Is the 6.5l a good engine?
#41
12-13-2016, 12:01 AM
And be aware them buses have terrible gear ratios as in climbing hills and such may not be a issue for you just wanted to point that out.
And ask if the bus has electronic injection or mechanical injection I'm not sure about the buses but C/K series trucks after 1993 have electronic injection and if you want to own one with electronic injection it's a whole different ballgame compared to mechanical injection.
Last edited by Mayhem; 12-13-2016 at 12:06 AM.
#42
05-29-2017, 10:25 PM
2000 chevrolet box truck 6.5 diesel
Nah, not at all.
As delivered, they have a lot of problems.
Some can be fixed, some cannot.
For example:
fixable/preventable - OPS problems
Not fixable/not preventable - cracking cylinder bores/main webs/heads
Fixable but always a pain waiting to bite you in the @$$ - PMD
Don't get me wrong, I've got a 6.5.
I like the old truck.
It gets the job done that I need. It starts reliably every day in all weather. Hot, cold, or whatever. It takes me back and forth to work every day.
But, I had to spend waaayyy too much to get it to this point; IE: Optimizer, injectors, glow plugs, replace turbo, PMD relocation, fluidampr, water injection, turbo master, 4" exhaust, etc, etc, etc....and it's still just barely adequate at best to pull our 7500-ish lb travel trailer on weekend outings.
If I had it all to do over again I would have just walked on past the 6.5.
So to examine whether or not the engine is good; No, it's not a good engine.
No matter what you do, you can't spend enough to "fix" a cracked block/cylinder/head and there's no way of preventing those issues. Finding a rebuildable block and/or heads is nearly impossible. Replacement is the only lasting cure. It's a bad engine design right out of the gate and that's why AMG/GEP changed/redesigned it a couple times in pursuit of something that works reliably without all the associated "hard part" failures.
If I had known then what I now; I would have bit the bullet, spent more money up front and simply bought a better rig to begin with.
The GM 6.5 engine is a bad design, no matter how you slice it. Truth is something we don't want to admit sometimes. I didn't and just kept pouring money down the hole until it bottomed out...
However, the GMT400/4L80E/corporate 14 bolt that's attached to it is one good old truck, even with it's few "character flaws"......
As delivered, they have a lot of problems.
Some can be fixed, some cannot.
For example:
fixable/preventable - OPS problems
Not fixable/not preventable - cracking cylinder bores/main webs/heads
Fixable but always a pain waiting to bite you in the @$$ - PMD
Don't get me wrong, I've got a 6.5.
I like the old truck.
It gets the job done that I need. It starts reliably every day in all weather. Hot, cold, or whatever. It takes me back and forth to work every day.
But, I had to spend waaayyy too much to get it to this point; IE: Optimizer, injectors, glow plugs, replace turbo, PMD relocation, fluidampr, water injection, turbo master, 4" exhaust, etc, etc, etc....and it's still just barely adequate at best to pull our 7500-ish lb travel trailer on weekend outings.
If I had it all to do over again I would have just walked on past the 6.5.
So to examine whether or not the engine is good; No, it's not a good engine.
No matter what you do, you can't spend enough to "fix" a cracked block/cylinder/head and there's no way of preventing those issues. Finding a rebuildable block and/or heads is nearly impossible. Replacement is the only lasting cure. It's a bad engine design right out of the gate and that's why AMG/GEP changed/redesigned it a couple times in pursuit of something that works reliably without all the associated "hard part" failures.
If I had known then what I now; I would have bit the bullet, spent more money up front and simply bought a better rig to begin with.
The GM 6.5 engine is a bad design, no matter how you slice it. Truth is something we don't want to admit sometimes. I didn't and just kept pouring money down the hole until it bottomed out...
However, the GMT400/4L80E/corporate 14 bolt that's attached to it is one good old truck, even with it's few "character flaws"......
after going through three 6.0 ford, two 5.9 Cummings, and one 7.3 ford the 6.5 outlasted all of them together. I would say 6.5 GM diesel took best care of me and I still have the truck and body is falling apart while engine is still getting better and better.
#43
12-14-2017, 02:35 AM
#44
12-14-2017, 02:38 AM
[QUOTE=great white;866049]Not to speak ill of a guy once he's gone but:
1st year powerstroke was lowest hp powerstroke - about 185 hp.
4x that is 740 hp.
So, how big was that fish again.
You know now how to take a joke? Apparently you know nothing about the 6.5 I've owned numerous the best I've ever owned
1st year powerstroke was lowest hp powerstroke - about 185 hp.
4x that is 740 hp.
So, how big was that fish again.
You know now how to take a joke? Apparently you know nothing about the 6.5 I've owned numerous the best I've ever owned
#45
01-07-2018, 03:25 PM
Well maintained and not abused yes. It is not a power house and was not intended to be. The upside is that it is economical and cared for lasts a long time. The newer diesel engines whether Ford, GM or Chrysler all are in competition for more power pushing the engine designs to new frontiers AND COMPLEXITY. Along with all that complexity and power comes cost and reduced life. This is made worse when owners add "performance" modifications. After 280K miles I had to sink $2K into my 6.5. My brother-in-law with a Duramax same milege has sunk over $12K. Granted it will smoke the tires and catch a Mustang but for me sorry I would rather have the $10K. Not in that much of a hurry. :-)
#46
04-24-2018, 10:00 PM
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
burndiesel
24 Valve 2nd Gen Dodge Cummins 98.5-02
10
02-07-2023 01:15 AM
klein444
Chevy/GMC 6.2L and 6.5L
13
06-20-2015 11:48 PM
metal_miner
Diesel Engine Conversions
7
12-23-2014 11:40 PM
