the truck and cranked that 454 to life I feel in love with it. I knew that I had found the right truck, and the ruby red interior, crew cab long bed was icing on the cake.
 

great white

Retirement countdown!
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
6,266
Reaction score
210
Yeah it sucks that the 6.5 had so many problems, and GM did nohing to fix them. Actually a friend of mine is running a '93 mechanical 6.5, he has had no major problems with it. I think he did put an injector pump in it. But its got like 275,000 miles on it. I think the old '92 and '93 mechanical 6.5's were better. You obviously can't chip them, But i'd take reliability over more performance any day. I was very close to buying a 6.5. I went and looked at a '97 GMC K2500 ECLB 6.5, it was a nice truck, But I didn't have a very good feeling about it. The owner acted like he was hiding something so I walked away. About a week later I found the '98 GMC K3500 with the big block. When I got to the guys house the owner came right out and gave me a walk around of the truck, showed me all the receipts of recent parts he put in it. But as soon as I got in the truck and cranked that 454 to life I feel in love with it. I knew that I had found the right truck, and the ruby red interior, crew cab long bed was icing on the cake.

You have to remember that the 6.5 was actually born a 6.2 and was built to produce around 130hp in a NA state.

It was also built to be a mpg monster in a time when everyone was up in arms about mpg.

That gm squeezed a turbo on there and pushed it to 200-210hp is not bad for that type of design. That i've seen 271 rwhp and 440-ish tq on "the heartbreaker" is nothing short of incredible considering it's humble beginnings.

Gm also knew they had problems and tried to fix them, albeit as cheaply as possible.

They knew about the cracking main webs and reduced the outer main cap bolts from 12mm to 10mm to try and keep some beef. No good, cracking continued.

They knew about the overheating and #8 heat issues. Upgraded water pumps through production, high flow stat housings, 9 bladed fans, different fan cluthes, etc. No dice, overheat when used heavy continued.

Clipped castings, cracking heads, etc. All do to asking far more of the engine than it was ever designed for.

Then stanadyne threw gm a curve ball (or maybe more appropriately the last nail in the coffin) with the ds4. Rushed into market to be "the first" electronic diesel, it had serious problems with the pump driver failing.

Then the gov't chucked the whole line a curve with ulsd. Injector pumps started failing. Lack of lubricity in the first days of ulsd.

Chuck on top of all this that everyone expected to throw 10,000 lbs on it and climb the rockies like a cummins while lasting out to around 400-500,000 miles and the poor old 6.5 never stood a chance....poor old mpg miser engine.

That light duty diesel design never stood a chance swiming in the deep end with 6bt medium duty and IH idi/di engines..:(
 
Last edited:

JScott23

8 Lug Expert
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
458
Location
Illinois
couldn't agree more... people often bash on 6.5's so much.. really when maintained properly they can be good motors.. lasting 250-300k.. They're not a cummins/duramax but they aren't to terrible.. people tend to forget you can get almost 22mpg out of these things! For the time, the 6.2/6.5's were not bad at all... but as great white said GM then started cheapening it up and then it went south.. The only 6.5's i'd buy if i were to do it again would be a 92-93. Our 93 made it 250k and only failed because of the poorly designed heads. New heads and it was back on the road.
The 94 i have has been a giant headache, that's why I'm going to swap a DB2 in it, or do a Gas 350 swap.

Another downfall is the cost of the parts, i know diesel parts are typically expensive, but man the 6.5 parts seem way overpriced for the engine quality.


Overall in the long run you'll be happy you went with the 454.. the only downfall being the 13 mpg but honestly with the cost of diesel, i didn't save much money with the 6.5 and with the reliability, i'm willing to spend the extra money at the pump.
 
Top