PDA

View Full Version : ok, another truck to evaluate! chevy diesel!


Jason Rose
12-21-2005, 10:13 PM
Ok, I got my responces on the 2000 ford... I think I am pretty afraid of fords now, lol. Today I went out and drove a few trucks and I think found the one I want. I still want to bring it here and see if anyone has expierence with this model or engine or just has opinions!

It's a 1993 (yeah it's old...) Chevy 2500, 2 wheel dr, Automatic, V-8 6.2 Diesel, 48,000 miles, yes that's not a typo! 48,000! Currently it has a flat bed on it, bare bones stock interior, which is fine by me for a work truck.

I have driven it 20 or 25 miles, everything seens to be in very good condition. It was a government truck, even has a "US Property" tag under the hood (no it's not painted camo, lol)

They have the price at $10,000. I ran a KBB and NADA they list it (retail) at $5,125 and $5,925 respectively. I honestly thought the price on the truck was going to be right on but now I know they are way high. Hopefully they will work with me on that otherwise I will be continuing on my quest...

Thanks for any info all!!!

Lawn Masters
12-21-2005, 10:32 PM
Get the full report on that, its probably in pretty good shape. the US military version is an M1000 series, that was produced from 1984 to 1986, and were ALL 4x4 packing a 6.2l diesel motor, turbo 400 tranny, and normally have a metal tag on the dash. yours is 2x4, and made in 93, so its not an M1000 series truck.

UNISCAPER
12-21-2005, 10:36 PM
Stay away from that one. During those years when GM made coverted gas engines and used them as diesels, we ran Fords and dealt with bad trannies. trannies are cheaper than engines. The tranny on that truck is rock strong, and if you coupled that engine to any ford tranny after the C-6 was dropped, you would have the worst combination of power that money could be wasted on.

Jason Rose
12-21-2005, 10:51 PM
Lawnmasters: I got your post right after you posted it, you mu8st have edited it! lol, I went out and was trying to find where it would say M1000 on it, obviously I didn't find it... Then I come back in and thought I was loosing my mind when I re-read your post, IT CHANGED!
About all I learned fron looking in the glove box is that it has a 3.0:73 rear end.
I also figured out that it's a bored out 350 gasser! It looks to have a new intake manifold on it too... As well as a re-maned starter, new alternator.

It runs awesome, I did wonder about oil capicity? THe pan isn't that large but surely it holds more than 5 or 6 quarts?? most diesels hold like 12 to 16 don't they?

Not too sure about knocking this engine yet. I don't see to many Ford engines that are cracked up to be all that. The V-10 and the 460 both are pretty flakey and both have a terribley high repair costs.

kc2006
12-21-2005, 11:04 PM
I'm a diehard chevy guy, but those engines were total garbage. No power, and as uniscaper said they were gassers converted. From what I've heard most of them would pop at 80,000, head gaskets or multiple other problems would happen.

I have a ford 7.3 sitting in my 96 with 250,000 miles, still going strong, 20lbs of boost and 20-22mpg around town. I can't complain about the international after owning one.

Dirt_Werx
12-21-2005, 11:14 PM
the deal on the old chevy diesels were that in the beginning, GM just used a standard 350 gas block and put the heads they designed for a diesel on there. Big mistake they didn't work at all and were a complete failure causing almost everyone who owned one to fear diesel engines. I'm not sure exactly when a diesel block was engineered but i know the early ones were really lacking in engineering and thus caused many problems. best of luck, just do some research and learn what you can before doing any investing.

Az Gardener
12-21-2005, 11:22 PM
If I were more computer literate I would hook you up to my thread regarding this subject. Try-Cummins, Duramax or Powerstroke in the search and you will probably get the thread. To sum up the multiple pages the word I got was Powerstrokes were the best but expensive to service and repair, Duramax were kind of hit or miss either good or bad not much in between, and Cummins inexpensive to service and repair but problematic. Good luck

Jason Rose
12-21-2005, 11:23 PM
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

Not sure that 1993 is exactly what you call "the early years of the 6.2L Diesel..." Actually it was the LAST year of it.

I also found that it's NOT a 350 engine, it's a Big Block (ie. 397, 427, 454)

Still hunting for info, tons of forums out there, just hard to find unbiast information. Opinions are everywhere, facts are few and far between. Reguardless, it looks like the 6.2 was around for many many years and was stuffed into just about every GM made vehicle there was if you wanted it.

just wanted to add... I don't think there is anything perfect out there, lol! All the big 3 automakers have good points and bad. I just don't want to get stuck with another nightmare... If one ever does get it all perfect they would just bankrupt themselves eventually!

kc2006
12-21-2005, 11:36 PM
Your right, that engine is not a 350 with heads on it, that was the older 5.7's in the caprices, that poped in under 75,000 mostly. Their problem was the head bolts/studs were too short and only had a few threads in the block, then it would pop head gaskets.

Have you looked at what the hp/torque output is on the older 6.2's? Its a dog, bad. Theres one piece of fact, not a opinion. I think they got what 135hp if its lucky? and 300ftlbs of torque maybe. I can build a v6 stronger then that. If you do search you'll find alot of people complaining that the engines were lucky to make it to 100,000 miles. The 6.5's weren't even that great until the later years right before the d-max was brought out. 10,000 is WAY too much also as you already found out. Good luck getting them to knock almost 5000 off the price.

Like i said in my first post, i'm a diehard chevy guy, but when it comes to any 90's chevy diesel, I'm not there, they lacked big time. Now if we were talking d-max, I'm there in a second :D

I'd keep looking.

Lawn Masters
12-22-2005, 01:42 AM
Evidently, the later 6.2 isnt as good as what hte army used. the US army one is the same motor run in the HMMWV, just different intake manifolds, and low compression pistons for the turbos. for some reason, I'm a military vehicle nut that knows too much. the 6.5 in a HMMWV, is much better on the durability and performance thing, and I think can be dropped right into a chevy truck, with the heavier front end springs, and beefier tranny of course.

Oh yes, Jason, I did edit the first post after I realised the truck you're lookin at was a 93 not an 84-86 model. the CUCV was only in production for thse two years.

Gravel Rat
12-22-2005, 02:35 AM
I'am a little confused is this truck 6.2 power or is it a gasser powered truck ?

If the truck is a 6.2 be ready to deal with a underpowered truck the 6.2s were good on fuel and thats about it. They don't have a good fuel injection system they use a timing chain to run the injection pump :rolleyes:

If your going to buy a Chevy if its a pre Duramax diesel it better be a gasser as the 6.5 diesel is a turd. People think the 6.0 Ford has problems the 6.5 Chev was worse you would be hard pressed to find a 6.5 to outlast the truck.

The trucks with the electronic injection pumps fail early they are also very expensive to replace.

Keep looking you will find the right truck for you :gunsfirin

Scag48
12-22-2005, 02:40 AM
I had a 6.2L diesel. Stay away from them. Gutless, worthless engines. When GM released the engine their main focus was fuel economy and mine got about 18-19 MPG on the highway, not too bad, but when it came to towing the truck lacked badly. Not to mention the entire engine needed something significant replaced about everything 2-3 months. Went through 2 waterpumps, a starter, alternator, 2 trannies, fuel pump, and a set of batteries in a year and a half.

pottstim
12-22-2005, 02:41 AM
First off the 6.2 is not a gas engine converted over to a diesel like some of the people posted above. The 6.2 debuted during the '82 model year and ran until the '93 model year. It was specifically designed as a diesel engine, not gas. '82 to about '83 or '84 models had troubles with head gaskets blowing, but after that I believe they had gotten that problem pretty much figured out. The engine was designed in a joint venture between GM and Detriot Diesel. My dad worked for an underground zinc mine, and they had a fleet of chevy 3/4 ton 4x4 6.2 powered trucks which were '86, 90, and '92 models. All of those trucks were driven underground into the mine by the supervisors to haul equipment, parts, and employees. According to Dad, they never had any engine failures, but the two '86 model trucks did have some leaky injectors as they got older. If they come down to the price you are willing to pay for this truck, expect to drive with your right foot on the floorboard most of the time. Like many have mentioned already, the 6.2 doesn't have much get up and go. I have driven trucks with this engine in both auto and manual, and I felt that the 6.2 works better with a manual tranny. Does this truck you are looking at have 6 lug wheels or 8 lug? The 8 lug 2500 version is a lot stouter truck, and the 6 lug 2500 is essentially a heavy duty 1/2 ton. You will also get the heavy duty 4L80E auto tranny with the 8 lug. Eight lug 3/4's also get more horsepower and torque with the 6.2 vs. the 6 lug. In my opinion, if the truck is an 8 lug 3/4 I might consider it if the price was right. Personally, I wouldn't give more than $4,000-$4,500 for it. Probably the best thing this truck has going for it is that it was Government owned. I know they are very meticulous with their maintenance. Let us know what you decide to do.

Tim

Tyner Lawn Service
12-22-2005, 08:47 AM
I also had a Chevy 1985 3/4 ton 2 wheel drive pickup with a 6.2 and it was not a converted diesel. It was an actual diesel. I bought it in 1993 from a one owner with 150,000 miles in great shape. It got 25mpg and the pump was turned up and was far from down on power. Ran great. I paid $2,000 at the time for it and used it 2 seasons on a mowing route. The only reason I sold it was I made a 1,000 profit. I'm a Ford guy but loved the truck.

Jason Rose
12-22-2005, 09:25 AM
Thanks for all the responces. I still don't see any "lack of power" that so many are saying. It has more "get up and go" than my '88 460 for sure. I took it on the highway and repetedly ran it out of speedometer (85 mph) in almost less time than my 2000 GMC Z-71. The brakes on this truck are amazing, even better than my Z-71's. YES it does have the 8 lug wheels and the frame was refered to as a "ridgid frame" by my step-dad (who has had and worked on chevys for many years)

How would a person access the repair and maintenence records for a government owned truck? Like I said there's a new intake manifold, starter, and alternator visible on the engine, I'd like to know what else... Who knows, it may have a new pump already, or new glow plugs at least?

I'm going to drive it some more today, wish I knew a chevy diesel mechanic personally because I would take it to them and have it looked over. Also going to call the dealer and find out what's going on with the price. I was shocked to see it listed for so much OVER book. (In my evaluation I thought it was worth at least 9k or so)

Gravel Rat
12-22-2005, 02:25 PM
It may feel powerfull empty put a load into it and you will notice the power drops off fast. What do you expect its a naturally aspirated diesel I don't think it puts out anymore than 160hp the torque rating is prolly 300ftlbs.

I drove one of the excavation contractors work truck its a heavy half ton 4x4 Chev its a 88 or so with 6.2 and 4spd its loaded up with a slip tank and tool box. The truck is gutless I couldn't even get it into 4th gear it was horrible to drive your left leg definatly got allot of exercise shifting.

Jason Rose
12-22-2005, 06:22 PM
Well once again, thanks for the info guys! This truck is sitting back at the dealers lot! Not only were the comments bad on here about it but also everyone else I asked! Man, if it wasn't for those on here speaking up and me asking questions, I would have more than likely bought it being none the wiser. I did rather like the diesel rattle... It's annoying to others (and me when I'm not the driver) but that noise just sounds neat from behind the wheel. lol.

NOW I have a 1998 Dodge, V-10, ext. cab, flat bed, 4x4, automatic, 3/4 ton, 48K miles sitting in my drive. So far the feedback about this truck has been very good, only possible weak point could be the transmission. Pluses are the bigger cab for storing more stuff and there's actually A/C and heat in the cab!! The outside is really clean, not repainted. Drives nice and tons of power! What do I expect, it has a freakin 8 liter engine! I'm sure it's a fuel hog, but honesly any 3/4 or 1 ton that has the proper needed power and is a gasser is going to suck fuel fast.

South Florida Lawns
12-22-2005, 06:52 PM
Stay away from that one. During those years when GM made coverted gas engines and used them as diesels, we ran Fords and dealt with bad trannies. trannies are cheaper than engines. The tranny on that truck is rock strong, and if you coupled that engine to any ford tranny after the C-6 was dropped, you would have the worst combination of power that money could be wasted on.

Only the 5.7/350 diesel was the bad engine, The 6.2L is fine, just slow.

Randy J
12-22-2005, 07:46 PM
The Dodge V10 is a good engine, but you are right about being a fuel hog. If you could find a '92/'93 Dodge diesel with 150,000 miles or so on it you could probably get a nice truck for the money. They aren't the most powerful cummins, but are probably one of the most trouble-free diesels out there. They tend to get in the low 20's for fuel mileage - probably just about double what the V10 will get. Just don't get in too big a hurry. The right truck is out there, it just might take a while to find.

Gravel Rat
12-22-2005, 07:59 PM
Boy oh boy I guess you are really going to be crying you thought a 460 was bad on fuel that V-10 will be worse. You better make a investment in a set of black clothing a length of 3/8s fuel line and a Jerry can and start getting fuel from your neighbourhood.

I bet if you check'ed your fuel mileage with the truck it will be only getting about 6 mpg at best prolly around 4 mpg. Better drive the truck like you have a egg under your right foot.

UNISCAPER
12-22-2005, 09:30 PM
You will be lucky to get 5MPG with a V-10 mopar motor. The other problems the V-10 has are torque. Typically, the V-10 Dodge will crack frames right at the line of the drivers door, amongst other spots. They originally designed that engine for a terminal the Roadway Trucking uses in the bubble nose Freightliner cabs. It was going to be an LP gas burner.

Jason Rose
12-22-2005, 09:52 PM
I don't know about the mileage... I have talked with a few dodge 3/4 and 1 ton owners that have the V-10's and they say they get 10 mpg pulling and up to 15 on the highway. What it gets on the highway is really irrevelant to me as I don't do any highway driving with my work truck.
10 mpg would actually be almost double what my POS 460 gets. I have checked it many times and get between 5 and 6 max. It's a fuel injected nightmare.

Not many diesels out there to be found, at least not around here. Many times they are pretty trashed all around or are so nice and pretty and new I can't dream of affording one, let alone getting it filled with grass and dirt!
That's one thing I like about this one. The interior is all vinal and plastic, crank windows. But, it does have a half decent stereo and A/C! I found out that it's been sitting on the lot for quite a long time. Most don't want it just because the inside is so stripped down. The flatbed is scabbed on there so bad it's not even funny. It was jammed right up to the cab and then is heald of kinda by a bolt or two and some of the worst welds I have ever seen (looked like some I did in high school...) But that's not a big deal as it has to come off anyway so it can be made into a dump. It's a bigger bed too, 7'x9', that's a lot of bed on a single wheel rear axle. I'm not hauling rock or concrete and I actually need the added floor space = more volume with the sides. It's a Winkel bed and is HEAVY. Twice the bed I have on my ford dump.

Gravel Rat
12-22-2005, 10:01 PM
Your looking at a 8 litre gas engine who ever told you that 10 mpg is possible is pulling the wool over your eyes.

Randy J
12-23-2005, 07:19 AM
Around 10mpg sounds about right for the V10. Most of the guys I know that had the V10's got around 10-12 mpg empty, or pulling a 25' cattle trailer loaded - it didn't matter. Not what I'd consider good, but if it's better than you've been getting...

Soupy
12-23-2005, 08:12 AM
I have a 92 2500 extended cab with a 6.2L (6 lug rims). It has 200,000 miles and still runs strong although I need to replace the Vacuum pump on it. The previous owner did say he had the transmission replaced (factory new) around 150,000

I bought it two years ago (paid $3400) and have replaced starter and Alternator (pulley bearing wore out) during my ownership. Now the Vacuum Pump is making a knocking noise (sounds like a rod) but these repairs are typical for any vehicle with that many miles.

Everyone is correct that it doesn't have much get up and go under load, but is great for the typical lawn route. It is the only diesel I have ever owned. I like the fuel mileage and the fact I can leave it running all day while the A/C is running.

Jason Rose
12-23-2005, 08:24 AM
I have a 92 2500 extended cab with a 6.2L . It has 200,000 miles and still runs strong although I need to replace the Vacuum pump on it. The previous owner did say he had the transmission replaced (factory new) around 150,000

I bought it two years ago (paid $3400) and have replaced starter and Alternator (pulley bearing wore out) during my ownership. Now the Vacuum Pump is making a knocking noise (sounds like a rod) but these repairs are typical for any vehicle with that many miles.

Everyone is correct that it doesn't have much get up and go under load, but is great for the typical lawn route. It is the only diesel I have ever owned. I like the fuel mileage and the fact I can leave it running all day while the A/C is running.

WOW, the first POSITIVE comment about the 6.2!!! :cool: lol! I liked the truck over all but it was just way overpriced and they weren't looking to come down either. No a/c to leave running during the day either :p Plus with the low miles it had I'm sure I would be the one footning the bill for a new transmission since I'd bet the one it has is original. Diesel repairs (if needed) are also waaaaay higher in cost. For the beans I'd be saving in fuel cost I can't justify it...

I'm going today and make an offer of $12,000 on that dodge (maybe 11, but I don't want to get laughed out of the dealership) It's been sitting on their lot since early Feburary. I think that no one want's it because the inside is so stock and the bed is so cobbled on there, that, and maybe because it's PURPLE!!!:dizzy:

The color really isn't that big a deal to me. If I was buying new I would never consider purple, but if the price is right... I figure if I can get 6 years out of it then I can find a GOOD diesel that will be in my price range since there is soooo many on the road now.

Wish me luck! And thanks for all the help! :drinkup:

UNISCAPER
12-23-2005, 09:54 AM
"Your looking at a 8 litre gas engine who ever told you that 10 mpg is possible is pulling the wool over your eyes."

agreed. My friend had one, it got 5-6 tops, 4 loaded and he pulled a trailer to the dessert loaded with toys. It also was one the cracked the frame under the drivers door from the torque. There are also other spots the V-10 dodges would crack, around the motor mounts, and transmission cross member. I dunno if they ever changed the frame bracing, but this one is right in those years where that was a problem.

Soupy
12-23-2005, 10:16 AM
It's been sitting on their lot since early Feburary. I think that no one want's it because the inside is so stock and the bed is so cobbled on there, that, and maybe because it's PURPLE

It's probably because a gas guzzler like that isn't a hot item with resent gas prices. You could probably talk a good deal if you stand strong and walk for a couple days. Go in low and when they say no, then say "call me if you can offer a decent price for that gas guzzler". Leave and wait for the phone to ring.

Gravel Rat
12-23-2005, 11:45 PM
As meantioned the reason why that truck is still on the dealers lot it is a V-10 gasser as you said its got a hokey box on it, its purple in color and the price is too high.

Its just like 460 gasser powered F-350s and F-Superduties (f-450) the have really low kilometers on them and I mean low like under 200,000kms because they are expensive to drive.

A truck that has sat on a dealers lot for that long means one thing its a POS if it was worth anything it would have been gone by now.