6.2L Power?

[danochamp]

Through my research of the M1008, I've been hearing a lot of complaints of lack of power. I know it only has around 210 for horsepower but the ft/lbs of torque should be high right?

Anyway, do your guys M1008's have adequate power to climb pretty good inclines and similar obstacles?

 

[USAWEAPON777]

MORE AROUND the 150 range for horsepower. torque is around 250. It was an meant as an economy engine not a power engine. Also diesel has advanced a long ways in 20+ years. So compared to most diesel engines its a turd. However, its still a good engine in my opinion. It may not be the fastest but it gets the job done. Also with the m1008 the 4.56 gears play a major part in helping the truck get up and go. Unfortunately only to 55mph. I infer from your post you plan on offroading with it? If so it should be fine if your doing casual trail riding and so forth.

 

[Mudstone]

i haven't noticed any power issues with my truck off road... only issues i have are 60+ uphill with a load... the truck needs some more throttle to maintain. Again... not complaining at all. i have a 1009

 

[REGULATOR]

when my stock OEM 6.2 ate its crankshaft, I went ahead and bought another motor to swap in it, and plan on eventually repairing the crank of the old motor to have as a backup plan..

the 6.2 I purchased was advertsied as a completly rebuilt, HMMWV engine..

I've noticed that when I search on the 1986+ m998 its lists the HP and TQ as
150/250(ish it varys dependign on source)

that being said, mine feels plenty strong.. as strong or stronger than any CUCV I ever drove when they still had them in the Army, and reminds me a lot of the same feeling of the old M998s I used to drive, but that could be the tranny..

and did those newer HMMWV motors make the better HP/TQ due to better exhaust or intakes etc or was it a cam or other internal improvement.

I had to reuse the cucv intake on this newer motor, so I possibly negated any improvements other then a slightly more modern motor..


still hope to turbo it someday!!

 

[greg6459]

I have no trouble with power on my 1028.
In fact, I took a friend of mine through what were basically tank traps (really muddy, fairly deep)
with over 2000lbs of rock in the bed(profile photo).
He was unfamiliar with the capabilities of these vehicles.

Needless to say, He is a believer now!

 

[AJMBLAZER]

The engine was meant to be a higher mpg alternative to GM's most commonly sold truck engine at the time, the 4-barrel 350. Considering the 4 barrel 350's of the late 70's and early 70's made similar numbers to a stock 6.2 then it's not horrible. People just keep wanting to compare them to big blocks, large truck diesels like the Cummins, Duramax, or Powerstroke, or fuel injected later small blocks. It'll loose then for sure.

However none of them are capable of the mpgs these things can throw down.

As far as power goes...the 6.2L is a great engine with a nice, useful, broad torque curve. Great for wheeling and crawling unless you want to just wring the engine out going fast. As I said above if you treat it like an old carb'd small block you'll be happy. Look for more and you're outta luck.