Jump to content

6.6 Duramax in 1500

honda65
 Share

Recommended Posts

honda65 Enthusiast

honda65

Posted
Posted

Hi,

 

Does anyone know if a 6.6 Duramax would fit in a 1500? I have a 2021 3.0 Duramax which actually runs pretty darn good and gets excellent fuel mileage. But I had a 2020 2500HD last year and of course I miss that power.

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be cost effective by any stretch but I was just curious if anyone knows if it could be done. How much different are the dimensions between the 6.6 and the 6.2?

 

 

HeySkippyDog Senior Enthusiast

HeySkippyDog

Posted
Posted

Uhhh, really? Is this a real post?!

 

A 6.6 Duramax of the vintage you speak of is extremely overpowered for a 1500. 

 

Will it drive? If you can shove it all under the hood, but good luck getting that to work. 

 

A 1500 is not a HD. 

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have a 6.2 in my truck.  Not much space to work with.  And, from what I understand diesel engines are heavier.  That might meaning beefing up the front suspension to handle to weight.  What you add in weight you'll lose in payload and towing.  Imo, if GM wanted to make a 1500 HD they'd do it.  They've done it before.  I did the trans fluid and filter on it.  Getting to all the bolts was a PITA at one part of the pan. 

Edited by Transient
TNTSierra Senior Enthusiast

TNTSierra

Posted
Posted

I couldn’t even imagine how many pre owned HDs you could buy with this attempted swap!  
 

 

you could always just drop in the big block Chevy with 1000 HP for $30k 

image.jpeg

AirForceAngler Enthusiast

AirForceAngler

Posted
Posted

With the right fabrication skills, just about anything can be done.  It would be neat, but require a lot of work and customization.  You'd also need some front suspension upgrades as the Duramax and Allison is quite a bit heavier than the gas motors.  

shakenfake Senior Enthusiast

shakenfake

Posted
Posted

Guys used to do diesel swaps in the GMT-800s and 900s 1500 trucks all the time. Nowadays probably no since it is harder. Would be badass though

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted

But why not just get a HD ?  So you can also have the thick frame/suspension/etc 

Silverado4x4 Senior Enthusiast

Silverado4x4

Posted
Posted

Front suspension will not hold the weight and the Allison tranny is bigger probably won't fit in the transmission tunnel rear diff won't handle the power and torque. 

  • Like 1
FiatDale Enthusiast

FiatDale

Posted
Posted (edited)

Theres a reason the 2500 / 3500 frames are taller - so the motor / Allison can fit.  All previous gen 1500 diesel swaps typically had a body lift in them for the extra space.  But aside from height, the engine bay is the same size from 1500 thru 2500.

 

And yes - much beefier suspension.  Frame would hold it with some mount modifications.

Edited by FiatDale
Added frame and suspension info

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined

  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,691 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...