Bad Idea? (Free) 6.2L Diesel in my FJ40? (1 Viewer)

[SuperBuickGuy]

lol.... contrary to my wife's assertion (that I buy parts for the same reason as she buys decorations), there is a possibility that I'll use it.
If it was me, I'd grab that motor of his simply for the passenger-side exhaust manifold. The lines, the injection pump, and the belt set up are bonuses... and who knows, the heads may be fine - which would make the deal even sweeter. With that said, if you don't want the motor, I'd certainly be quite happy with the saveable bits off that motor - I might even pay shipping

And really, if I found a motor in the same condition as the one you're offered, I'd be on that like a woman on a cake at a weight-watchers convention.

A 6.2 or a 6.5 have roller cams, thus, they never really wear out - and the lifters for sure, and the cam (probably) are reuseable.

And with that said, while $2700 is a lot, it's not a lot considering for $3700 (including new pump and lifters) you'd have a brand-new diesel motor capable of living 400,000 miles. In that vein, the injection pump on the 96 really isn't all that - it's the electro-hybrid set up (google PMD) that no one likes. If you're going rugged, zombie-proof, get an earlier pump (post 83)... they are $400-$700. They work with the newer injectors, but they don't have any computer-controlled bits in them. Add $400 for a new turbo - and you're rocking.

 

[handcannon]

This thread caught my interest. So, I went to Wikipedia for information.

Here's what I found for the 6.2:
The original 6.2 L (379 cu in) Diesel V8 was introduced in 1982 for the Chevrolet C/K and was produced until 1993. The 6.2 L diesel emerged as a high-MPG alternative to the V8 gasoline engine lineup, and achieved better mileage than the General Motors 4.3 L V6 gasoline engines of the 1980s, at a time when the market was focused on mileage more than power. However, it was designed to easily install in place of the gasoline V8, using the same mounting and attachments for transmissions as all GM truck engines. Overall weight for the complete engine is slightly heavier than the 7.4 L gasoline engine.

Here's what I found on the 6.5:
The 6.5 L (395 cu in) version was introduced in 1992 to replace the 6.2. Most 6.5s are equipped with a turbo. This engine was never meant to be a power and torque competitor with Ford/International and Dodge/Cummins, but rather a simply designed workhorse engine that made credible power, achieved decent fuel economy and met emissions standards in half-ton trucks. The Duramax 6600 replaced the 6.5 in light trucks beginning in 2001 and the C3500HD medium duty cab and chassis (replaced by C4500 Kodiak/Topkick) and vans beginning in 2003, but the 6.5 (6500 Optimizer) is still produced by AM General for the HMMWV.

There are several GM 6.5 liter diesel engine production options. The Turbocharged L56, (VIN "S") was used in most light duty 3/4 ton (2500) Heavy duty 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks used the Turbocharged L65 (VIN "F") engine. The L56 is emissions controlled with EGR and catalytic converters. The L65 engine has no EGR, and has nocatalytic converter. There is a soot trap on L65 engines that is often mistaken for a catalytic converter. GM was the first manufacturer to introduce an electronically controlled fuel injection system into a diesel pickup truck.[2] The L49 (VIN "P") and L57 are both naturally aspirated engines. L57 is listed as HO or Heavy Duty. Additional RPO codes are LQM (175HP) and LQN (190HP).

Changes were made by GM to the 6.5 in their light trucks for emissions or reliability improvement. The 1992-1993 model years used a 6.5-specific Stanadyne DB-2 mechanical injection pump. GM replaced the DB-2 with the electronic throttle DS-4 in 1994-2000 vehicles. In mid-1996 GM implemented a redesigned engine cooling system incorporating twin non bypass-blocking thermostats and a 130 GPM] water pump. This improved the flow through the block by 70-75% and flow to the radiator 7%.



SBG- I may be getting company names mixed up as far as who actually took over building the 6.5 from GM, but according to Wikipedia (if they are accurate) AM General did take over from GM. But, after GM quit putting the 6.5 into their vehicles another company (Navistar) took over casting the block for other uses and military contracts. When this happened the block was upgraded and is why the later year mil take outs are considered better. These blocks will have a special symbol cast into the valley that looks similar to this, <> (the Navistar endless road symbol), and also a casting number of XXXX506. There are earlier 506 blocks that were not cast by Navistar, and do not have the Navistar symbol.

If I could do away with the turbo and mount this up without chopping a lot of sheet metal, it would have a lot of potential. The 6.2 seems like the best option for ease of install, but the 6.5 components are available for free (and free is a big factor here). The guy who offered it to me put a 6.2 in his tow rig. He going to be putting the Banks turbo kit on it. Said it's pretty gutless as it sits, but it's also unstoppable.
:D

Rick- The 6.2 and 6.5 are basically the same motor. The differences are in the bore, and most of the 6.2 blocks had a 2 pc rear main. The 6.5, and only the last of the 6.2 motors (late 90 ? to 93) had the 1 pc rear main. This means that the cranks won't interchange between the 2 pc and 1 pc rear main blocks. Otherwise, pretty much everything else will interchange. This means that all exhaust manifolds will interchange. From pictures I've seen, the Banks turbo manifold would be better for use in a 40 as it puts the turbo farther forward than the stock turbo manifold. The N/A 6.2 manifolds would also swap over. The location of 40 specific body and frame parts may make the N/A manifolds harder to use. I have an 83 Chev pickup with the N/A 6.2 in it, and the manifold outlets do not both point the same direction.

Don

 

[RWBeringer4x4]

Well, there are these located for sale near me...I'm always hesitant to buy "mystery engines." Wonder if between one of these, and the free 1996 6.5L, I could build a single working diesel engine.

http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/pts/4965506675.html

http://southjersey.craigslist.org/pts/4934929535.html

My only other question is the flywheel. I'm ASSUMING this is interchangeable with a 350 flywheel (as I think the clutch and pressure plate are) BUT that might be a sticky wicket as well...

 

[handcannon]

The flywheel for a 350 will not work. It has to be a 6.2/6.5 specific flywheel, I think because of balancing. Used ones are not always easy to come by as many were auto trans. However, Rockauto does have them new.

The 6.5 van motor with a center mount turbo has a very different intake manifold, and the bolts that hold the intake manifold to the head are at a different angle than the 6.5 with the side mount turbo. I do not know if that is also true of the earlier 6.2 van motor. From the pic I don't think so, but it would be a very important thing to check out. Otherwise the 6.5 turbo van motor is usable for a side mount turbo set up as long as the heads are swapped for the regular heads.

By the way, the reason I have learned about the 6.2/6.5 is because that is what I eventually want in my 40. I already have 3.7 gears, Ranger overdrive, 60 series 4 speed trans, adapter for that trans to a 203 doubler, 203 doubler mounted onto a mid/late 70's TC. This doubler may prove to make things too long for the 40. In that case I will just find a split case to put on the trans. I have a 6.2 that runs good, but uses oil, so, it needs to be rebuilt. I just need a flywheel and clutch parts, and the money to do the swap. I do have an F motor from SBG that if it proves to run good will go in my 40 until I can afford to go diesel.

Don

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

oops, next post.

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

darn it... hit cancel rather than post

the flywheel is different, but it should be on the motor you're getting... what you will need is either a 6 bolt bbc or a diesel specific torque converter.

The last gen of H1s came with the Duramax (and are twice the price to buy as a Detroit diesel motor H1). And that's just it, Detroit built both the 6.2 and the 6.5. They are not Navistar, so both because the Wiki article claims a competitor built the motor and that they were flat wrong about the H1s - I'd be careful before I relied on what happened between 1999 and 2003 (2004 was Duramax). Detroit Diesel is one of those companies you wish would succeed because their 2 stroke diesels (with the vaunted 2-71 thru 16-71 blowers) are an amazing noise to hear.

My experience with 6.2s, as I said before, comes from owning at least a 1/2 dozen and collectively putting more than a million miles on them. I like the Detroit diesels - they're not a Duramax or Cummins, but they are a pretty solid light-truck diesel. They're also no more expensive to own as long as you don't overheat them. And purchase price-wise, I sold my 83 for less than a million mile comparable Dodge with the cummins (about 4k less).

I considered, briefly, putting a 6.2 in my Land Rover, but went with a 300 TDI. Putting a turbo on - unless you're towing, really isn't necessary. You won't be any faster, you won't get better mileage, but you will have the opportunity to overheat faster.
Here's where the turbo shines. My last 6.2 diesel truck - I had my 12' camper, car trailer with a 50 Buick on it, driving over the mountains from Montana. The prior trip I was at maybe 40 mph at the top of the passes - I wasn't under 70 mph anywhere with the turbo - all with the same fuel economy. That said, unloaded, the turbo really isn't that much faster (if at all).

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

Well, there are these located for sale near me...I'm always hesitant to buy "mystery engines." Wonder if between one of these, and the free 1996 6.5L, I could build a single working diesel engine.

http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/pts/4965506675.html

http://southjersey.craigslist.org/pts/4934929535.html

My only other question is the flywheel. I'm ASSUMING this is interchangeable with a 350 flywheel (as I think the clutch and pressure plate are) BUT that might be a sticky wicket as well...

I like the 2nd more than the first - but I'd be an utter wise-acre with that classic line "it's worth $500", no it's worth $100 as a core because seals do not like sitting after they've been run and it costs $400 to replace them (ask me how I know this..). If that motor turns over, it's worth it. The first motor will need new pistons, since you can buy an entire rotating assembly for ~$1000 for your current motor, why would you spend the same money to rebuild that motor?

For a manual transmission, you need a 6.2/6.5 flywheel - but the pressure plate and the clutch interchange (it's all actually BBC from the clutch rearwards)

 

[Northbound]

The 6.2 non-turbo blew balls. I had one in a suburban, the 6.5 is better and you can get some juice out of them with some mods There are some issues with them, but if you are proactive they'll last and pets are relatively inexpensive.

I would wish that sack of dung 6.2 on anyone.

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

I had an 83 4x4 1/2 ton suburban diesel. 0-60 was measured on a calendar. 2.73 gears, 4" lift, 31" tires... that said, I'd refill the 40 gallon tank every 1100 miles - it was the best mpg people hauler I've ever had.... but slow? omg yes.

On a trip there were 16 people who met on Orcas Island (washington). In the middle of Orcas Island is Mt. Washington and at the top is a pretty awesome view of the Puget Sound. The road up is a steep and windy, which, to the bicycle riders in the group (15 of us), seemed perfect for a nice cruise from the top to the bottom. We fit inside and the suburban looked like a rolling bicycle theft ring. Climbing up to the top, there were a couple times when I was concerned that I'd have to put the truck in low-range to get up a couple of the grades... didn't, but it was touch and go.

 

[RWBeringer4x4]

Back to the flywheel: The question was not whether a 350 flywheel will work (I know it wouldn't) but rather whether the diesel flywheel will fit in a Downey bell housing, and work with the low-profile 350 pressure plate and LUK 11" clutch. Most of the diesel conversion I've seen ran the Chevy bell housing to a SM465, then adapted the Toyota T-case. I want to keep the Toyota 4-speed.

My understanding is that the 6.2 is gutless. The 6.5 is better...but still not incredible. They all had their problems but all of those problems seemed to be addressed pretty well in the aftermarket. I'll reiterate, this FJ40 is a mostly road driven, back-road, Sunday cruiser. Even with the 283, 0-60 takes close to 20 seconds and I couldn't care less. It's geared low and slow, and I like it that way. The people behind me don't, but that really isn't my problem.

All of this hedges on the condition of the gasser currently in my truck. If the 283 is salvageable, it will be salvaged. That doesn't mean I might not grab the 6.5 for a "down the road" swap. If it really will "drop in" on the 350 mounts, then putting the 283 back in, in the right place, will still set me up down the road to revisit this swap.

If the 283's compression is down and it isn't long for this world, then this will get MUCH more consideration.

 

[Vae Victus]

So how much more would you have to spend to get this "free" engine working vs your v8 - and does it ($$) matter at this point? Have you put pencil to paper on this?

 

[White Stripe]

One of my old diesels fits what you're planning. I had an 82 Diesel, 4x4, 3/4 ton truck, 3 speed automatic trans - 6" lift, 33s then 35" tires. I drove it all over the place. It really is the only diesel that you can wrap it up (rpms) for long periods of time. I would routinely make the run from Portland to Walla Walla Washington - a 300 mile drive down a freeway that the speed is roughly 70 mph (limit is 65). It loved the drive, no overdrive, pulling a lot of weight. It's where I got my best and worst mileage... 40 mph headwind and 20,000 total weight I got 9. The other direction, empty (call it 7000 lbs), I got 23 with a 40 mph tail wind.

Turbos, I'd never use the Borg-warner turbo, the gale banks system is so much better. With that said, all you need is the passenger manifold to make it work - as it's a cross over from the driver's side.

Adding a turbo couldn't be simpler, buy turbo, install, open up the top of the injection pump, turn a screw 1/4 turn, bolt back together (raises the fuel pressure).

If you need a bottom end, they can be had for reasonable if you're willing to wait and shop. I have a 6.5 in my rafters that I paid $100 for. The heads may not be cracked, they can be welded if you do, but new, updated ones are $900 to your door.

AM General never built the 6.5 - they bought all of them from GM.

I wouldn't know anything about hardcore, mine is over there because it's easier to keep track of my blog (less posts, less visitors)

So if one wanted to get a smashed parts truck with a 6.2 or 6.5 turbo motor what is the best year to get as far as best parts and power and reliability?

 

[RWBeringer4x4]

So how much more would you have to spend to get this "free" engine working vs your v8 - and does it ($$) matter at this point? Have you put pencil to paper on this?

Unfortunately, $$ always matters. I haven't truly done the math yet on the Diesel conversion.

OPTION 1:
For the 283, assuming the 283 is good in terms of compression, it will be (mostly) a simple reseal, and replacement of some key components - fuel pump, exhaust manifolds, maybe the water and oil pumps, and some pulleys. Probably about $600.

If the block needs machining, new pistons, etc. It isn't getting rebuilt.

OPTION 2:
Crate 350. Looks like this can be had for about $2300 with all the components I need. This was the original plan if the 283 was too tired.

OPTION 3:
Diesel. The 6.5 engine is free. A rebuilt short block is $2700. I might be able to find a useable junkyard/pull-out short block for much less. Assuming all other parts can be ported over from the blown free engine, then it's simply doing so, and resealing.

So, totally spitballing - $2700+100-ish for seals, or if I'm lucky, under $1000 if I can find a useable junkyard block.

Of course, this would also entail switching the brakes over to hydroboost from vacuum and probably some other things I haven't considered, so really, no matter how you slice it, this is probably the most expensive option. That said, with the right junkyard parts I can probably get it into the same ballpark as a crate 350 - with the net gain being low end torque and fuel economy and the sacrifice being speed/acceleration/reliability (due to cobbled junkyard nature of engine). Side benefit of blowing boatloads of black smoke onto Priuses (Prii??) Feasibly, however, the diesel will get me 300,000 miles, properly maintained. A 350 is going to be closer to half that.

Any option is going to involve driveshaft mods, compatible exhaust, and things of that nature, so I'm considering it a wash.

 

[Howard705]

Some models had accesory belt driven vacuum pump for cruise, heater controls, trans modulator and vac brake booster

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

So if one wanted to get a smashed parts truck with a 6.2 or 6.5 turbo motor what is the best year to get as far as best parts and power and reliability?

in 1986 they went to a fine-thread injector - because that's the design until the end, getting a older SAE thread is a disadvantage merely in cost - they are the same design internally, so the rebuild cost is the same. Also in 86, they started with serpentine belts - which, IMO, is a far better set up. In 1993(ish) they started with the PMD (a diesel timing controller) that I frankly don't see the need for - it was an emissions computer that was put under the pump and would overheat. The aftermarket doesn't make them (mostly because if you're retro-fitting, you'll use the older non-pmd pump. The big improvement was in the later (circa 1989) heads. I rant about the heads, but, unlike many other cars, the heads can be fixed (welded) pretty inexpensively if they do actually crack... but still, there is a company out there casting brand-new heads that you can get for between (they go on sale) $700 and 900 delivered to your US doorstep. The block design, other than the one-piece rear main which came in 86, never really changed. It's a chain driven cam, with a gear driven injection pump (gear driven by the cam gear)... they didn't change the front of the motor (outside of reverse flow pump in 89) - so mixing and matching is actually pretty easy to do.

The one thing to be watching for - get a 3/4 ton or 1 ton diesel. You get 10 more hp, but more importantly, you don't get soot in the intake from the EGR system they put on 1/2 ton trucks.

One thing about speed... they have GOBS of torque. So, if you're doing cross walk to cross walk races in a city or stop and go traffic, you really won't lose to anything... it's once you get across the second crosswalk that the slowness commences. I was downtown Oakland, with a 4000# camper in my NA 6.2 diesel, and had a BMW driver lit at me because he thought he could get the jump on my across the street... lol.

Some models had accesory belt driven vacuum pump for cruise, heater controls, trans modulator and vac brake booster

Not saying it doesn't exist - but I've never seen one. The vacuum pump on a 6.2 and a 6.5 is driven off the back of the cam shaft and is in the general location as the distributor on a SBC or BBC. GM did put AIR pumps on some 1/2 ton diesels for smog purposes - but that's probably not what you're talking about? There's lots of stuff that I've never seen, so I dunno.


In general, and not related to the quotes above:

If you like FJ40 straight-6 power, you'll love the 6.2. You'll never win speed contests, but the motor has so much torque at idle that driving it off road would be a hoot. I didn't put it in mine for a pretty silly(ish) reason - I get migraines and diesel fumes while I've got a migraine makes me homicidal. I'm actually putting cats on my gas motor for that very reason...

 

[handcannon]

Just my opinion here. My feeling is that if you are searching for what could be the best inexpensive used block, get a 6.2 (or 6.5) from somewhere in the late 90's to 94. These blocks have the one piece rear main, are cast (6.2's) with the cylinder walls thick enough to be bored out to 6.5 dimensions, if you wanted (although I don't know why you'd need to). The late 90's 6.2 and the early 6.5 (started in 93?) up through somewhere in late 94 had the XXX599 block casting number. These particular motors were made only over a three + year span and seem to have a more problem free block. They will be harder to come by than the later blocks though.

I have a 94 Chev heavy 3/4 ton pickup (8 lug hubs) with a 6.5. All the 94 and later 6.5 turboed motors had a belt driven vacuum pump. These vacuum pumps had only one job, supply vacuum for the turbo wastegate control for the crappy GM turbo (there are now much better turbo's for the 6.5). All the 6.2 and 6.5 vehicles I've seen had a hydroboost brake system, not a vacuum booster, and all the 90's era 6.5 vehicles I've seen did not use vacuum for the heater controls, but I'm not to be considered an expert on these vehicles either. My pickup HAD one of these pumps. A prior owner changed the wastegate control over to a manual wastegate control, apparently because he towed with the pickup. The pump was not needed anymore so I eventually removed it at the same time as I changed the alt from a CS130 to a CS144.

From 94 on the injection pump was an electronic controlled pump. The PMD (pump mounted driver) was on the side of the IP, supposedly because it was cooled by the return fuel flowing through the IP. This was too hot of a location for the PMD. Many other locations have been tried, but the one that seems to have had the best success has been under the bumper/before the radiator. There ARE only two companies that still make replacement PMD's, Stanadyne and Flight Systems. Any other PMD's out there are re-badged from one of these two companies. This heat problem, and the complexity of wiring up the computer controls is why I recommend using a manual IP system if you are swapping into a Landcruiser. That being said, my pickup has the electronic IP, and in the five years I've had it I've only once had problems, which turned out to be a broken wire in the PMD extension harness (mine is between the bumper and radiator).

SBG--do you have more detailed info on the Duramax in the later hummer as that info caught my interest. I know that at some point in the mid 2000's the 6.5 got a drastic remodel. I'm not sure of the year, but it did stay a 6.5. I've only seen pictures of it, but I think it was called the P400. This entailed changing the lower block/crank area. Instead of main caps it got a full casting. This casting started at the crank center line and included all the main caps (including front and rear mains) making a complete girdle. Then it had a cast oil pan. From what I remember about pricing it was very expensive.

Don

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

The last year of the H1 - they put the Duramax in it 2006. Rare as hens teeth and twice as expensive. Where you can buy an H1 for as cheap as 15,000 for a good runner (94 ish), a 2006 starts at 100,000. There are companies out there that convert older H1s to gas or duramax motors - they even convert H2s to Duramax, those get 25-30mpg... but at 30,000-40,000 for the conversion....

those motors, and I've not seen one, would probably be a military-spec and if you keep an eye on sites like Government liquidators; you will find them.

I wouldn't spend the money on a girdle; for the coin you'd have in the motor, you could easily get an Isuzu 4BTgwhatever for the same price (again, I don't like Cummins because it's semi-truck-heavy). Or you could get the mini-duramax they put in Colorados overseas. I've seen several of those come available in the 3-4k range. The biggest recommender for a 6.2 or 6.5 is they are dirt cheap and will outrun a 4BT in stock form (along with saving your front suspension). But the moment you start spending money for speed parts, girdles, and such - you're still stuck with a head design that will lift under high-boost and a cooling issue that you can bandaid but never cure. With the 4BT, you can turn the wick up and never really challenge the strength of the design.

...and yes, I'm a hypocrite because I'm spending cubic dollars making a Buick motor go half as fast as an LS.

 

[RWBeringer4x4]

This is all, if nothing else, awesome information. I think the biggest challenge for me in looking at these engines is exactly the situation just discussed - they were constantly tweaked/changed/molested over the years. Some years had "good" part X, but crappy part "Y" so the following year they changed out part "Y" but in turn broke something else.

If there's one thing that can be said about the Gen I 350 - not a lot of bugs left to work out!

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

6.2s are great, cheap diesels. But if you start spending money to update, there are a lot better options. My favorite diesel at the moment is the Isuzu 4bt1t or 4bt2t - both are good power, solid reliability, not solid-cast-iron and will last for 500,000 miles.

As I said before, I'd love the blown motor because I have the bit to fix it - and the reason I bought this bit was because I knew that the bottom end can be problematic in higher-boosted situations. With that said, the 6.2 and 6.5 have saved a whole lot of American soldier's lives.

 

[shelfboy1]

all the diesel guys here have to plug thier trucks in and or let them warm up before they drive them some dont even drive them in the winter because of that dont know if thats true with the one your using .with maintenace costs and fuel i never saw an advantage to having a diesel except when towing a heavy load then they rule .i do have a dodge 12 v cummings that sat all winter because its a pain but with all the salt it will last longer