Small Displacement Diesel Swap Options?

[letitsnow]

I'm sure that's been taken care of in the new $60,000 1/2 ton diesels.

...That most who are driving will never actually own.

 

[lubbockguy1979]

I forgit to mention that. And they sound terrible. That guys surburban sounded pretty bad and its loud.

My 16 f350 is quiet. I can hear the car next to me in traffic. Now my 05 f250 is louder... not old school cummins loud but shut it off in a drive thru loud. But ive had gas motors with custome exhausts that were louder.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[93crewcab]

My 16 f350 is quiet. I can hear the car next to me in traffic. Now my 05 f250 is louder... not old school cummins loud but shut it off in a drive thru loud. But ive had gas motors with custome exhausts that were louder.

Sent from my SM-G975U using
Tapatalk

I was referring to the small diesel that was in the suburban. My duramax is pretty quite too.

 

[nickthehick78]

Any of the engines mentioned are much better than a 6.5L. The only thing the 6.5 has going for it is factory installation, in my opinion.

i disagree, the 6.5 has alot more going for it and is better in some aspects. maybe not power or technology, but with everything he listed that he is looking for, the 6.5 is the perfect choice for him.

if fuel mileage is a concern at all, for a truck you just want to putt around town with and not run a business with, then cost of any of this swap or truck replacement is a issue. the 6.5 is hands down, the cheapest to swap or get a replacement truck with it. cheapest to maintain(by alot) cheapest replacement parts(by even more.) simplest to work on.

he said he is just driving around, no heavy pulling, big trailers. the 6.5 has more than enough power for what he intends to do with it.

i get crap fuel mileage with my set up, and even then its 13.5mpg, and thats pushing a lifted truck on 37s with a chip and hx40 turbo with a heavy foot.....lots of guys say they are getting 18 and up mpg with a 6.5.

everyone craps on the 6.5 diesel, and putting it up against a cummins or "real diesel", id agree the 6.5 is crap....but it was designed for exactly what this guy is looking for....when the 6.5 was offered the 454 was the pulling engine, the 6.5 was made for fuel mileage over all else, with more pulling power than a small block. it was a middle weight engine. thats why i think for what he is looking for, its the cheapest and best option that meets all his needs.

just my opinion, coming from a 6.5 owner with years of experience, good and bad with these engines

 

[L31MaxExpress]

The duramax intercooler fits easier then you think

The duramax van one would likely fit very easily. The whole duramax van engine was packaged to more or less go in place of a LS engine in a tiny engine compartment.

 

[skylark]

i disagree, the 6.5 has alot more going for it and is better in some aspects. maybe not power or technology, but with everything he listed that he is looking for, the 6.5 is the perfect choice for him.

if fuel mileage is a concern at all, for a truck you just want to putt around town with and not run a business with, then cost of any of this swap or truck replacement is a issue. the 6.5 is hands down, the cheapest to swap or get a replacement truck with it. cheapest to maintain(by alot) cheapest replacement parts(by even more.) simplest to work on.

he said he is just driving around, no heavy pulling, big trailers. the 6.5 has more than enough power for what he intends to do with it.

i get crap fuel mileage with my set up, and even then its 13.5mpg, and thats pushing a lifted truck on 37s with a chip and hx40 turbo with a heavy foot.....lots of guys say they are getting 18 and up mpg with a 6.5.

everyone craps on the 6.5 diesel, and putting it up against a cummins or "real diesel", id agree the 6.5 is crap....but it was designed for exactly what this guy is looking for....when the 6.5 was offered the 454 was the pulling engine, the 6.5 was made for fuel mileage over all else, with more pulling power than a small block. it was a middle weight engine. thats why i think for what he is looking for, its the cheapest and best option that meets all his needs.

just my opinion, coming from a 6.5 owner with years of experience, good and bad with these engines

You are 100% correct, it meets his needs. If only it was more than just a roll of the dice reliable then it would be a good choice as well.

 

[jdla140]

My '93 has yet to average any less than 18 MPG this summer (entirely in town) and oil changes are no more expensive than a gas powered truck, just throwing that out there as a 6.2/5 enthusiast.

 

[LoCascio_Inc]

I’ve never personally owned a diesel vehicle but the general consensus I’ve always heard/read, is that the 6.2 and 6.5 are terrible. I imagine those opinions primarily stem from a power making perspective though. What’s their durability/reliability like when keeping power around factory output? I imagine that if they were/are reliable enough for a humvee in a war zone, then they can’t be as bad as people like to suggest.

 

[lubbockguy1979]

I’ve never personally owned a diesel vehicle but the general consensus I’ve always heard/read, is that the 6.2 and 6.5 are terrible. I imagine those opinions primarily stem from a power making perspective though. What’s the durability/reliability like for them when keeping power around factory output? I imagine that if they were/are reliable enough for a humvee in a war zone, than they can’t be as bad as people like to suggest.

If i remember 93/94 on they had a fuel driver that was temperamental to heat and it was mounted in the engine bay. That was their biggest problem. Compared to diesels of their day vs 7.3 and the 5.9 the problem was a overly high compression ratio that dosent leave much for adding a turbo. There was a company the had low compression pistons, better head gaskets and studs along with a larger turbo that would substantially increase performance. (Again that was probably 10-15 years ago reading from magazines and other sources)
As to the 6.2 it was extremely reliable just very underwhelming in acceleration. Know many a guy with blazers and cucuv trucks that just ran the crap out of them as well as farmers that drove them forever similar to the ford idi engines. They never made enough power to break anything but ran for ever. Most of the ones ive seen the engines still ran the trucks were junk though.
As you mentioned they had 6.5 and 6.2s in the hummer. They also offered a 5.7 gas motor in the civilian hummers and it was better on acceleration... not nessisarly prevelant but just a reference to why the 6.5 was most likely scrapped. It wasnt competitive in the increasing diesel market of the late 90s. If your goal is not speed and total power its not a bad option

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[skylark]

I copied this from a previous post.
The 6.5 was based on the 6.2 which didn't have enough power to do much of anything but The fine folks at General Moturds decided to "compete" with the 5.9 Cummins powered Dog and the upcoming 7.3 Powersmoke. To do that they slapped an inefficient turbo on a larger displacement engine with crappy metallurgy. Then they used a cooling system that wasn't up to the task. They also rushed the electronic injection pump using, in my opinion, an underdeveloped control module (PMD). There are notorious for PMS failures (was that really a typo?...), cracked blocks in the main webs, cracked heads, overheating cylinder #8, injection pump issues, failed oil pressure sensors, complete cooling system failures, harmonic balancer failures resulting in sheared crankshafts, a crappy rubber balancer pulley, the wastegate system consists of failed vacuum pump, cracked plastic lines and solenoid failures, the turbos used were really undersized for their application resulting in high drive pressures causing excessive heat leading to cracking in the heads and valve failures plus additional heat to the already overtaxed cooling system. Oh, I almost forgot that oil cooler lines like to fail in dramatic fashion. Don't believe me? Just Google 6.5 and everything that I mentioned.

I personally have owned 4 6.5 powered trucks. One I immediately sold. Two came to me with low mileage, 79k and 124k and both of those had valve failures. The 79k one had meticulous records including the additive and fuel mileage of every tank of fuel since new, every light bulb, oil change and truck wash. The fourth truck was my own personal truck and the #3 exhaust valve failed taking out the head, piston and possibly the rod as well. May it rest in pieces at 104k...

I'm stupid enough to put a 6.5 back in my truck because I don't have Cummins swapping cash and I had already bought new hoses, glow plugs, injectors, upgraded turbo, mandrel bent crossover and more prior to the engine failure. Not too long ago I came across an Optimizer for a reasonable price. Do I trust it? NOPE! I've addressed every single issue mentioned above but prior to it getting back on the road I will renew my AAA membership.