Jump to content

6.2L (L9H) Owners - Get all your questions answered here

RyanbabZ71
 Share

Recommended Posts

EX-F150 owner Enthusiast

EX-F150 owner

Posted
Posted

I thought this thread was about the 6.2L :confused:

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DanMan_S
DanMan_S

This is a video showing how the 6.2L sounds with headers and a corsa catback. The crew cab is my 6.2L, the 2005 extended cab is a 5.3L with a magnaflow muffler welded in.    

gonzoid
gonzoid

finished product  

2010LTZ4x4
2010LTZ4x4

Where did you get the 6.2L badge in you avatar?  Heres the info for the 6.2L badge Top Flight Reproductions is proud to announce the addition of the 6.2L emblem to our emblem product line. This embl

Posted Images

00Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

00Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted

It is and the more I read it, the more I REALLY want a 6.2....

 

I'm not doubting anybody's mpg, I'm just wondering if it's the engine set up, new trans set or some combination that is giving these numbers??

I get between 10-14mpg hauling my tow behind travel trailer (4200lbs max) with my 5.3L. If I could still get the same mpg numbers and have a 6.2L under the hood...heck ya!

  • Like 1
ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not exactly the same comparison that you are looking for but my '98 was nearly the identical build (same gear ratio and tire size) and it got 10 mpg pulling the same exact load under the same exact conditions that my 6.2l gets 12.5 mpg. The '98 had a 5.7l in it. Pulled like an ox but still not as good as my 6.2l does.

Edited by ChevyTech77
EX-F150 owner Enthusiast

EX-F150 owner

Posted
Posted

It is and the more I read it, the more I REALLY want a 6.2....

 

I'm not doubting anybody's mpg, I'm just wondering if it's the engine set up, new trans set or some combination that is giving these numbers??

I get between 10-14mpg hauling my tow behind travel trailer (4200lbs max) with my 5.3L. If I could still get the same mpg numbers and have a 6.2L under the hood...heck ya!

 

Never had a 5.3L but I did have a 5.7L in a 93 Suburban and it got 11-13 at best. The 6.2L in mine does better and is more comparable to the 5.4L 3.73 rear 4x4 CC F150 I had. Crazy that this is getting similar numbers to that but it is. I see 13.5 in town and 16 or so on the Hwy, but my Hwy numbers could be better, I really don't drive my truck enough to get a real accurate number there. It's a 2010 and I just rolled 6K miles lol

DanMan_S Enthusiast

DanMan_S

Posted
Posted

This is a video showing how the 6.2L sounds with headers and a corsa catback. The crew cab is my 6.2L, the 2005 extended cab is a 5.3L with a magnaflow muffler welded in.

 

 

  • Like 3
Wolfmanjohn Enthusiast

Wolfmanjohn

Posted
Posted

Looks like fun!

 

 

Yeah, now get out there in that snow and run a coupla' side-by-side quarters!! :lol::D

DanMan_S Enthusiast

DanMan_S

Posted
Posted

We do the hooning at Gull Lake, north of Red Deer in Alberta. It's much more fun when there is less snow on the lake. After awhile we end up with a thick layer of wet sticky snow and it really bogs the trucks down.

 

In case anyone is curious, the truck with Dynatech Headers and a Corsa Touring is quieter for cruising on the highway than the OEM 6.2L exhaust. The factory 6.2L exhaust has a TON of drone and you don't realize it until it's gone.

 

And as you can see, it sounds absolutely bad ass from the exterior. It has that very distinctive chevy small block + headers bark when you get on it.

txmuder Enthusiast

txmuder

Posted
Posted

I have been tracking my MPG #'s for 3 weeks and on average including City/Hyw it maintains 17.7-18.0. I have a 90 mile round trip to work and by really watching how easy I take off and excellerate I hit 22.2 MPG ONCE and only ONCE heading to work but I was amazed. But on normal my speed averages around 65-70 mph with 5-6 red lights in-between home and work along with a very high bridge. My last 2 trucks (08 F150 Lariat CC 4x4 w/5.4 and 3.73's and 2010 CC Tundra w/5.7 and 430's) Ford was average 11.0-14.0 mpg and Toyota was 14-16 mpg.

  • Like 1
Baker_one_nine Enthusiast

Baker_one_nine

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have a 2011 6.2 crew cab. intake, exhaust, edge programmer, leveling kit. 315/40/22 tires.

 

Averaging around 15 mpg highway this winter driving 80 mph.

 

Pulling a wakeboat and trailer around 4000 lbs i get 9 mpg, and that is a 5th gear only situation.

 

I average about 11 mpg in town this winter, remote start included.

 

Blackbear autocal is sitting right next to me currently, i'll try to give a good report on what it will do compared to the edge.

Edited by Baker_one_nine
  • Like 1
karlde Enthusiast

karlde

Posted
Posted

My new 2011 5.3L with 3.42 rear gets 13.5 mpg at best. Pulling a trailer, it will go down to 9.

 

My wife's 2008 Yukon Denali with 6.2L and 3.42 rear gets 17-19 and we usually have it loaded with our son, his wife and 2 kids.

 

My next Silverado will be a 6.2L and hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

I enjoyed reading all your comments. You sold me!

 

Karl

  • Like 1
txmuder Enthusiast

txmuder

Posted
Posted

Found out it is hard to try and record a quick take off while your driving but here is the best view of a 0-60

RyanbabZ71 Senior Enthusiast

RyanbabZ71

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Found out it is hard to try and record a quick take off while your driving but here is the best view of a 0-60

 

 

wow so fast you cant even see it :lol:

  • Like 1
2010LTZ4x4 Enthusiast

2010LTZ4x4

Posted
Posted

Found out it is hard to try and record a quick take off while your driving but here is the best view of a 0-60

 

 

wow so fast you cant even see it :lol:

 

:rollin::crackup:
txmuder Enthusiast

txmuder

Posted
Posted

Ok need to reduce size of vid I recorded as it states file to large unable to upload. Any quick ideals on how to correct this?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...