Absolutely true

I LOVE my 6.2 when it works 😂 fucker runs on straight up motor oil

@@Victorsvolkswagens wait huh straight up motor oil

@@trapauto9331 yup put used motor oil in the tank it’s called black diesel

What mileage does it get on black diesel and did you have to swap injectors and fuel pump

I hope was a sportster.lol

That's the running gear in my old '79 K20 Suburban that I towed my demolition derby cars all across the country with. Wish I still had it. Although I can't complain about it's replacement, a 2001 K2500 Suburban with the 8.1/4L80E/14 bolt.

I have a big 10 4x4 longbed 350 sm465 and a 4.11 Wonder what it could tow

Wow a C30, I've got an 81 K10, in great shape, no accidents, very little rust, near zero frame rust. Has 99000kms on a 350 with th350

LS engines are about as simple as modern EFI can get. Don't be afraid of a couple wires...

I have a 91 regular cab long bed 2500 that has a 6.2 non turbo and i turned the fuel up. It actually pulls really good and when I keep my foot out of it unloaded it gets great mpg!

Agree with you on the 6.2 to a point like mine the fuel filter clogged up after like 70 miles to the point it nearly stalled going 70 but I pulled into a rest area and threw a new one on and gave it a shot of ether to run the engine and get the minuscule bit of air and it fired back up

THis is an edelbrock carb i'm pretty certain

Cmon Will, you got accusations to live up to!!!

#Will← I would literally drink a full 12oz bottle of my own piss to see a Dyno run of your 6.2l making 450hp @ 524ft lb of torque!!!!.

@@meechg0stupid110 lol right

I'd LOVE to see that 😂😂😂😂😂

How would you compare the two? Does one have a lot more grunt then the other?

The 6.2 was built for better fuel mileage that pulling power. GM knocked it out of the park on fuel mileage 👍

The 6.5L had a ton more in torque compared to the 6.2L.Both engines were actually built for fuel efficiency,that was their primary result. If the 6.5L is a slug,then that includes the 7.4L because the 454 was 240 HP/385 TQ and most 6.5L's were 200 HP/390 TQ.Not a difference in torque except the horsepower but the 6.5L gave all it's strength at 1,600-1,800 RPM. The 6.2L/6.5L was developed by Detroit Diesel after General Motors truely fucked up from their conclusion with the Oldsmobile 4.3L-5.7L,which was a gas converted diesel engine.Everything in them couldn't handle the function of a compression engine,so everything ended up broken or torn.Those engines were a true failure,they are worthless. They almost murdered the diesel market for them for nearly 20 years after pulling that off,it was just that terrible to be exact.They didn't put diesel engines in cars ever again like the 4.3L was in,including the 5.7L in the G Body cars,but they put the 6.2L/6.5L in the same apparatus of trucks that the 5.7L came in. The 6.5L was really a bored out 6.2L,and the 6.2L was based on the 8.2L Fuel Pincher that came in the C50-C70/Topkick-Kodiak and Ford F600-F900.It was just a small version of that engine. The 6.2L ended up in the Military for the M1008-M1031 CUCV and M998 HMMWV. When the 6.5L came out,they obviously went with them,and then there was the CUCV ll and M1025-M1046 HMMWV,which the HMMWV actually had a naturally aspirated 6.5L.G.M. even use to sell them as crate engines that didn't have turbochargers,but of course most of them as we know are all turbocharged. The CUCV ll got replaced by the LSSV having the 6.6L LLY at the time,but the 6.5L was still around.When G.M. didn't want to focus on them anymore after now getting the Isuzu Duramax,they sold rights to AM General and even gave them licencing to keep the 6.5L V8 in production only for the HMMWV.The M1113-M1167 HMMWV/ECV also has the 6.5L but it's not exactly the same as any other 6.5L.The 6.5L in the HMMWV/ECV has a heavy engine block,different head gaskets,large cranks,different turbocharger,longer radiator,and a updated cooling system. That is why they have those thick and weird grilles on the armored HMMWV's compared to previous variations that actually look like an appropriate HMMWV,have soft doors,soft roofs,soft back covers,and soft rear covers,or just basic doors,a solid roof if it has a turret,and no rear or bed covers if it is a slantback variant.

@@Slim_Slid I never realized the 8.2 Detroit was similar to the 6.2 I used to work on school busses that had that 8.2. They had this littttttle tiny throttle opening that really choked any power. But they were kinda torquey.

@@ReidHenderson The Detroit 8.2L was also in the Chevrolet C70/Topkick in the Military.There was 6×6 C70's in the Navy Seabees that came as dump trucks and wreckers.They phased them out,or began to,almost a decade later when the Navy got the Ford 6×6 F900 with the Ford 7.8L. They were different than the 6.2L/6.5L,not just because of displacement.They had cylinders that didn't exactly reach the top which is why they were famous for head gaskets,espiecally if it was a turbocharged Fuel Pincher and had issues with vibration because of the pressure from the boost.They also were notorious for having fuel getting into the coolant,so that always had to be checked,or else there was overheating and even a cracked engine block.The 8.2L also had a parent bore block just like the 5.9L 6BT,which was both a light and medium duty truck engine.The 8.3L 6CT being only a medium truck engine just like the 8.2L V8 actually had wet sleeves but was soley based on the 12V 6BT.

I think it was a c70 tanker truck we had to deliver fuel to the busses. It did have the 8.2 detroit and a 4 speed with 2 speed rear end. It wasn't fast by any means but could still tote a load

I did the filter a while ago it's still slow lol

Its a 6.2 its gonna be slow. A manual trans and turbo really wakes them up though.

@@spencercastle8638 an NV especially i got one in my 97 and she goes pretty dang good

I got it like that. I know the engine and wiring harness was changed from another truck so it could be a different year.

I definitely agree with you!

That ain’t what the Detroit was made for, it was made for fuel mileage I guarantee you it gets way more miles on a tank the red truck

But a power adjustment in that 6.2 is far easier than the gasser! I had a '86 J-code military 6.2 with the fuel cranked up - you definitely had to drive by the EGT gauge but it pulled quite strong.

The stock configuration of the 6.5L and 6.2L were detuned for both fuel economy and commercial reliability.... There are plenty of aftermarket options to make them wet your GF's pants

Depending on what code they were,the 6.2L was 130-155 HP and the 6.5L was 180-200 HP. In the Military for the D10-D30 CUCV and M998 HMMWV with the 6.2L,and the CUCV ll with the M1025-M1046 HMMWV and M1113-M1167 HMMWV/ECV having the 6.5L,the N/A 6.2L was 155 HP/250 TQ and the N/A-T/C 6.5L was 180-200 HP/360-450 TQ.The 6.5L in the M1113-M1167 use heavier engine blocks,different head studs,turbocharger,cranks,and large radiators including a different cooling system and longer stack/snorkel. A turbocharged 6.2L could do 190-215 HP/365 TQ easily.And for the marine version of these engines,they were 250-380 HP.I don't know about the 6.2L,but a heavily modified 6.5L can reach 475-600 HP and even withstand as high as 4,800 RPM if you want a diesel race truck.Going to take a shit load of money obviously since it is a 20-30 year old engine that also has indirect fuel injection.The redline on the stock 6.2L/6.5L is 3,400-3,600 RPM.

put a turbo on it to wake it up with some marine injectors and turn the fuel pump up and she'll do just as good as a stock 12v

I really don't get the benefit of the 6.2s in a truck, There's really no upside. I can get more torque and HP out of a stock Ford 300 straight six at 2000 RPM and get pretty good fuel economy, or even a GM straight 6 or 4.3. Not a GM guy but I'd take a 350 over many things any day.

@@TerminxmanHave all your torque by 1800 RPM, 30+MPG is feasible (with the right engine and gearing) on just about any combustible lubricant, even fewer electronics to worry about, even cheaper to acquire than a 350 and it’ll drop right in. Diesel is much less dangerous than gas, and in a pinch any diesel should light off on starting fluid unless it’s way, way out of whack. All in all I’d take whichever I had the chance to get. For pure cool factor I’d pick the 6.2, it would run well into the apocalypse. Every parked vehicle has 10-20 quarts of lubricant - diff fluid, tranny fluid, engine oil, transfer case, etc., hell, I’d love to make a show of going to the middle of nowhere, draining the diff fluid from an abandoned wreck, and running on that for a while, because I think that’s cool.

Try a set of vortec heads. Easily found and cheap in the junkyard. Noticeable difference.

I bought it from a friend. They are hard to find.

Yeah I wanna turbo it. I'd use it alot more if it could climb hills with a loaded trailer.

@@NOT_FOR_HIRE I live near Jackson Hole and my 6.2 cucv can barely make it up Teton pass at 30 mph without a trailer! I have to find more power somehow.

You're kidding right? I have never had a 350 (or any sbc) naturally run hot. Die early?? That could get you in the comedians hall of fame.

Nope. Never had a SBC work truck that made it past 200,000 miles without a couple of head pulls. Thats why we bought the diesels. Pumps were a problem early on, but last forever now. We've had 6.2 go 350,000 before any internal problems.

@@wolfkin73 You may want to step up your maintenance program in that case.

@@OldGriz708 idk my 350 blew a head gasket.... its ok. i will fix it. but it is what it is

Sounds like you know a bit about 7.2. I have one and when coming off throttle off a mountain at high rpm I lose all throttle response until the rpms fall or I throw in neutral and wait till rpms fall. When the power comes back on it sends it all at once and is hard on drive train. Any ideas?

Yup thats next to my storage lot!

Well I’ll be there in a few weeks ! Stop by say hi love the videos and check out what we do !

Intake, carb and headers that's it.

Damn okay. I’ve got a 350 in my 87 crew cab and it’s gutless. That seems to kick ass

Alot of people say my 350 seems to be modified but as far as I know it's all stock inside. I guess if I blow it up someday I'll take it apart and find out if it's got anything done to it. Lol

My 1974 Chevy has a 350 that is stock it goes pretty good but it has low rear end gears

Hell ya man, love the content! Bad ass squarebodys doing shit. Always good. 👍🏼

Red truck for sure 👌

Yes it is.

Yes I have a set of the led wireless ones. I use them alot! I havent shown them in a video yet.

Everything of mine is registered and insured. Even my cows! It cost a ton of money every year. Worth it though.

Probably a lot of work but id do it.