What is better a 6.9 Ford or a 6.2 Chevrolet

Depends which one you get for cheap! Both good engines, 6.9 seemed to vary more with fuel economy and power. 6.2 was more consistant. 6.9 rated at more flywheel hp but since 6.2 used free flowing dual exhaust rear wheel numbers were very close.

6.9/7.3 will typically outlast 6.2/6.5 engine several times over.

No comparison in power, the Navistar blows the Detroit away.

Also, the Fords are Gear driven from the factory, GMs are chain driven.

The Injection pumps on the Fords are also desireable over the GMs.
Ford's have less head problems, internal shaft thrust control, and even the old 6.9s have accumulator pistons, where GM only has them on the 6.5s.

Fuel supply, return and filter system, I prefer Ford's.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Chev fan through and through, I just wish GM had bought their Diesel engines from Navistar or Cummins instead of Detroit.

Tex, as a present owner of 2 vans, a 89 GMC G20 van with a 6.2 and a 89 Ford E350 van with a 7.3, I gotta agree with you. I like the the 6.2 but, the 7.3 blows it away. I feel sure the 7.3 will out last the 6.2 a couple times. My 7.3 has 235K miles and it will go to Phoenix from here (1634 miles) and be down a quart. Starts great and runs strong. It gets 17.5 MPG running 70/75 MPH. MT I can bark the tires almost at will with the 7.3.

The GMC 6.2, with about 5K miles, will do a little better on milage but it wouldn't make a pimple on the 7.3s butt in the power department. If I found a really good older Chevy or GMC van body my ideal van would be to mount the GM body on the E350 frame and power train. I could even live with the POS twin I beam front suspension just to have all the rest. Mike

The 7.3's typically run a lot stronger than the 6.9's. I have driven quite a few 6.9's that were dog's. The 7.3's are far better, but they have had their problems too. I seem to remember several engines of about 89 vintage with cracked blocks:eek: at low milage. All in all I think the international engine is a good engine, but keep in mind when comparing power, that you also need to compare cubic inches. 6.2=379, 7.3=445;)

D.Camilleri, I believe you are right about comparing the 7.3 with the 6.2 sizewise. As to size, the 7.3 should preform 18% better than the 6.2. And in my seat-of-the-pants estimation, I believe the 7.3 does that and more. However I'd have to say Ford offered the best light duty diesel engine. GM did design their own engine (designed on the cheap) whereas Ford offered the proven International 7.3. I wonder who would have sold the most light duty diesels if GM had made an agreement with Cat for the 225 CAt V8. The 6.2 is a good engine if you respect it's limitations. Of course the same is true of the 7.3. However the 7.3 is able to produce quite a lot more power with mods. But the 6.2 design can not produce much more power and live very long. These engines were both offered in the same applications, pickups and motor homes, that most guys here have. The bottom line is, Ford offered the better engine for these applications. Of course that is only my opnion. I am still a GM man. But I wish GM would have taken the light duty diesel challenge more serious. Mike

I will agree with you but throw in one other hitch. GM built a light duty diesel engine, one that was affordable and could also be used in a 1/2 ton truck. In their quest for a light duty diesel, they didn't use some parts that a heavy duty diesel would need because they only made a 145 hp light duty unit. A forged crank, along with other mods would have made for a more durable power plant, but would have also driven up the cost. For what they made, the 6.2 did a great job. When we start talking about the current generation of diesels and towing double or triple the amount of weight that used to be considered heavy, and now the 6.2 is way out of it's league. Bottom line, I had several 6.2's that would run away from a 6.9 and never touch a 7.3. A turboed 6.2 was a fair match for a 7.3. I have also seen a lot of 6.9/7.3 with worn, washed cylinders, that used lots of oil and generally weren't very good. I have also seen good 6.9/7.3. So let's just they that they are/were good engines with the 6.9/7.3 having much higher rated hp ratings and sometimes they lived up to them and sometimes they didn't.:exactly:

I'll agree with you on the old 6.9s, they are pretty doggish, but you also have to consider, they stopped making 6.9s in ~'86, so at 20 years old, owners can't complain much if they start using some oil.
Stock 7.3 N/A specs more HP/Torque than the 6.5 Turbos do. Granted, its considerably higher displacement, but if any of you out there have driven the 7.3 with one of its many turbo options (factory, banks, ATS etc.) then you know first hand the 7.3 is VERY potent with forced induction.
I've also seen lots of old 7.3s pulling loads up hills that would make even late model 6.5 owners dread.