Delvac 1 5W-40 in 95 G.M. 6.2L diesel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
1,992
Location
Windsor,Ontario
First off is this a good diesel?It seems kinda lame at 190 HP/380 ft-pds torque for that big a motor.He got it it in a mint 95 suburban for a good price.He plans on running Delvac 1 5W-40 in it what do you think?
dunno.gif
 
Hi,
Greaser - I was hoping somebody else would have answered you by now

Delvac 1 will perform very well in this engine. If they are not used to driving diesels you should remember that their best trait is the ability to pull - their torque. So in general terms over reving will not produce performance - allowing to work (pull) will!

You may notice a slight drop in oil pressure at idle over a 15w-40 HDEO or other mineral oil. This is of no concern if the motor is healthy and is a sign of better oil flow

Regards
Doug
 
quote:

Originally posted by Doug Hillary:
Hi,
Greaser - I was hoping somebody else would have answered you by now

Delvac 1 will perform very well in this engine. If they are not used to driving diesels you should remember that their best trait is the ability to pull - their torque. So in general terms over reving will not produce performance - allowing to work (pull) will!

You may notice a slight drop in oil pressure at idle over a 15w-40 HDEO or other mineral oil. This is of no concern if the motor is healthy and is a sign of better oil flow

Regards
Doug


Thanks for your reply Doug.I talked to one mechanic who told me this engine was a dog (low power numbers) as compared to newer G.M. diesels.Do you know any thing about this diesel?
 
Hi,
Greaser - no until I have full information on the engine family I cannot comment. Provide me details of the engine privately if you wish. I will then get back to you

Many diesel engines are not what owners expect of them. In many cases it is a case of driving style and "other" expectations. Engines with a high torque rise or a flat torque range are usually the most satisfying to drive

Delvac 1 5w-40 will perform well in most diesels but some Japanese engines require a special formulation owing to their combustion system's design

Regards
Doug
 
Thanks Doug...It's no big deal if you here something about the 6.2L (389 ci.)let me know about it.My friend just picked one up in a surburban and we were both kinda taken aback about the weak power specs.If you get any info post it here and I'll poke around also.
 
I had the 6.5L GM diesel that was just after that one, and knew of some who had had the 6.2L, and compared to the other two brands of the time, yes the 6.2L was a dog. IIRC, the 6.2L GM diesel was just another one of their gas blocks converted to diesel application bastards.
The 6.5 was a DD, the first that they went to a true diesel engine, and other than eating fuel pumps like no-ones business and sucky transmissions I really liked that engine.
 
Hi,
GM and Detroit Diesel (DD) should not be confused

DD was sold off to Roger Penske in the 1980s and the lovely 4cycle Series 60 was released in the mid 1980s. It is now the benchmark for reliabilty, longlife and fuel economy
DD has been owned by MB(DC) for a long time and is under the MTU banner along with VM and etc.

The last production series of the "old" GM 53/71/92 Series 2cycle engines are truely great products!

Regards
Doug
 
Thanks Doug, I admittedly know little of the history of DD.
So I guess that made the 6.5L a DD/MB engine?
 
I guess that's the diesel that was responsible for people recommending/observing that you just didn't use GM pickups with diesels in the mountains.
 
quote:

Originally posted by reyjay1:
... IIRC, the 6.2L GM diesel was just another one of their gas blocks converted to diesel application

Here is a quote from TheDieselPage.com

"Designed as a diesel engine from the ground up by the Detroit Diesel Division of General Motors, the original 6.2L diesel engine was introduced in the 1982 model year GMC and Chevy C/K truck line. Taking this engine design to the next level in the 1992 model year, the new 6.5L diesel engine was an advancement in technology, and was designed for the application of a turbocharger. The 6.2L saw its final year of production in 1993. While the 6.5 was replaced by the Duramax 6600 beginning in the 2001 model year Chevy and GMC vehicle production, the 6.5L diesel engine will be manufactured and sold by AM General for many years to come. AM General is the manufacturer of the civilian H1 Hummer & military HMMWV.

The GM light-truck 6.2L and 6.5L diesel engines were optional in all 1982-2000 C/K series trucks, and in the Suburban, Chevy Tahoe & Blazer, GMC
Yukon & Jimmy, vans, and motor homes (RV) in both turbo diesel (TD) and naturally aspirated (NA) versions. In addition, low cost and ready availability
have made these engines extremely popular the world over for diesel conversion projects; powering Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and a host of other
foreign and domestic production vehicles."

I owned a 98 Chevy K3500 Crew Cab dually with the 6.5 TD before purchasing my current 03 2500HD with the Duramax/Allison. The 6.5 seved me well with no major problems. One of the most common problems with the 6.5 is the Stanadyne DS4 electronic injection pump with its PMD (pump mounted driver). Like all engines the 6.2/6.5 has it's quirks but if one does have problems most can be easily fixed with a little help from the folks on TheDieselPage.com forum.

smile.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Bill Plock:

...
I owned a 98 Chevy K3500 Crew Cab dually with the 6.5 TD before purchasing my current 03 2500HD with the Duramax/Allison. The 6.5 seved me well with no major problems. One of the most common problems with the 6.5 is the Stanadyne DS4 electronic injection pump with its PMD (pump mounted driver). Like all engines the 6.2/6.5 has it's quirks but if one does have problems most can be easily fixed with a little help from the folks on TheDieselPage.com forum.

smile.gif


Well I guess that must have been a rumor about the 6.2 then... And yea like on my 6.5 the average injection pump lifetime was about 8000 miles, that was before I found that forum, or they had even really diagnosed the solution on that site. Just about the time I found out the fix that truck was totalled. That pump was replaced 6 times, every time under warantee, the shortest life I got out of one was just under 1000 miles. I used Stanadyne supplement too. After that there was no way I would have touched another GM engine, though I inquired at the time on the Duramax and would have had to wait another 4 months to get one, so GM pretty much lost a customer for life on that one, no matter how good there engines get now. If you gave me a Dura**** now I would just sell it immediately.
 
The 6.2 and 6.5 were both refered to as dogs. I have ran and still have both. For fuel mileage and general light duty towing they will do fine. Both are built from the ground up to be diesels, no convertions. That was the old 5.7L which began as a 350 Olds gasser.
As far as running Delvac 1 in the engine unless it is for cold weather operation it will be a waste unless UOA is used. The engines operate at higher rpms thus putting more soot into the crankcase. GM even rec. 2500 mile OCI due to soot build up. Most engines that were ran upwards of 5k+ suffered early cam and lifter wear from the build up. A well maintained engine has been prove to go up to 500K miles.
 
The early 6.2 diesels had problems with the injector pumps and starters, but those problems should have been worked out by the 1995 model year. There used to be several aftermarket companies that manufactured turbo kits for this engine that really pepped up the performance. The 15W-40 oil will work well in this engine. You might also want to consider a bypass oil filter.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Bill Plock:

quote:

Originally posted by reyjay1:
... IIRC, the 6.2L GM diesel was just another one of their gas blocks converted to diesel application

Here is a quote from TheDieselPage.com


The GM light-truck 6.2L and 6.5L diesel engines were optional in all 1982-2000 C/K series trucks, and in the Suburban, Chevy Tahoe & Blazer, GMC
Yukon & Jimmy, vans, and motor homes (RV) in both turbo diesel (TD) and naturally aspirated (NA) versions. In addition, low cost and ready availability
have made these engines extremely popular the world over for diesel conversion projects; powering Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and a host of other
foreign and domestic production vehicles."


smile.gif


Yet to see a Toyota Land Cruiser diesel with GM built diesel engine, all of the diesel Land Cruiser come with the phenomenal and super reliable HINO diesel engines to my knowledge. Toyota owns HINO and use their diesel expertise to make engines for the Land Cruiser.
 
I've run 6.2 non-turbo and 6.5 turbo litre GMs and the 7.3 non-turbo Internationals. The vehicles were 1 ton vans and trucks. I thought they were all great but the high mileage 7.3 had less than half the power of the fresh one we had. I actually think the 6.2 van was the best as it rode pretty good and the frame was low to the ground.
smile.gif
The 6.5 smoked a LOT but it could tow a lot too. I also ran a newer late 90s PowerStroke which was okay but didn't get very good mileage. It held waaaaaaay too much oil. The Duramax and Hino we rented were both okay trucks as well. I think they were better than the Ford PS.

I don't see the need for the newer turbo diesels that have as much power as a mid-80s Mack tri-axle dumptruck hauling a pup trailer. I feel the purpose of a diesel truck is to serve the owner for a long time under a lot of abuse, not to be fast.
tongue.gif
Hauling a gigantic trailer (possibly with a massive boat) with a lot of weight at highspeeds is not smart.

The newer diesels cost so much I think I'll buy a nice late 90s Dodge Cummins with a blown engine and put in a new crate engine. A new Dodge costs way too much for what I want one for.

Steve
 
Hi,
Steve - I share much the same feelings as time and technology moves along
The revolution in heavy diesels that occured during the 1980s effectively stopped Owner/Driver servicing and maintenance
The reliability and longevity improved but at a cost!
The newer light diesels with electronic management will be a great owner experience when new. Later the costs of repairs will shock many and will affect resale values

But, its all part of the advancements in techonolgy and ever increasing emission demands

Regards
Doug
 
"The newer diesels cost so much I think I'll buy a nice late 90s Dodge Cummins with a blown engine and put in a new crate engine. A new Dodge costs way too much for what I want one for."

I have a 2003 3/4 ton Dodge, I was looking at the trucks for awhile, and the quieter engine with four doors clinched it for me. The 12V is appealing to the purist in me though, and talking to a few owners it seems to do very well with a lot of miles on it. A couple of owners that I talked to were getting around 25 mpg off of the interstate, where they could do 60 mph to 65 mph for extended stretches. When I was looking some good deals that I ran across were less than $29k for a 2003 2500 quad cab long bed, HO, 6 spd, 4x4, tow package, in the base trim, and less than $23k for the same in a 2003 regular cab. A coworker got a truck that looks like mine from the outside, but his was fully optioned out while I spent a long time finding a base model, and he spent something like $16k more for his.
 
Extended cabs are running 40-50,000 CDN used up here depending on whether or not they are duallies. These trucks have 2-300,000+ km on them are are only 2-3 years old! I see them on the road all the time pulling a load of cars to/from auction so these are hard miles. That makes me think the owner isn't willing to run these trucks much past 2 years if they cover 80,000 miles a year. The scary thing is that they still want sticker price for them...

I just want one to park in the back yard and use for a backup vehicle and work vehicle. I'd put a snowplow on it and only use it a couple times a month.

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top