6.2L or Duramax reliability

[DuraYuk]

Don't take the topic aside. It's not about them. It's about the Yukon ... That's when he will travel at least 100 thousand miles. Then we will discuss, but for now this is a meaningless conversation

Lm2 is in the yukon. That's what we are talking about.

 

[Vladimir2306]

I have owned many GM diesels over the years. My first was a 6.5 diesel, ran great, gave it to one of my kids, who drove it for 230,000 before he sold it, only minor maintenance. I bought a 2007 6.6 LBZ Duramax, which was designed by Isuzi and GM, and you can find parts for them at an Isuzi dealership. I sold it to a friend, it now has 317,000 on it, no major issues, and he and his wife are getting ready to head to Florida next month for the winter. My current truck is an L5P, still an Isuzi design, and I will likely give it to one of the kids when I replace it.
Now for the 3.0L LM2. It's design comes from the Opal 2, 3 and 4 cylindar diesels you see around Europe. It was designed in Turin, Italy. The highest mileage 3.0 in our fleet is a 2020, and it has a little over 100,000 on it. It burns about 3/4 quart of oil according to the guy that drives it, and there has been no downtime on it other than regular maintenance. It will be replaced with a 2024 as we only keep vehicles 3 or 4 years.
Neither of the engines share their blocks with any other GM engine. Both the 6.6 and 3.0 use the same oil and fuel filters.
Our Yukon will be kicked down to a salesperson in 2026, wife will get a new one. It will have a diesel in it.

It’s funny about OPEL)))) in Europe, OPEL is a household name for a low-quality car))) there is even a joke that every Car turns into OPEL when it gets old)))) About the Engine that eats 3/4 of the oil is also a so-so indicator)))) I know about old reliable diesel engines of large volumes, here we are talking about the new 3.0 stuffed with electronics with the DEF system, which starts to fool on a passenger car quite early.

 

[Vladimir2306]

I mentioned in another thread that I have a buddy that has 2 of the diesel 3.0 in his e$cort oversize business. When I talked to him last a few months ago, one had 120kish and the other was 150kish. One has more miles as he uses that one to take everyone to the hotels, bars, food, and parts run for the big rig. He has had no issues out of them, other than parts shortages after he hit a deer and it took months to get fixed. He rented a Ford F-150 and hated it. Mileage was nearly 1/2 of what he was getting with the 3.0. If memory serves, he is getting 37mpg out of them.

I firmly believe that the GM 3.0 diesel is likely the best engine to come out of GM since the 3800/4.3. But thats comparing apples to oranges. It could be the best engine made by the big 3 since the Jeep 4.0.

Well, as it were, the 3-liter diesel format is not new to the world)) This form factor has long been known on Volkswagen Group, BMW, Mercedes, Land Pover cars. He stands in a lot of places, he walks great, or rather walked, until they began to fasten DEF systems to him, like in the USA or AdBlue, like in Europe. And since then, problems have begun with these motors .... Mercedes 350d goes up to 100 thousand km without serious problems, BMW has the same story. I sincerely do not understand why diesel engines were transferred to passenger cars for private use. Their fate is a commercial vehicle, not a city car for mommy. It is heavier, it is more expensive, it requires care, it is more expensive to maintain, and the constant race to reduce emissions makes diesel uneconomical in principle.

 

[DuraYuk]

Well, as it were, the 3-liter diesel format is not new to the world)) This form factor has long been known on Volkswagen Group, BMW, Mercedes, Land Pover cars. He stands in a lot of places, he walks great, or rather walked, until they began to fasten DEF systems to him, like in the USA or AdBlue, like in Europe. And since then, problems have begun with these motors .... Mercedes 350d goes up to 100 thousand km without serious problems, BMW has the same story. I sincerely do not understand why diesel engines were transferred to passenger cars for private use. Their fate is a commercial vehicle, not a city car for mommy. It is heavier, it is more expensive, it requires care, it is more expensive to maintain, and the constant race to reduce emissions makes diesel uneconomical in principle.

You have gone around in circles so much your point is lost.

 

[Vladimir2306]

You have gone around in circles so much your point is lost.

I'm not losing the point...you don't have any normal conjectures in favor of a diesel other than an increase in miles per gallon. The rest is just spreading the hands across the sky. Your Yukon diesel is also not with low mileage. Without figures, calculations, facts. Yes, and miles per gallon is a very conditional indicator. I can drive 6.2 with 26 MPG.

 

[Polo08816]

You have gone around in circles so much your point is lost.

I'm not losing the point...you don't have any normal conjectures in favor of a diesel other than an increase in miles per gallon. The rest is just spreading the hands across the sky. Your Yukon diesel is also not with low mileage. Without figures, calculations, facts. Yes, and miles per gallon is a very conditional indicator. I can drive 6.2 with 26 MPG.

That's literally what he says to everyone who doesn't agree with him. He's the example of confirmation bias.

 

[DuraYuk]

That's literally what he says to everyone who doesn't agree with him. He's the example of confirmation bias.

I wouldn't say that. First we mentioned weight. You mentioned some ballast that doesn't exist. And how things 'look' heavier to you. I provided the sources to show a roughly 100lb difference. Then vlad mentioned how they are unreliable with other members chiming in to their mileage. Like i said i don't know what point your making or vlad is making ? Seems like you compare everything to the expedition and don't have any real experience with the new platform. Vlad I believe has a 6.2 so at least he has some skin in the game.

Either way looks like the lm2 is considerably more reliable then the 6.2 as it currently stands. The trucks have had the engine a bit longer then the yukon and long term outside of warranty reliability is also promising. I think vlad is based in Russia so id imagine lm2 parts are a bit harder to come by there than 6.2 v8 parts so that's probably also taken into consideration.

OP chose the 6.2 so that ship has sailed. Obviously people chose the powerplant based on their own needs so it's not one size fits all. Thankfully we have the choice.

To each their own I suppose.

 

[Vladimir2306]

I wouldn't say that. First we mentioned weight. You mentioned some ballast that doesn't exist. And how things 'look' heavier to you. I provided the sources to show a roughly 100lb difference. Then vlad mentioned how they are unreliable with other members chiming in to their mileage. Like i said i don't know what point your making or vlad is making ? Seems like you compare everything to the expedition and don't have any real experience with the new platform. Vlad I believe has a 6.2 so at least he has some skin in the game.

Either way looks like the lm2 is considerably more reliable then the 6.2 as it currently stands. The trucks have had the engine a bit longer then the yukon and long term outside of warranty reliability is also promising. I think vlad is based in Russia so id imagine lm2 parts are a bit harder to come by there than 6.2 v8 parts so that's probably also taken into consideration.

OP chose the 6.2 so that ship has sailed. Obviously people chose the powerplant based on their own needs so it's not one size fits all. Thankfully we have the choice.

To each their own I suppose.

Yes, I have 6.2 and I am in Russia, we have no problems with spare parts, even custom-made rare items arrive in 3-4 weeks, and we have plenty of consumables. As for the 6.2 engine, yes, our service masters know this engine well, they know its problem. In fact, with proper control of the oil level, and these engines die because the oil there goes to zero. There are many nuances of this motor. If you want it to walk for a long time, always warm it up for at least 5 minutes, and even in summer, in winter longer. Keep the radiators clean, do not overheat or run cold. Change the oil on time...and most importantly, listen to the engine. Major problems with him do not happen suddenly.
Extraneous noises, a sharp sudden oil consumption always appear first. And on this engine, the oil level must be checked every 1000 km. Rough idle appears. All this can be identified, and the service learned how to change consumables in advance by about 100-150 thousand km, avoiding serious consequences. And that preventive repair does not cost a lot of money. Around $1000-1500.
And then this engine can go happily ever after without any problems.
As for the new diesel engine, I’ll pretend it’s not the question, but the question is that most often when a urea system, which in the USA is called DEF, appears in a diesel engine, it reduces the reliability of the units. Yes, it seems like you said a simple nozzle, but, unfortunately, either the samak system has not been finalized, or it has not been adapted for cars for personal use, or there is a banal optimization of spare parts compared to similar systems on commercial vehicles. But the fact remains, the system begins to take out the brains of the owners on a run of about 100 thousand km, then blocking the engine.
At the same time, I really sincerely do not understand the fanaticism with which some prove the super abilities of a diesel engine. Well, they don't, objectively. I understand when it comes to a tractor or a Truck or a Bus ... but even for a Tahoe / Yukon car. The lower consumption is offset by higher purchase and maintenance costs. I understand that for the US, a diesel engine in this class from GM is a novelty, against the backdrop of rising fuel costs.
I saw this boom in diesel from the side when I bought Yukon in the USA. When the price of diesel cars was clearly higher in the secondary market, and 6.2 was thrown off with a good discount. It was a sin not to take advantage of such a situation. At the same time, even if we compare approximately the same operation of the car. This is the transportation of a boat by a trailer, weighing 1.5 tons.
It doesn't really matter how you carry it. I drove this boat on several cars. On a Chevrolet Tahoe K2XX with a 6.2 engine, the consumption was 15 liters per 100 km. Then I drove it to the Yukon 6.2 ... the same 15 liters per 100 km ... I drove it in a Diesel Mercedes GLS 350 and count it up. .there was also a consumption of 15 liters)))) Then I drove this boat in the car of my brother KIA Sorento with a 2.2d engine, and there the consumption was .... again the same 15 liters per 100km))) and even when I I drove my father to a Volvo v90 with a 2.0 turbo gasoline engine ... the same 15 liters)))

Why am I doing all this? and besides, modern diesel and gasoline engines have long become so close to their characteristics that you can easily get a consumption comparable to both 3.0 and 6.2. Why? because both of them are carrying a box weighing 3 tons the same +/-.
Uff... it turned out a lot)))

 

[DuraYuk]

Yes, I have 6.2 and I am in Russia, we have no problems with spare parts, even custom-made rare items arrive in 3-4 weeks, and we have plenty of consumables. As for the 6.2 engine, yes, our service masters know this engine well, they know its problem. In fact, with proper control of the oil level, and these engines die because the oil there goes to zero. There are many nuances of this motor. If you want it to walk for a long time, always warm it up for at least 5 minutes, and even in summer, in winter longer. Keep the radiators clean, do not overheat or run cold. Change the oil on time...and most importantly, listen to the engine. Major problems with him do not happen suddenly.
Extraneous noises, a sharp sudden oil consumption always appear first. And on this engine, the oil level must be checked every 1000 km. Rough idle appears. All this can be identified, and the service learned how to change consumables in advance by about 100-150 thousand km, avoiding serious consequences. And that preventive repair does not cost a lot of money. Around $1000-1500.
And then this engine can go happily ever after without any problems.
As for the new diesel engine, I’ll pretend it’s not the question, but the question is that most often when a urea system, which in the USA is called DEF, appears in a diesel engine, it reduces the reliability of the units. Yes, it seems like you said a simple nozzle, but, unfortunately, either the samak system has not been finalized, or it has not been adapted for cars for personal use, or there is a banal optimization of spare parts compared to similar systems on commercial vehicles. But the fact remains, the system begins to take out the brains of the owners on a run of about 100 thousand km, then blocking the engine.
At the same time, I really sincerely do not understand the fanaticism with which some prove the super abilities of a diesel engine. Well, they don't, objectively. I understand when it comes to a tractor or a Truck or a Bus ... but even for a Tahoe / Yukon car. The lower consumption is offset by higher purchase and maintenance costs. I understand that for the US, a diesel engine in this class from GM is a novelty, against the backdrop of rising fuel costs.
I saw this boom in diesel from the side when I bought Yukon in the USA. When the price of diesel cars was clearly higher in the secondary market, and 6.2 was thrown off with a good discount. It was a sin not to take advantage of such a situation. At the same time, even if we compare approximately the same operation of the car. This is the transportation of a boat by a trailer, weighing 1.5 tons.
It doesn't really matter how you carry it. I drove this boat on several cars. On a Chevrolet Tahoe K2XX with a 6.2 engine, the consumption was 15 liters per 100 km. Then I drove it to the Yukon 6.2 ... the same 15 liters per 100 km ... I drove it in a Diesel Mercedes GLS 350 and count it up. .there was also a consumption of 15 liters)))) Then I drove this boat in the car of my brother KIA Sorento with a 2.2d engine, and there the consumption was .... again the same 15 liters per 100km))) and even when I I drove my father to a Volvo v90 with a 2.0 turbo gasoline engine ... the same 15 liters)))

Why am I doing all this? and besides, modern diesel and gasoline engines have long become so close to their characteristics that you can easily get a consumption comparable to both 3.0 and 6.2. Why? because both of them are carrying a box weighing 3 tons the same +/-.
Uff... it turned out a lot)))

My experience with diesels has always been better gas mileage and more reliability. Especially when towing. Plus drivability characteristic is better. I'd rather be at 1500rpm towing my camper then 4500 rpm with a gas engine. It just feels better and more smooth with less noise. With my lm2 with a 6000 pound trailer I can still get 20 to 25mpg on the high way. Sometimes more.

 

[Vladimir2306]

My experience with diesels has always been better gas mileage and more reliability. Especially when towing. Plus drivability characteristic is better. I'd rather be at 1500rpm towing my camper then 4500 rpm with a gas engine. It just feels better and more smooth with less noise. With my lm2 with a 6000 pound trailer I can still get 20 to 25mpg on the high way. Sometimes more.

Oh my god, where do you get this nonsense? What is 4500 rpm on a gasoline engine? Here is a photo of towing the Yukon 1500-1600 rpm, it pulls the boat perfectly. You will get 25 miles per gallon with a trailer only if you drive 40-45 miles per hour on a flat track. Please don't fantasize
And by the way, the consumption is 18mpg