6.2l compared to a 5.7l gas hp and torque - Diesel Place : Chevrolet and GMC Diesel Truck Forums
 
Home Forum Market Place Garage Lounge (3) Tuning Library DTC Tool Register Vendors
Go Back   Diesel Place : Chevrolet and GMC Diesel Truck Forums > GM Diesel Engines > 6.2L Diesel Engine
Register FAQ Forum Rules My Replies My Threads Mark Forums Read Auto EscrowAuto LoansInsurance

DieselPlace.com is the premier Duramax Diesel Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-16-2008, 08:17 AM   #1 (permalink)
kdk48095
Diesel Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

6.2l compared to a 5.7l gas hp and torque

Hi, could anyone tell me how the gm 6.2l diesel compares to the gm 5.7l gas in the hp and torque catagories.I am considering buying a 1984 6.2l to pull an equipment trailer that I currently pull with a 1990 gmc 3/4ton with the 5.7l. The 1984 gmc is a 1ton dually with the 4 speed manual and the 3/4 ton is a srw with the manual 4 speed.Thanks
Offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-16-2008, 09:25 AM   #2 (permalink)
High Sierra 2500
Diesel Sr. Technical Member
 
High Sierra 2500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mid Michigan
Posts: 6,014
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

Rating-wise, the engine generally has less horsepower. The 1-ton would have a J-code engine rated at ~150 horsepower (exact numbers vary slightly, but they are all pretty close to 150). The 5.7 was rated close to 200 horsepower, depending on exactly how it was set up (TBI or not?).

Torque ratings vary from source to source. I say the ratings don't really mean a lot. The torque curve of the 6.2 is a little "steeper" than that of the 350, meaning it has somewhat more low end torque.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that the horsepower figures are peak horsepower. The 5.7 is rated at significantly higher rpm than the 6.2. The 6.2 tops out at around 3600 rpm (many of them were governed at that speed).

The 350 is probably going to be faster pulling a trailer.
__________________
2000 K1500 Silverado Z71 ext cab short box 5.3 gas. 320,000 miles and counting

1927 Ford Model T pickup. Bone stock 22 hp 4 cylinder. Driven to work on a regular basis...
Offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 09:34 AM   #3 (permalink)
kdk48095
Diesel Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

I was considering the 6.2l also because of the better fuel mileage compared to the 5.7l.What do you think?Thanks
Offline  
Old 01-16-2008, 11:32 AM   #4 (permalink)
High Sierra 2500
Diesel Sr. Technical Member
 
High Sierra 2500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mid Michigan
Posts: 6,014
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

As far as fuel economy goes, there is no comparison. The 6.2 generally gets far better fuel economy.
__________________
2000 K1500 Silverado Z71 ext cab short box 5.3 gas. 320,000 miles and counting

1927 Ford Model T pickup. Bone stock 22 hp 4 cylinder. Driven to work on a regular basis...
Offline  
Old 01-19-2008, 06:43 AM   #5 (permalink)
FLChevy
Diesel Technician
 
FLChevy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: St Petersburg, Florida
Posts: 142
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

I would expect about 3 to 4 MPG better.
__________________
83 Toyota Land Cruiser FJ60 wagon. 6.2 diesel, NV4500 5spd. WVO
82 FJ60 Landcruiser Isuzu 4BD2T, intercooled, WVO, 5 spd, rock crawler

Offline  
Old 01-19-2008, 09:20 AM   #6 (permalink)
DieselPro
Diesel Master
 
DieselPro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,989
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

Dually is not going to get fuel mileage. Cost per mile will be higher due to fuel cost.
__________________
Over Fueling the mind with innovation.
Counting down to the 4,000th post then I am out of here. Maybe.
Offline  
Old 01-19-2008, 05:25 PM   #7 (permalink)
pontiac59
Diesel Technician
 
pontiac59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 253
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

1984 6.2 (VIN "J") 151 HP @ 3600 RPM, 248 ft-lb torque @ 2000 RPM.

1990 5.7L TBI: Standard (VIN "A") 190 HP @ 4000 RPM, ft-lb torque 300 @ 2400 RPM.
Optional (VIN "K") 210 HP @ 4000 RPM, torque same @ 2800 RPM.

There is no real advantage to the diesel in heavy duty hauling capacities, trucks with 454 engines can pull the same MPG and move a lot better towing a heavy load or in a heavy truck. The 6.2 delivers better economy in light trucks. Power-wise it's about the same as the 305 V8.

Having towed with my 350 truck some pretty heavy loads, I don't even see a diesel making it up the same hill I did with a 3500-lb car that turned out to have another 1500 lbs of parts in it on a car trailer. I had my foot on the floor in low and I was crawling -

Source for the data: Standard Catalog of Chevrolet Trucks 1918-1995, Krause Publications.

1984 data is taken from 1985 chapter, they don't list the J-code motor data in the 1982-1984 chapters. But I've found omissions and errors fairly common in these books.
__________________
1985 Suburban C20 HD 6.2L J-code 2WD
1989 Suburban R1500 5.7L gas 2WD
1986 Suburban C10 6.2L c-code 2WD parts truck- stripped and scrapped already
Too many antique cars to list...
Offline  
Old 01-19-2008, 05:29 PM   #8 (permalink)
High Sierra 2500
Diesel Sr. Technical Member
 
High Sierra 2500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mid Michigan
Posts: 6,014
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

I'd be impressed by a 454 that could get the same mileage as a 6.2. It'd outpull it no problem, but mileage... Forget it.
__________________
2000 K1500 Silverado Z71 ext cab short box 5.3 gas. 320,000 miles and counting

1927 Ford Model T pickup. Bone stock 22 hp 4 cylinder. Driven to work on a regular basis...
Offline  
Old 01-19-2008, 09:44 PM   #9 (permalink)
DieselBurps
Diesel Technician
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 310
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

Quote:
Originally Posted by pontiac59 View Post
Having towed with my 350 truck some pretty heavy loads, I don't even see a diesel making it up the same hill I did with a 3500-lb car that turned out to have another 1500 lbs of parts in it on a car trailer. I had my foot on the floor in low and I was crawling -
A diesel - you mean a naturally aspirated 6.2 diesel... Stick a turbo on it and you should be getting closer to even. A diesel without a turbo is anemic at best. A 6.5 TD is a little more fair of a contest there.

I'm pretty sure my Cummins-powered truck can pull (uphill with a headwind) your 350 equipped truck, fully loaded with all it can tow - with your truck pointed the other way, running and in gear... A Duramax should be able to do it also. A PSD could as well - at least part of the way... Those are all a little heavier duty than a NA 6.2, a 350 or even a 454. The 454's mpg numbers are probably the worst out of that group though.

Last edited by DieselBurps; 01-19-2008 at 09:48 PM.
Offline  
Old 01-20-2008, 07:13 PM   #10 (permalink)
pontiac59
Diesel Technician
 
pontiac59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 253
iTrader Score: 0 reviews

Yeah, what I meant was your basic 6.2 non-turbo diesel, I should have been more clear on that. I tend to be a GM guy, so I don't think about the other stuff so much. Have to admit though that if I could get my hands on a cheap 5.9 Cummins Dodge though I'd latch right on, even if the body was shot, as long as it ran. Have never heard anything bad about them.
__________________
1985 Suburban C20 HD 6.2L J-code 2WD
1989 Suburban R1500 5.7L gas 2WD
1986 Suburban C10 6.2L c-code 2WD parts truck- stripped and scrapped already
Too many antique cars to list...
Offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2006 LLY compared to LBZ? ASAJ Duramax Third Generation: 2006-2007.5 (LBZ & LLY) 15 09-17-2008 09:27 PM
bfg mud compared to toyo mt Achilles1 Wheels & Tires 13 02-26-2008 02:25 PM
07 lbz compared to a 04 ibfarmerduramax Duramax Third Generation: 2006-2007.5 (LBZ & LLY) 17 02-15-2007 11:53 PM
LLY compared to others?? txrifleman Duramax Second Generation: 2004.5-2005 (LLY) 15 04-18-2006 03:09 PM
Nicktane Compared To. O.E.M. Bronco Duramax First Generation: 2001-2004 (LB7) 54 01-24-2004 12:36 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
© AutoGuide

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0