Diesel Swap???

[charlieatthedisco]

Alright, So I know that the 1978 c10's were available with a diesel engine. My question is has anybody swapped their 350 with the diesel engine of the same year?

[Ziegelsteinfaust]

I have thought about the swap myself for mpg.

An easy, and likely cheapest way to do the swap is to buy the whole truck.

I had an opportunity to buy a wreck Dodge with a 12V Cummins. It looked a bit overwhelming, and I passed on it. Still I would of had a whole truck to play with vs a piece together swap. A few months ago my cousin, and I did a day road trip to see a guy who sold ex-military items. He sells M1008/M1009's for about $4000. They are pretty hard core 4x4's, and not really my taste. Still you can get a whole truck for the money, and recoup most of your money if not damn near all selling the 4x4 parts. I would like to get a Blazer one, and convert it to a 2wd for dd use. Would be a really sweet family wagon for me.

[Ziegelsteinfaust]

Forgot this.

http://www.100dollarman.com/more.html

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by charlieatthedisco

Alright, So I know that the 1978 c10's were available with a diesel engine. My question is has anybody swapped their 350 with the diesel engine of the same year?

'78 would be a have a Olds 5.7L Diesel.....Stay away!
The vastly better 6.2L came out in '82.

[Corts60]

I daily drive my '78 with the factory Olds. It is a great engine if you understand it's weakness'. The 6.2 has just as many idiosyncrasies that you have to learn if you want to own one. Neither one are amazing Diesel engines but they are fuel misers. I get 23 mpg on the highway, 18 in the city and 14 when I tow.

Now, since the Olds diesel on the outside looks just like a gas Olds, it will require different mounts, a BOP tranny and diesel torque converter. Basically, if you're truck doesn't already have the olds, don't swap to one. It is too expensive for what you get.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Brockwaykid]

Originally Posted by clinebarger

'78 would be a have a Olds 5.7L Diesel.....Stay away!
The vastly better 6.2L came out in '82.

even then, anything is better than a 6.2!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

[Rubble]

Originally Posted by Brockwaykid

even then, anything is better than a 6.2!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

Nothing wrong with a 6.2 if they were looked after & used the way they were meant for.No they are not a torque monster,but they are very decent on fuel.I have a couple for work & they work great fir what I am using them for.Some of you that criticize the 6.2 might just be going on here-say too....
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

[Corts60]

Originally Posted by Rubble

Nothing wrong with a 6.2 if they were looked after & used the way they were meant for.No they are not a torque monster,but they are very decent on fuel.I have a couple for work & they work great fir what I am using them for.Some of you that criticize the 6.2 might just be going on here-say too....
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

It's funny how accurate this entire statement is when you replace 6.2 with 5.7. Most of you have never owned a 5.7 and trash talk based on what your uncle said. The 5.7 and 6.2 have near identical power figures and just as many high failure rates, only in different areas of the engine.
Posted via Mobile Device

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by Corts60

It's funny how accurate this entire statement is when you replace 6.2 with 5.7. Most of you have never owned a 5.7 and trash talk based on what your uncle said. The 5.7 and 6.2 have near identical power figures and just as many high failure rates, only in different areas of the engine.
Posted via Mobile Device

I work on 2 5.7L diesels all the time, A Tornado & an Eldorado. Updated IP's & injectors along with a Racor 500FG water separator seemed to fix the injection system, Cracked heads are one thing I don't see a fix for.....Running thick gaskets & ARP on both did seem to prolong the inevitable.

A 6.2L on the other hand can be made into a rock solid engine. Keep a close eye on the harmonic balancer, New IP/Injectors, Water separator, & ARP studs. My machine shop tells me ALL 6.2L's have cracks in the main webs when 'Fluxed & to run the $hit of them, Crankshaft failure's are related to harmonic balancer failure.

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by Brockwaykid

even then, anything is better than a 6.2!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

You should buy a 6.0L PowerStroke

[Redcap]

Originally Posted by clinebarger

You should buy a 6.0L PowerStroke

Even that pile of scrap iron is better than the 5.7L Olds diesel...

[Redcap]

The 5.7 Olds 'diesel' is a great boat anchor. That's about it.

[charlieatthedisco]

Thanks all for the replys! I guess it would be best to stay away from a diesel swap...but its just so tempting. would the 5.7 or 6.2 be close to bolt on? Im sure the tranny wouldn't work with it.

[charlieatthedisco]

Another question would be is would just be buying a 350 stock crate engine be worth my while? and who has the best deal? This is a CA truck so I would have to put the smog crap back on

[Corts60]

The 6.2 shares the chevy bolt pattern on trans and engine mounts. So if you want to go diesel, which I recommend, a 6.2 or 6.5 will be easiest for you.
Posted via Mobile Device

[legendman]

The 6.2 get a bad rap it doesn't deserve, if you decide to go the 6.2 route I would check the mains for cracks before buying any motor.
It will handle a turbo with mild boost, just don't expect it to put down the same numbers as the powerstrokes or Cummins.
Also it is possible to get 20-23 mpgs.
On the Cummins swap I am doing one myself and it's a lot of work.
Check the diesel conversion section here

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/f...play.php?f=240

Also for more info on the 6.2

dieselplace.com they have a 6.2 section

[charlieatthedisco]

Look at this on eBay:

GM Chevy 6.2 Diesel Engine Excellent Used Take Out!

http://bit.ly/16Rvr5a


So this would bolt right in and work with the tranny and mounts!?
Posted via Mobile Device

[legendman]

Originally Posted by charlieatthedisco

So this would bolt right in and work with the tranny and mounts!?
Posted via Mobile Device

You would need the block side mounts off a 6.2, gasser ones are different

Plus you would want to find something out of another truck, maybe even the whole truck.
Buying one of Teds setups you would need to hunt down a lot of extra parts.
Manifolds for one, this will drive the cost up.

[JW76]

I've had two 6.2 diesels. They worked great for me. One is in a 1982 C30 dump. I carry loads of gravel and tow a bobcat at the same time no problem. I bought the truck in 2004 and haven't had to do any work to the motor. I let it sit all winter and start it up every spring no problems. Empty the truck gets great gas mileage. The mileage is much better than my 2005 6.0 diesel. Last year I added a Banks turbo to it. I did not turn up the injection pump. It runs great. Mileage improved. It runs better under load and smoother on the highway. I am very happy with the motor and would get another one in a second. I have the older style injection pumps on both motors. If you could get one for around $500 with a harness I'd say it is a no brainer.

[GM72K10]

Originally Posted by JW76

I've had two 6.2 diesels. They worked great for me. One is in a 1982 C30 dump. I carry loads of gravel and tow a bobcat at the same time no problem. I bought the truck in 2004 and haven't had to do any work to the motor. I let it sit all winter and start it up every spring no problems. Empty the truck gets great gas mileage. The mileage is much better than my 2005 6.0 diesel. Last year I added a Banks turbo to it. I did not turn up the injection pump. It runs great. Mileage improved. It runs better under load and smoother on the highway. I am very happy with the motor and would get another one in a second. I have the older style injection pumps on both motors. If you could get one for around $500 with a harness I'd say it is a no brainer.

Agreed. I have an 86 K30 dump and a bunch of CUCVs with the 6.2L They are better on fuel than my 2012 6.0 and are fine for what they are.

[86c20]

6.2 are low power fuel saver motors. they are part are Detroit fuel pincer motor (6.2 and the 8.2) now with that said. if you are looking to swap in a half ton i say go for it. only real bad thing on the 6.2 is the ip and with the new pumps they are not so bad. now if you are looking for any kind of high speed or hp or torq numbers. skip the 6.2 and do the 12v cummins and never look back. 5.7 also has the same problem as the 6.2 with the ip being junk. stock both are good motors. or be diff if you can weld and do what i want to do. a real detroit and do a 453t two stroke

[Rubble]

I am actually doing a 6.2 swap right now too,it's been about a 7 year project so hopefully this fall / winter it's done.Started as a 85K15,305/465/208. Got the 6.2 in it now,just going to swap to 3/4 T running gear & 6" lift.Setting it up for a daily driver/ work truck.Don't tow much with it,maybe haul around 1000lbs in box.This swap was simple,not much wiring & the 6.2 is a low km rebuild.I have 2 6.2s already for work & as said in earlier posts,they work great for me. My 350 gasser costs about $40.00/day to operate it,the 6.2 costs about $28.00/day.this adds up over a couple months.Both my 82 6.2 & the 350 are set up similar too,6 or 7" lifts,35s so it's a pretty close comparison too.
Posted via Mobile Device

[hatzie]

I've had a 350DX, 6.2 & 6.5s
The 350DX was an expensive project. It's still running today but it only has 105hp with no room to upgrade. Reliable engine for me.
The M1008 was an inexpensive 6.2
Swapping the 6.5 into the 76 was very expensive.
The 2000 T400 GMC has been very cheap to run...

[84chevyguyid]

I had a big buick park avenue with a 5.7 diesel years ago, the power sucked but the fuel mileage was incredible. A few days after I bought it I drove from southeast Idaho to Las Vegas, around 700 miles one way. I watched the fuel gauge and it didnt ever seem to drop much and by Cedar City Utah I still had just under half a tank of fuel left. I got worried that the gauge wasnt working right so I pulled into a truck stop in Cedar City and filled it. The gauge was correct and my mileage worked out to 32 mpg. I drove it for several years and it ran good for me except the rear main started leaking on it. At that point I moved on. I have an 87 suburban that I bought in 88 with a 6.2 diesel and it would get about 19-20 mpg highway (75mph) driving. It had a 700 trans with 3.73 gears. I have 310,000 miles on it now and its currently sporting a 94 6.5 motor with a Banks turbo kit and a mechanical injection pump. That addition made it a really nice cruiser, the turbo really woke it up. We drove it out to San Fransisco on vacation a couple years ago and cruising 75-80 on the freeways I got anywhere from 18.5 to 19.5 mpg going there and back. I filled it when we got there and ran around the whole week on one tank of fuel and it averaged 14 mpg with all the chasing around the city we did. I had a 94 chevy pickup with a 6.5 turbo and 4.10 gears and it only got about 16-17 highway but I found if I drove it 65 instead of 75-80 I could get 22 plus with it. My dad bought a 94 6.5 turbo chevy 2 wheel drive pickup with 3.54 gears and it got amazing mileage, he bought it in Salt Lake City, filled it up and drove it home, 250 miles, and filled it when he got home and it got 28 mpg. His driving habits are better than mine but that thing would always knock out 28 on a trip. The downside to it was the injection pump, the dealer did 4 pumps on it under warrantee and he decided to get rid of it after it went off warrantee. I am building an 84 chevy crew cab with a 12 valve cummins and an allison 6 speed, hope to have it on the road next summer. I'm hoping to get 20 mpg with it and have tons of power. If it works out good I may drop one in the suburban as my 6.5 is getting a little tired. If you like to tinker then a diesel swap is a fun project!