6.2 owner ready to jump ship to 6.6 gasser

[Chuck FB]

2 hours ago, kevin74 said:

 I normally use a mix of 87 and 92, depending on which I feel like buying at the time. I haven't really seen a difference between the 2. I am not sure what the ethanol content is as I usually only worry about that with the lawn mower and atv's. My "normal" gas mileage is around 14 with stop and go traffic, I can get into the 20's (22 showing as best) when on longer highway and interstate trips. I don't get on the gas leaving stop signs or red lights, and I don't idle a lot. 

I am certainly no expert when it comes to the contents of fuel and be that not only the ethanol aspect but additives that some fuels claim to have which may burn cleaner to cause less deposits as well as cleaning the injectors etc and have a feeling there are some in this forum that have more of a chemical background or peers that were in the know of fuels. Having said that I get the impression from certain experts in articles or videos that for engines that don't need the higher octane fuels, its a waste to use high octane if all else is equal additive wise between the two fuel octanes and may even give slightly poorer mileage or stay the same. I don't believe higher octane fuel contains more btu's, its the burning characteristics that are different and not only in preventing preignition on a high compression engine but its burn rate is slower. In modern gas engines if the engine is set up to run regular and the electronics are as well, I don't believe the engine can capture that gain as its not allowing a further advancing of the timing and why an after market tune would advance the spark timing to gain power and then require premium to prevent preignition. 

 

Never the less you certainly can try tanks of 87 only or 92 only, and see what if any difference it makes but I suspect the cost of 92 is not worth it for a non tuned L8T, but as Lineman found out, using 87 no ethanol if the price is right is this engines best bang for the buck.

[Chuck FB]

2 hours ago, newdude said:

 

 

21-24.  

 

And 6.2s have been on the down trend at the wholesale auctions prior to the recall due to them locking up in the first place.  Even the 5.3s had dropped for some time but those have stabilized.  6.2 on the other hand keeps dropping due to the recall now.  

Whats your take on a chance that those who are running regular in the 6.2 are potentially causing damage to the engine by way of dancing on the line of slight preignition ?

[Chuck FB]

2 hours ago, lineman1234 said:

Hear in upper Minnesota, it/87 octane gas, can be 10-15% ethanol, but law, limits it to 10% in the winter time. 

    Last year when getting the pickup from new i did multiple experiments, as well as multiple tanks, on different fuels just for the heck of it. 

 

   Summer fuel only. For less argument, im not posting miles per gallon just my gain. Starting from normal 10-15% ethanol 87 octane at the pump. Trying 91, not sure if its ethanol free or not, i gained 1mpg per tank/s solid, not worth the extra .50 cents  more a gallon. Finding non ethanol 87 octane not far from hear, multiple tanks gained a solid 1.5-2 mpg. Cost changes, some times, lower some times  more than another station with only ethanol. 

 

Wile spending a month last winter in New Mexico, in that area it was 86 then 88 then 91 at the pump choices, the lower 2 had ethanol. Going 88 from the 86 was a solid .75 cents more a gallon. I did try the 86, it ran fine, no noticeable difference, but i lost a solid 1mpg per tank from 87 ethanol. 

       

         

Those are some very interesting results and like you said the 91 octane was a mystery as to if it contained any ethanol or not so if that was due to containing a bit of ethanol or just its slower burn rate over the 87 non ethanol that beat it in efficiency. I think there is a misconception that high octane fuel is somehow a better quality fuel and will magically get better fuel mileage with it when lets say the engine only requires regular to run properly. That was one of the reasons I leaned towards the L8T because it was tuned to run on regular because that is what I have by far more access to and premium is stupidly priced up here anyway. The Ford Super Duty with the 7.3 is said to be ok to run either but gets its power rating from premium, and the GM 6.2 is really designed around running premium period ( and perhaps not so bad that I passed on getting one in hindsight anyway ).

 

Going by the octane numbers you had to choose from in New Mexico, I am guessing that was at a relatively high elevation area, what area was that by the way ?, I've been through a bit of NM quite a few years ago and once was during the winter but that was in the southern part of the state, while summer time was in both the northern and southern part as obviously they get hit with winter in the northern high country. At higher elevations it just seems that engines don't do as well economy wise or I haven't found it to be so with whatever gas truck I was driving, probably that lack of air vs the low elevations and certainly with a carb engine.

[newdude]

3 hours ago, Chuck FB said:

Whats your take on a chance that those who are running regular in the 6.2 are potentially causing damage to the engine by way of dancing on the line of slight preignition ?

 

 

IMO, with how on the edge they keep pushing these on 87, I say 89 or higher.  

[No F-bdy Bs]

Take it to a dealer, let them "inspect" it, and either way you get a 10yr/150k warranty. 

 

My issue with the whole 6.2 debacle is the high likelyhood that you'll NEVER get a replacement 6.2 as there's no way Gm can source enough engines in a timeframe anywhere near reasonable. 

 

Myself, I'd lean on the dealer to do better on trade since they've obviously effed the customer. 

[rdonarski]

On 5/12/2025 at 10:29 AM, Chuck FB said:

I am certainly no expert when it comes to the contents of fuel and be that not only the ethanol aspect but additives that some fuels claim to have which may burn cleaner to cause less deposits as well as cleaning the injectors etc and have a feeling there are some in this forum that have more of a chemical background or peers that were in the know of fuels. Having said that I get the impression from certain experts in articles or videos that for engines that don't need the higher octane fuels, its a waste to use high octane if all else is equal additive wise between the two fuel octanes and may even give slightly poorer mileage or stay the same. I don't believe higher octane fuel contains more btu's, its the burning characteristics that are different and not only in preventing preignition on a high compression engine but its burn rate is slower. In modern gas engines if the engine is set up to run regular and the electronics are as well, I don't believe the engine can capture that gain as its not allowing a further advancing of the timing and why an after market tune would advance the spark timing to gain power and then require premium to prevent preignition. 

 

Never the less you certainly can try tanks of 87 only or 92 only, and see what if any difference it makes but I suspect the cost of 92 is not worth it for a non tuned L8T, but as Lineman found out, using 87 no ethanol if the price is right is this engines best bang for the buck.

I have 2 friends who are into drag racing at a professional level. They both say using a higher octane than what is specified by the manufacturer is a waste of money. I know one drives a newer corvette as a daily drive and uses 87 in it. My last pickup had a 5.3 and required 87 but knocked if I didn't use premium, so I always used premium. I use 87 with my 6.6. Hard enough trying to slip the fuel bills by my wife. 

[EXSlider400]

On 5/2/2025 at 4:01 PM, dieselfan1 said:

I have a 23 High Country 6.2 with 48.000 miles and with all the failed lifter talk and now the big recall, I think I'm ready to walk and get a 6.6 gas.

Diesel is not for me. Used to be a long time ago though. 

Probably looking at an LTZ with the LTZ premium package. Not much difference between that and a HC.

 

I do tow a cargo trailer and a 25 ft travel trailer so the 2500 would be beneficial but I also plan to daily it.

Mpg isn't a big deal to me either.

 Talk me into doing this. Or talk me out of it.

 

made the switch this week  even with the lower MPG, at a dollar less a gallon where I live, it was worth it. 

Edited May 16, 2025 by EXSlider400

[dieselfan1]

Looking like I might dump my 23 HC 6.2 after all.

I took it in for the test and it passed. 56,600 miles and my power train warranty is done at 60.

Now that the recall is done I can trade it in. I just can't trust it on a long trip towing my camper anymore. 

I'm loosing more than I want on trade in but the 6.2s are taking a nosedive fast. I'm trying to get my payment a little lower than it is now. 2023 interest rates were way higher than now too so it should work out.

I'm looking at a 26 2500HD 6.6 gas.

LTZ Z71 with the LTZ premium package and a sunroof. That's it for options. $71,805 sticker.

Hoping to get it for 66. 

[Dunn]

I have seen 25s for that price, I dont think Ive seen 26s though....maybe with a trade they can finagle it

Laura or Rivard.....check their pricing

[rdonarski]

I was talking to my cousin who retired as a GMC service manager. He owns a 2022 Yukon Denali with a 6.2L and a 2025 Sierra 1500 with a 3L diesel. He has gotten the recall on the 6.2. He says that they put a senser on it to test for engine vibration. If it fails, they replace the engine. If it passes, they put in heavier oil and replace the oil cap (heavier oil indication). He's a huge GM fan, but even he says "How do you tell me my engine is fine......but I have to run heavier oil"

[KARNUT]

1 hour ago, rdonarski said:

I was talking to my cousin who retired as a GMC service manager. He owns a 2022 Yukon Denali with a 6.2L and a 2025 Sierra 1500 with a 3L diesel. He has gotten the recall on the 6.2. He says that they put a senser on it to test for engine vibration. If it fails, they replace the engine. If it passes, they put in heavier oil and replace the oil cap (heavier oil indication). He's a huge GM fan, but even he says "How do you tell me my engine is fine......but I have to run heavier oil"

It’s called a bandaid. And cross fingers. Being a retired business owner who almost went broke because of a failed experiment. When replacing the broken units I understand somewhat. The difference is we found the problem early and jumped on it. It’s hard to believe it went that many years unidentified. Now there’s so many the options are limited. Toyota had a similar situation and fixed it early. I just got a letter extending the warranty on my 2016 Odyssey to 160K because of a potential oil usage problem. I’m on a Honda website and didn’t know a problem existed. Mine doesn’t use oil. They will probably lose costumers over this. They lost my entire family over the 5.7 diesel disaster. Seems they don’t learn. 

[Chuck FB]

1 hour ago, KARNUT said:

It’s called a bandaid. And cross fingers. Being a retired business owner who almost went broke because of a failed experiment. When replacing the broken units I understand somewhat. The difference is we found the problem early and jumped on it. It’s hard to believe it went that many years unidentified. Now there’s so many the options are limited. Toyota had a similar situation and fixed it early. I just got a letter extending the warranty on my 2016 Odyssey to 160K because of a potential oil usage problem. I’m on a Honda website and didn’t know a problem existed. Mine doesn’t use oil. They will probably lose costumers over this. They lost my entire family over the 5.7 diesel disaster. Seems they don’t learn. 

The 5.7 diesel, my brother got talked into buying one way back in 1980 as my dad was all about fuel economy and diesel being cheaper back then by quite a margin on the farm. Of course what my dad did not realize was that those lovely 5.7 engines were soon to show how short cuts in engineering by taking a gas engine and turning it into a diesel would pan out. A few years after my brother bought his truck he finally dumped it, the injectors had been changed under warranty the first time and then it began to run rough again and smoke and start like crap so he washed his hands of it. To this day he is still upset that he listed to our dad and bought that truck as he could have bought a nice 4x4 with the 350 gas for the same money and would have had it around for years. I have other examples of diesel SUV or truck of other brands that were or still are on this farm and their issues. 

 

I had certainly been thinking about a duramax pickup for some years but always with the knowledge of what issues I saw in the past and with all the emissions crap on diesels now that did not excite me, nor the DEF crap. Anyway the start of the nagging feeling was that lovely 5.7 and that engine HAD to be plugged in to start in our normal winter weather and never mind when it actually gets cold. So here I am with a gas HD in the hopes that maybe it might hang together better than a half ton with the DFM ... its hard to have a lot of faith in any of the vehicle manufacturers these days with gas or diesel as you point out Honda and Toyota felt left out and wanted to join the club. How GM could have been blind this long to the crank finish/final sizing issue on the 6.2 ... so what do they do differently with any of their other cranks ? 

[KARNUT]

1 hour ago, Chuck FB said:

The 5.7 diesel, my brother got talked into buying one way back in 1980 as my dad was all about fuel economy and diesel being cheaper back then by quite a margin on the farm. Of course what my dad did not realize was that those lovely 5.7 engines were soon to show how short cuts in engineering by taking a gas engine and turning it into a diesel would pan out. A few years after my brother bought his truck he finally dumped it, the injectors had been changed under warranty the first time and then it began to run rough again and smoke and start like crap so he washed his hands of it. To this day he is still upset that he listed to our dad and bought that truck as he could have bought a nice 4x4 with the 350 gas for the same money and would have had it around for years. I have other examples of diesel SUV or truck of other brands that were or still are on this farm and their issues. 

 

I had certainly been thinking about a duramax pickup for some years but always with the knowledge of what issues I saw in the past and with all the emissions crap on diesels now that did not excite me, nor the DEF crap. Anyway the start of the nagging feeling was that lovely 5.7 and that engine HAD to be plugged in to start in our normal winter weather and never mind when it actually gets cold. So here I am with a gas HD in the hopes that maybe it might hang together better than a half ton with the DFM ... its hard to have a lot of faith in any of the vehicle manufacturers these days with gas or diesel as you point out Honda and Toyota felt left out and wanted to join the club. How GM could have been blind this long to the crank finish/final sizing issue on the 6.2 ... so what do they do differently with any of their other cranks ? 

We had six. My father pushed diesel. Then the 6.5 giving GM another go. Being that we were a family that purchased vehicles at the same place at the time we were friends with the owner of the dealership. And the people who worked there. They advised us not to go past the warranty with the 6.5. At the time it was 100K miles. I went with a 91 Dodge diesel along with two brothers dad went with a 7.3 Ford. We all pulled goose neck trailers, me mostly. Up until we sold our ROW clearing business and stay with the our equipment building and sales business. We worked our trucks hard and modified them. Later we had an 05 Ram diesel that ran 11s and was a daily driver. After our sales business grew we couldn’t haul our equipment with p/ups anymore we went to gas trucks about the time emissions neutered them. With the exception of one brother who went with the clearing business we sold. He and his son who had the 11 second Ram run over 19 ROW crews. They eventually went all Ford diesel and now only use them for heavy work. Using mostly gas some GMs, mostly Fords. Diesels with the added emissions just became too costly most needing delete at around 100K miles or emissions over haul. Up until the mid 2000s Fords and Ram diesel were hard to kill with the exception of the Ford 6.0. Ram had some issues in the mid 2000s. We were lucky to just missed those. My mother still drives her 2000 7.3 refusing to part with it. My late father’s 98 Ram is still going both pretty bulletproof. The Ford a little less than the Ram. The service trucks at our equipment dealership are all gas. A place that was all diesel has not one today. Not one new Chevy. Two Raptors one R, a Shelby Super Snake. A modified Reg Cab Ford with the blower package and one TRX. I was the only remaining Chevy driver when I retired. Now I drive a Ridgeline mostly. An Avalanche some. My grandson is taking it over. 

Edited September 29, 2025 by KARNUT

[Chuck FB]

2 hours ago, KARNUT said:

We had six. My father pushed diesel. Then the 6.5 giving GM another go. Being that we were a family that purchased vehicles at the same place at the time we were friends with the owner of the dealership. And the people who worked there. They advised us not to go past the warranty with the 6.5. At the time it was 100K miles. I went with a 91 Dodge diesel along with two brothers dad went with a 7.3 Ford. We all pulled goose neck trailers, me mostly. Up until we sold our ROW clearing business and stay with the our equipment building and sales business. We worked our trucks hard and modified them. Later we had an 05 Ram diesel that ran 11s and was a daily driver. After our sales business grew we couldn’t haul our equipment with p/ups anymore we went to gas trucks about the time emissions neutered them. With the exception of one brother who went with the clearing business we sold. He and his son who had the 11 second Ram run over 19 ROW crews. They eventually went all Ford diesel and now only use them for heavy work. Using mostly gas some GMs, mostly Fords. Diesels with the added emissions just became too costly most needing delete at around 100K miles or emissions over haul. Up until the mid 2000s Fords and Ram diesel were hard to kill with the exception of the Ford 6.0. Ram had some issues in the mid 2000s. We were lucky to just missed those. My mother still drives her 2000 7.3 refusing to part with it. My late father’s 98 Ram is still going both pretty bulletproof. The Ford a little less than the Ram. The service trucks at our equipment dealership are all gas. A place that was all diesel has not one today. Not one new Chevy. Two Raptors one R, a Shelby Super Snake. A modified Reg Cab Ford with the blower package and one TRX. I was the only remaining Chevy driver when I retired. Now I drive a Ridgeline mostly. An Avalanche some. My grandson is taking it over. 

The irony in a sense with my dad was that although we had various diesel tractors, combine, swather and so forth on the farm he did not personally have a diesel vehicle he used year around until around the time or just after my brother bought his Chev 5.7 diesel. My dad had ordered a 1980 IH scout 2 ( last year the scout was ever made ) and it had a Nissan inline six turbo and was rated around 100 hp. What a unit that was, actually the vehicle itself wasn't too bad and was a four speed standard, it was the engines lack of cubic inches and how they had it tuned with an aneroid so that it wouldn't give it hardly any fuel until it created enough boost but to get boost you need fuel ... make that one make sense !. It had indirect injection so no way would it start in the middle of summer without a half minute use of the glow plugs and even then it smoked to life. If one walked by with an ice cube in a drink before one tried to start it, forget it. It HAD to be plugged in at anything much below the freezing point and literally its life line was a cord and its block heater. An utterly useless vehicle for our winters unless it was tethered at all times when not running. Then that one faithful day as I drove home after class from a short collage machinist course, something went astray and it lost power but kept running and I got home and a lot of fumes were flowing out of the road draft tube. Dad took the vehicle to a diesel repair shop and it had few miles on it and they tore it part way down and a cylinder was all scored up because the head had cracked between the valves and coolant sprayed into the cylinder. That is when we found out that was a very weak point of that engines design and rebuilding it only meant pouring money into a vehicle that would do the same thing all over again so dad pretty much gave it away. The sad fact is that prior to that we had a 1975 bronco ( in the shape it was then it would have been worth a fortune today ) and then a 1979 bronco that still had the solid front axle. Both those broncos were insanely horrible on fuel and why the quest for a diesel. My dad had bought a 1978 GM one ton dually with the 454 but shortly after that he had a shop do a engine swap to an inline 6 isuzu and we still have it here on the farm, that is an interesting unit although it does not put out much power in todays world and yet somehow he pulled a triple axle fifth wheel holiday trailer with it, it must have been one painfully slow drive as its a four speed standard with a 3 speed hunt and crash transmission behind it that came out of an old tandem truck, that is not a truck just anyone gets behind the wheel and drives.

 

I think I may have said this before on this site that my brother has a 2006 Ford crew cab 350 dually that he uses just during the summers with a slide in camper. I am sure you can guess what is under the hood, its the 6.0 diesel. Some years ago the EGR went poof but realized it right away and shut it down and then had that deleted by a shop but unknown until this summer he did not realize they caused various idiotic damage to various components because they talked my brother into "bulletproofing" the engine and they did some awful shoddy work. So this summer and will never know if it was because the heads had been pulled off for really no good reason back then, diesel was pushing into the cooling system and he was up in the Yukon and had to get towed to the only city around that has any shops to work on diesels. It was discovered after an engine machine shop tested the heads that one of them had developed an internal crack that allowed diesel to push into the cooling system. The truck is in great shape so it has worth in that way and only just over 80000 miles or so even though its that old, most of its life its sat in a shed in the off season. So other heads put on it after going to the engine machine shop to oring the heads and this shop finding all sorts of chicken ****** workmanship that had been done years before when the EGR was removed. While it was indeed a horror story to deal with and stuck away from home and of course pay the bill, the sad part is that the new engines of the big three all have their own issues and pretty major ones at times. Not sure what the moral of the story should be ... don't buy a vehicle ? LOL. 

 

I have had family and friends that have had the GM non turbo 6.2 and then the turbo 6.5, they had their good and bad but I gather were vastly superior over that 5.7 disaster. When my dad was getting some items added to that GM dually toy of his back in the 1980's down in California, I can't recall for sure now but he may had met Gale Banks along the way but it was another highly respected shop that did the work on my dads truck down there and the gentleman that owned that fabulous engine and fabrication shop was an automotive engineer brain and GM had consulted him along with some other independent engine specialized engineers to get their input on the idea of the 5.7 diesel and was telling my dad about the various items that GM was planning on potentially doing and presented those ideas, this engineer gave his opinion on the plan and it was simple, DO NOT BUILD IT. But did GM listen, oh no ... and then history wrote itself. So it wasn't some surprise to those who knew what was coming, they knew it was going to be a disaster if it was built. I wish I knew the name of that engineer but I don't as that is all so long ago that was talked about and my dad has been gone for over eight years and in his older age he would have forgotten those details himself anyway. 

 

You are right though, those early low hp Cummins 5.9 were an engine that could run and run and I have a neighbour who still has one, its very rusty and I imagine he has not had it on a winter road for years now as otherwise there would be nothing left of it at all but those were the good ones. We have a swather that has the 4 cylinder version of that engine, they run very nice. 

 

 

[KARNUT]

1 hour ago, Chuck FB said:

The irony in a sense with my dad was that although we had various diesel tractors, combine, swather and so forth on the farm he did not personally have a diesel vehicle he used year around until around the time or just after my brother bought his Chev 5.7 diesel. My dad had ordered a 1980 IH scout 2 ( last year the scout was ever made ) and it had a Nissan inline six turbo and was rated around 100 hp. What a unit that was, actually the vehicle itself wasn't too bad and was a four speed standard, it was the engines lack of cubic inches and how they had it tuned with an aneroid so that it wouldn't give it hardly any fuel until it created enough boost but to get boost you need fuel ... make that one make sense !. It had indirect injection so no way would it start in the middle of summer without a half minute use of the glow plugs and even then it smoked to life. If one walked by with an ice cube in a drink before one tried to start it, forget it. It HAD to be plugged in at anything much below the freezing point and literally its life line was a cord and its block heater. An utterly useless vehicle for our winters unless it was tethered at all times when not running. Then that one faithful day as I drove home after class from a short collage machinist course, something went astray and it lost power but kept running and I got home and a lot of fumes were flowing out of the road draft tube. Dad took the vehicle to a diesel repair shop and it had few miles on it and they tore it part way down and a cylinder was all scored up because the head had cracked between the valves and coolant sprayed into the cylinder. That is when we found out that was a very weak point of that engines design and rebuilding it only meant pouring money into a vehicle that would do the same thing all over again so dad pretty much gave it away. The sad fact is that prior to that we had a 1975 bronco ( in the shape it was then it would have been worth a fortune today ) and then a 1979 bronco that still had the solid front axle. Both those broncos were insanely horrible on fuel and why the quest for a diesel. My dad had bought a 1978 GM one ton dually with the 454 but shortly after that he had a shop do a engine swap to an inline 6 isuzu and we still have it here on the farm, that is an interesting unit although it does not put out much power in todays world and yet somehow he pulled a triple axle fifth wheel holiday trailer with it, it must have been one painfully slow drive as its a four speed standard with a 3 speed hunt and crash transmission behind it that came out of an old tandem truck, that is not a truck just anyone gets behind the wheel and drives.

 

I think I may have said this before on this site that my brother has a 2006 Ford crew cab 350 dually that he uses just during the summers with a slide in camper. I am sure you can guess what is under the hood, its the 6.0 diesel. Some years ago the EGR went poof but realized it right away and shut it down and then had that deleted by a shop but unknown until this summer he did not realize they caused various idiotic damage to various components because they talked my brother into "bulletproofing" the engine and they did some awful shoddy work. So this summer and will never know if it was because the heads had been pulled off for really no good reason back then, diesel was pushing into the cooling system and he was up in the Yukon and had to get towed to the only city around that has any shops to work on diesels. It was discovered after an engine machine shop tested the heads that one of them had developed an internal crack that allowed diesel to push into the cooling system. The truck is in great shape so it has worth in that way and only just over 80000 miles or so even though its that old, most of its life its sat in a shed in the off season. So other heads put on it after going to the engine machine shop to oring the heads and this shop finding all sorts of chicken ****** workmanship that had been done years before when the EGR was removed. While it was indeed a horror story to deal with and stuck away from home and of course pay the bill, the sad part is that the new engines of the big three all have their own issues and pretty major ones at times. Not sure what the moral of the story should be ... don't buy a vehicle ? LOL. 

 

I have had family and friends that have had the GM non turbo 6.2 and then the turbo 6.5, they had their good and bad but I gather were vastly superior over that 5.7 disaster. When my dad was getting some items added to that GM dually toy of his back in the 1980's down in California, I can't recall for sure now but he may had met Gale Banks along the way but it was another highly respected shop that did the work on my dads truck down there and the gentleman that owned that fabulous engine and fabrication shop was an automotive engineer brain and GM had consulted him along with some other independent engine specialized engineers to get their input on the idea of the 5.7 diesel and was telling my dad about the various items that GM was planning on potentially doing and presented those ideas, this engineer gave his opinion on the plan and it was simple, DO NOT BUILD IT. But did GM listen, oh no ... and then history wrote itself. So it wasn't some surprise to those who knew what was coming, they knew it was going to be a disaster if it was built. I wish I knew the name of that engineer but I don't as that is all so long ago that was talked about and my dad has been gone for over eight years and in his older age he would have forgotten those details himself anyway. 

 

You are right though, those early low hp Cummins 5.9 were an engine that could run and run and I have a neighbour who still has one, its very rusty and I imagine he has not had it on a winter road for years now as otherwise there would be nothing left of it at all but those were the good ones. We have a swather that has the 4 cylinder version of that engine, they run very nice. 

 

 

Our early 9030 tractors had 4cylinder Cummins in them. Some of our customers wanted more HP so we would add the 6cylinder Cummins to power our cutter head. We had a supplier who bought a couple of pull out 4cylinder Cummins and put them in his Ramchargers. He bought a 6chylinder from us for his Chevy Dually. I never saw the dually. But I saw his Ram charger every week when he delivered parts. We used banks on all our diesel p/ups starting with the 88 non turbo 7.3. And the 6 gun kit on the rest. 

Edited September 29, 2025 by KARNUT