GM 6.2 Diesel???

[bullitproofranger]

Hi, Im just wondered what anybody might think about a GM detroit diesel swap in a second gen ranger (89-92). Here Is what I plan on doing, IF I do the swap. Fully boxed frame, ford 9 inch or a dana 60 rear, dana 44 or dana 60 front axle, maybe a TH400 auto but would like a manual, and custom crossmembers. I think the 6.2 would be a good swap because it, uses fairly common trannys, seems to be reliable, and it seems to a bit lighter than other diesels.

Just wondered if any body thought it might be a good swap.

P.S. I know the 6.2 is a gm engine, I do like ford, just thought it might be a decent swap

 

[fastpakr]

Talk to BobbyWalters on here. He's done the conversion and LOVES it.

 

[Beanmachine7000]

If I can't pick up another suitable engine, one will be going into my Explorer...

 

[sniper_101]

Just out of curiosity, besides the advantages you listed, why a 6.2? I'm not going to say they're bad motors . . . but they're not the best. If you're going to go to all the work of an engine swap (and a diesel at that), why not one with a bit more power/aftermarket support?

Again, just curious but I do like to see unique engine swaps!

 

[bullitproofranger]

Just out of curiosity, besides the advantages you listed, why a 6.2? I'm not going to say they're bad motors . . . but they're not the best. If you're going to go to all the work of an engine swap (and a diesel at that), why not one with a bit more power/aftermarket support?

Again, just curious but I do like to see unique engine swaps!

Well according to some engine weight listing on here some where it said the GM 6.2 was lighter than the cummins 4bt,6bt, ford powerstroke, chevy duramax, and they seem to be somewhat common (correct me if I am wrong), and I do like high hp/tq engines, I would want something that could be handled by a common tranny, i.e. TH400, and I think I would be happy with the performance of the 6.2.

 

[Will]

Do a search for 6.2 diesel and I'm sure you'll run into many of my rants.

To me, it's the best diesel there is for any truck. They are cheap and readily available--that's the reason. With the stock injection pump and a turbocharger, you will make about 250hp/450ft# if you turn the pump up to where the EGTs are hitting 1,100 under load. That's a lot of yipe in a Ranger, and it's all right there off of idle so you don't need 5.13 gears. They do fit any GM tranny and there are easy driver-drop t-cases available. They will get close to 30mpg on the highway in a Ranger.

I've been driving a Banks turbo 6.2 since around 2003. I've never had any issues at all. I've criss-crossed the map hauling stuff with it. I get my trailer up to 9,500# and it doesn't need more power. Not that more power wouldn't be fun, but it gets it going just fine. This is a great choice for a diesel Ranger. The stock setting of my truck on the emissions sticker was 155hp and 285ft#. And it's 285ft# right off idle. You will have fun with it even without a turbocharger.

If you do read up on them and start reading about what block supposedly crack while all the haters try to scare the shit out of you, one of the crack prone blocks is the 14022660--which is what is in my truck. I run 10-12psi of boost and keep my egts below 1,000F by downshifting if a grade I'm going up gets them up that high--not too common, takes about 5% to make it work with a 7,000# B2 and trailer load. I have a '93 engine (Goodwrench crate) that was out of a highway department truck I use to have and it is the supposedly more desirable 10149599 block--and it also had a Banks kit on it, but had 3.42 gears and a steep overdrive and we drove it a lot faster than my current truck, but it is in great shape too. Change the oil every 2,500--that's absolutely all the maintence required.

Sure, I'd love for someone to swap a 5.9 Cummins and a pile of aftermarket goodies in my truck. But it's not my hobby to make black smoke so I wouldn't be bothering. I get 20mpg pulling my empty 2,200# trailer and 19mpg in town. That's a longbed, crewcab. I got 13-14mpg town daily driving my 4.0 B2.

 

[bullitproofranger]

Thanks for the input, I would really perfer a strong manual tranny for one that wont break the bank. Does any body know if a Ford 9in/ D44 sas would hold it up ok? The things I intend for it to be are a DD, trail rig, and be able to rock crawl with it. I am open also to the GM 6.5 that came after it, also is it necessary to box the frame since its I think a 1/2 ton diesel? I also wonder how hard it would be to find one and not pay $1000 for the engine. I know I have a lot of questions, but I also wondered If it was similar to a chevy 350 swap. P.S. to all- Thanks for the help! MUCH APPRECIATED!!!

 

[bobbywalter]

i have a na 6.5.


works pretty good so it gets a thumbs up from me



the d44 and 9 in will be fine as far as the engine is concerned....but tire size and wheeling style are the things that will determine what will work best.


36 in tires and down the 44 is definatly just fine. unless your actually rock crawling...i cant see anything less then a 44 with 35 splines and 60 outers being feasible for rock crawling with tires larger then 33.

damn 60's are heavy bastards.


i had a simple write up going but lost it when i was working on it at my car domain site....it incorporates my initial report somewhere on this forum, just had some more pics and tighter detail.


it is definatly similar to a 350 swap....easy as hell


well, easy if some body lift and straight axle swap are part of the package


i thought it was easy



this should take you to my initial report

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35931

 

[Will]

The 6.2 and 6.5 aren't much different. Not so much as you'd notice, so I lump them together. Everything but pistons and cranks are interchangable.

My first truck was a light 3/4-ton (7,200# GVWR) and it had a 700R4. It's a great tranny for your app. Go to bowtieoverdrives.com and read up on them. It has a really high overdrive (.70) and a lockup converter. It's the secret to 30mpg 1/2-ton pickups. The engine makes great torque low down so it can make use of that overdrive gear ticking over at 1,500rpm on the highway. It's a good durable tranny.

I wouldn't bother boxing anything up and those axles will be fine.

I'm sure Bobby will chime in with the specifics of his swap. But I'll tell you what I think. The 6.2 is wider than a 413 Dodge because I measured when I was thinking of putting an extra 6.2 in my old 'Bago. It's heavier than a 460 because I have one hanging on a stand I used to have a 460 on--and the stand wouldn't hold it up so I had to jam a 4x4 between the oilpan and the bottom girder of the stand. Bobby says it's not that heavy. The people that make the motor say it's 760#--they don't specify dry or with accesories. I think it's dry because #1--in my experience it's heavier than a 460 and #2--they sell the engine, not the vehicle. The manufacturer specifies the accessories. I've seen it listed as 880# with accessories for a boat installation. Regardless, it's twice the weight of a 4.0 and though the frame will hold it, it's going to need springs. Typically a Ranger is about 1,100# per front wheel. Plan on 1,300# per front wheel, then add you winch atc before selecting the front coils.

Price, I can't say. Before fuel prices went up people were throwing these things away. Now, they want a little more--but you still see them on Ebay. The first one you buy is going to be a risk if you don't get it in a running vehicle. I would get it in a running vehicle and put all the GM 4x4 parts on the Ranger too.

The Hummer still uses this motor and the factory still builds them. You will see them military surplus for another 10 years I reckon. They are also built new as marine engines and industrial engines (pumps and generators) and there is an overseas market. It's a safe bet getting one. But you absolute best bet is to find a running GM truck and pillage the whole drivetrain.

One more thing since you mentioned the 350. The 6.2 is NOT a converted 350. It's not a converted anything. The Olds 350 diesel in the late 70s was a converted 403 gasser. It flopped. Detroit Diesel was held by GM then and GM had them design a new diesel that would fit in the same silhouette as a 454. There are no similarities between a 6.2 and any other GM engine except the bellhousing pattern. The 6.2 is a Detroit Diesel just like the Powerstroke is a Navistar. It was (and is) built in it's own plant in Morraine, Ohio--though now it is built under the GEP name, not General Motors.

 

[bobbywalter]

the scale i used puts it @ 720ish iirc with just the ps stuff off...

this is the shipping weight from these guys, give em a call...http://www.enginepowersource.com/html/gm_6_5l_v8_diesel.htm i definatly think its 650-80 pounds with the accessories off of it.


BUT

all the turbo stuff is over 50 plus pounds though, so i can see a full dress td being @ 800 ..... 860 i cant see though. maybe? the scale i used could possibly been +/- 20-30 pounds off i guess.




on edit one note. the 6.2/6.5 in 250 hp form will work well with a moderatly built 700 auto, or nv 4500 manual. these are the best transmissions to use in my eyes for overall economy and strength for most uses. but a nv3500 will work just fine too.


for crawlin,... starting with a 3500 or 4500 from a fullsize with a 241 and a tailshaft conversion kit is just fine for a truck that is also daily driven.

but if its mostly trail the 465/205 combo will be the easiest way to get ya going. i would likely use a ford front 60 and ford 205 with a clock ring from g.l.o. and a gm input shaft and get it awn....if i was going manual for rocks.

 

[sniper_101]

Well according to some engine weight listing on here some where it said the GM 6.2 was lighter than the cummins 4bt,6bt, ford powerstroke, chevy duramax, and they seem to be somewhat common (correct me if I am wrong), and I do like high hp/tq engines, I would want something that could be handled by a common tranny, i.e. TH400, and I think I would be happy with the performance of the 6.2.

Judging by the posts here, they are a bit better than I was giving them credit for. Good luck if you pursue this route, diesels + Rangers are always good combos.

PS - A 4BT will bolt to a SBC trans.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Personally, i dont see the point in any diesel in a Ranger.

All the diesels that will in reality fit, or are withing a reasonable price range, dont make any more power (and most the time less) power then a 351W. Which would be alot eaiser, still be plenty torquey, and wouldnt require an engineering degree to hook up (espialy if its carburated).

Do what you want, but my opinion on diesels are they dont belong in anything that isnt a semi or school bus or farm tractor.

later,
Dustin

 

[bullitproofranger]

Well I wouldn't mind a gas V8 like the 351, IF it was as fuel efficent as a diesel engine, but I want to have fuel economy and decent power, and if I need help with the diesel Im sure my grandpa would help me because he has been working on diesls for 20+ years

 

[red93terror]

seems like ive heard of a converted 454 diesel too.

 

[Will]

Well, Dustin. You know I always value your opinion. But check THIS out. In some countries 70-80% of cars sold are diesels. It's for one simple reason--they get 40% better fuel economy. The people that don't have diesels take public transport and use their gasoline powered cars for the weekend. Many people that do commute in their car keep two cars--a diesel for the commute and a gasoline car for holidays. That's because they gasoline car is more powerful and funner to drive.

With the new diesels catching up to gasoline cars in power, there are less gasoline cars being sold.

The reasons you stated for owning a diesel engine--road tractor, bus, agriculture--those are practical reasons. I agree--diesel should be used where they are practical. If your fuel costs are a substantial percentage of your family income--as they have been in Europe for decades--a diesel will save you 40%. In the US where fuel has been cheaper than water per month for most people, a gasoline engine is more practical because the diesel engines were loud, underpowered and expensive. But fuel as shot up and the diesel engine is looking more and more inviting. They will be around in numbers in just a few years. My 37mpg shitbox will be replaced by a 50mpg diesel shitbox eventually.

No, power is not a reason to select a diesel over a gasser in 90% of cases. Only efficiency is.

I would not be willing to buy a Cummins to put in my truck because of the cost. Doesn't work for me. The 6.2 I can get for $500 and it gets 40% better mileage than a gasser so that's why I have it. It was a decision grounded only in my wallet.