6.2l diesel filter setup and oil ideas.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
19
Location
Central, IL
Ok so I think I've got an idea on what Im doing with my CUCV I'm going with an amsoil remote single bypass and a trans dapt full flow dual remote bypass. I'll probably add a thermostatically controlled oil cooler sometime in the future, now in the interest of extending my oci I'm trying to decide what the best oil for me to use is, I think Synthetics can last longer but I'm not sure that is the correct way to go for this old engine. Based on my searches ai know this is a frequent debate so I'm not expecting a definitive answer more the pros and cons of my different options.
 
Dumb question-don't the CUCVs come with a factory oil cooler? The LD 6.2s had them in the radiator, HD 6.2s (like the '93 in my sig) had an air cooled oil cooler in front of the radiator.
 
Yes they have one built into the radiator, I'd be running an additional oil cooler in the interest of getting my capacity up and allowing me to better control/fine tune my oil temp as in not running it through the cooler in the winter or when the engines warm.
 
Do you have an oil temperature gauge? Since you already have an oil cooler on the CUCV, it may be a waste of time and money to put another one on if the existing one is providing oil at a safe temperature. It's hard for me to believe that an old GM 6.2L diesel can overheat the oil.
 
^^^The above is excellent advice.

All our fleet trucks (gas) run the oil through a radiator cooler. But it is as much a heater as a cooler, ensuring that the oil gets hot enough as well.

Very important if you have a large HD radiator.
 
Fair enough, I wasn't planning on installing a cooler now anyway, and I guess instead of doing a cooler and guage at the same time I should probably start with a guage then start making decisions. H
 
So I think I am going to go with the Amsoil BMK30 single remote bypass kit and I'm still trying to figure out the correct adapters to attach it to my motor. I will probably use whatever cheap full flow dual remote mounting bracket I can find and the appropriate adapter to replace my stockoil filter. So if I'm picturing this correctly I would have a bypass adapter on the block and then my full flow remote filters adapter on top of that. Or would it make more sense to just run the dual remotes and add the single bypass onto one of those filters? Any recommendations on brands or suggestions before I buy? Is the top dawg bypass better than amsoils?
 
I've settled on the perma-cool full flow dual remote setup I found a deal I couldn't pass up. Now what bypass to run with this.......
 
Unless he's added one, it doesn't-and given that model year's tendency to crack blocks (I had an '85 6.2 with cracked block main webs with only 110K on the engine), I wouldn't recommend one. Unless you have the '82 red 6.2 block, or the late 6.2 599 block built in '92 & '93, they can be a little weak (IMHO).
 
No mine doesn't have a turbo, I would love a turbo but for the reasons listed above my truck is remaining N/A if I wanted a bunch of power I'd either swap to gas or a cummins. It works fine for me and it gets good mileage (for a heavy 4x4) I'll increase my air intake and potentially the exhaust but not much planned for power increases, mostly planning on durability and efficiency.
 
As an aside, at moderate fuel and boost settings, the turbo 6.5L had better reliability than the NA 6.2 and 6.5. Why? Yes, some of that was improvements in the engine structure but equally it was that the turbo engine produced adequate power. The NA engine is a slug, so to get the performance, you have to flog it everywhere, all the time. This was more an issue with people that worked their trucks hard, namely the 3/4 and 1-ton crowd that towed near at or over their GCVWR. I put a Banks kit on my '83 Blazer 6.2 and it was wondrous. No reliability issues at all during my ownership.

At about 160K miles, I rebuilt the engine and bored it 0.030." Add a bunch of performance stuff to it as well, which raised boost and fuel rates and power output. Still fine under my ownership, but the guy I sold it to blew it up. He bragged about doing 90 mph in it hour after hour. Thing is, it had a 700R4 and 4.88 gears with 35 inch tires then. The 700R4 is a TV controlled trans, so basically with lots of pedal applied, it never shifts up into overdrive. You can do the math but at the reported 90 mph in direct, the engine was spinning at upwards of 4,000 rpm. Hour after hour. Unfortunately, I had the pump guy set my governor up to about 4300... IIRC. That was mainly to facilitate some dyno testing, which consists of short runs at speed only (and then only to 4K rpm fer Pete's sake) Driving like that was not something I anticipated doing. But I have digressed.
 
Jim-did he grenade the crank on your '83? The cast cranks (and block main webs) were a known weak link on those, if I was crazy enough to try to make big power on a 6.2 or 6.5 I would spring for the newer forged cranks (that will fit the '92 & up 6.2/6.5s). My '93 non-turbo 6.2 does OK, but even a 4BT would outpull it easily!
 
I really like the idea of an ATS turbo but I think my money and energy will be better spent on a 4L80E, I won't be running 90mph in it but I'd really like to have an OD to drop my highway RPM's. If I found an ATS turbo on the nets for a good price I'd get it but they are as rare as hen's teeth anymore and getting less everyday.
 
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Jim-did he grenade the crank on your '83? The cast cranks (and block main webs) were a known weak link on those, if I was crazy enough to try to make big power on a 6.2 or 6.5 I would spring for the newer forged cranks (that will fit the '92 & up 6.2/6.5s). My '93 non-turbo 6.2 does OK, but even a 4BT would outpull it easily!


What happened was that the block cracked in a cylinder, from the deck right to the bottom of the bore. It was on the outer facing part of the cylinder. I only saw pics. Some have said maybe I bored it too much (0.030") and maybe there was core shift. That's possible but I was watching and photographing the machinist as he sonic tested the bores and they were right one before and after the boring. Likely an unseen materials flaw. The guy bought a reman engine which failed spectacularly (thrown rod) six miles into the first test run. I still contend that I would likely never had a problem the way I drove it but who knows. It did about 200 hp on the chassis dyno with moderate fuel settings and about 14 psi boost.
 
wow the GM 6.2 diesel... biggest mistake in the history of GM if you ask me!

Wasn't those engines based solely on the 350 small block with just slight changes to make them diesel engines?

GM never had a diesel that was worth a hoot until they got in bed with Isuzu and the duramax.
 
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
wow the GM 6.2 diesel... biggest mistake in the history of GM if you ask me!

Wasn't those engines based solely on the 350 small block with just slight changes to make them diesel engines?

GM never had a diesel that was worth a hoot until they got in bed with Isuzu and the duramax.


Glad we are not asking you,
whistle.gif


The 6.2 is a REAL diesel made by detroit diesel, it is NOT a converted gas engine. The 6.2 and 6.5 are a light duty engine, not HD's like the Cummin's. Yes, they had their issues, please tell me what engine doesn't? They are dirty cheap to repair and keep running, slap a turbo on and with studs, 20-30 psi of boost is easily done and makes good power with wicked MPG numbers. GEP redid them in 2000 have Navistar recast them fixing all weakness's, the P400 goes further with a forged crank and bed plate.

You can rebuild the engine, install new injectors and replace the IP for less than one or 2 common rail injectors and the DB2 versions run perfectly on waste oils.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Jim-did he grenade the crank on your '83? The cast cranks (and block main webs) were a known weak link on those, if I was crazy enough to try to make big power on a 6.2 or 6.5 I would spring for the newer forged cranks (that will fit the '92 & up 6.2/6.5s). My '93 non-turbo 6.2 does OK, but even a 4BT would outpull it easily!


What happened was that the block cracked in a cylinder, from the deck right to the bottom of the bore. It was on the outer facing part of the cylinder. I only saw pics. Some have said maybe I bored it too much (0.030") and maybe there was core shift. That's possible but I was watching and photographing the machinist as he sonic tested the bores and they were right one before and after the boring. Likely an unseen materials flaw. The guy bought a reman engine which failed spectacularly (thrown rod) six miles into the first test run. I still contend that I would likely never had a problem the way I drove it but who knows. It did about 200 hp on the chassis dyno with moderate fuel settings and about 14 psi boost.
Interesting-as I had a '92 6.2 N/A with over 300K, and my '93 is now over 150K-and I'm pretty sure neither had/have been apart yet (both are 599 blocks). The '85 6.2 I scrapped had both a blown HG and cracks in the main webs at only 113K. The reason my work truck is Ford & not GM is mainly due to the 7.3-unless I wanted to spend a LOT on a Dodge Cummins or Duramax C&C, I was afraid the engine wouldn't be able to take it. All the GM diesel medium-duty trucks from that era (C3500HD) were 6.2 & 6.5 NA, NO turbos. Unfortunately in these parts there seem to be quite a few 6.5TD engines that met an untimely death due to the nodular cranks breaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top