OK, so I am checking out my new to me 2000 6.5 van engine and I have fixed the heads to work with my daughters 86 6.2 intake and life is good. And now I look at the bottom end of the engine and life is GREAT, this engine has the updated block! I got out my calipers and made some rough measurements and the main webs are almost .100 thicker than the previous blocks and the main caps are much deeper and thicker also. I like:D From what I can see, the main webs are as thick as the crank throws will allow:cool2: Now for a few more parts and make some smoke!
This block has a 506 cast into it and it also has two rectanglular blocks cast in the valley, they are about 1/4 wide and 1 inch long??? Oh well, it looks great to me.

Got pics

Does it have the diamonds cast into the valley under the intake?

I didn't see any diamonds, but I will take some pictures.;)

Notice the thickness and height of 2000 6.5 main cap

This is an earlier main cap, notice the gap between crankshaft counter weights.

older main cap measures .958"

2000 main cap measures 1.025"

:eek: This is the casting mark in the valley.

Notice the extra height of the 2000 block main cap in the rear compared to an older version in front of it. 2000 block main cap has a lot more meat on the bottom side.

Another look at the 2000 model main cap.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40631

Although the caps are maybe a little beefier that still didn't stop the block from cracking itself around the bolts on my 00, nor does it stop the crank from breaking. Might help some if no performance mods are added to an engine though.

yea, those rectangles are weird, must be the GM revised but not the AMG motor.

yea, those rectangles are weird, must be the GM revised but not the AMG motor.
What he said, it looks like one of the elusive updated GM blocks that was supposed to be in the last of the trucks, but was said to have never have made it in them. Maybe the vans got them since they used the same engines as the hummers, and AMG was the main reason GM cast the newer blocks in the first place mid of 99.

Due to the way the heads were drilled on this engine, it is the exact same engine as the hummer. At least I hope it will last with little mods, it will be NA in my daughters blazer, I thought about turboing it but then I witnessed her driving the 6.2 today:eek: I don't feel like rebuilding her tranny again, so NA it is):h

Hey, those are funny looking c-clamps, with the funny little dial thing on them. What's that for?:D

One thing about running it NA is that it sounds like you have one of the updated GM turbo engines. If that is the case then you have 19.5/1 compression insted of the standard NA engine at 21.3/1. With a 6.2 pump I would think you wouldn't get enough fuel to cause it to run rich and smoke, but at altitude it will probably be doggy.

I don't think the 19.5 engine ever made it into production. By looking at the pistons and heads in this engine, it has to be about 21.3:1.

CR, it looks like the bottom end of the engine I have is beefier than the one you showed pictures of from your 2000:confused:. The main caps are definately thicker and deeper. From looking at the pictures of your failed 2000 engine, the crank is broken at the most common breakage point. How did the main bearings of that engine look? The reason I ask, is a cast crank can't tolerate very much main bearing misalignment without breaking, and when the crank breaks, it has a tendancy to push the main webs apart and crack them. We need to see some pictures of your new engine failure, any word yet from those that needn't be mentioned?

Chicago, did you have a chance to look at the bottom end of your new short block or did it come with the pan on?

unfortunatly, the pan was on and I got no lookey-lookey. I can imagine though that they are MASSIVE!!!!!!! Everything in the block is 20-30 % thicker, the lifter valley was super thick, .25" per side thicker than my 506 and a 599 that I have.

I don't think the 19.5 engine ever made it into production. By looking at the pistons and heads in this engine, it has to be about 21.3:1.

CR, it looks like the bottom end of the engine I have is beefier than the one you showed pictures of from your 2000:confused:. The main caps are definately thicker and deeper. From looking at the pictures of your failed 2000 engine, the crank is broken at the most common breakage point. How did the main bearings of that engine look? The reason I ask, is a cast crank can't tolerate very much main bearing misalignment without breaking, and when the crank breaks, it has a tendancy to push the main webs apart and crack them. We need to see some pictures of your new engine failure, any word yet from those that needn't be mentioned?

Chicago, did you have a chance to look at the bottom end of your new short block or did it come with the pan on?

I didn't look at the pictures that deeply, i thought they looked pretty much the same. I never got to see the mains as those pics are from the day i picked up the truck with the new engine. That engine had about 210,000 km's on it.

Still no word from DAS... nothing... How come it only takes about 5 weeks to get a new engine complete, but takes over 3 months to get that same engine rebuilt???:confused:

Dave, can I have it back now? ;)

Much thanks to Fred482' for selling me this engine;)

I have found one more area of improvement. The head bolt holes in the block deck are about 1/4 inch deeper, lots more threads to keep from pulling threads out.:cool2: