Are there any issues with a 2004 6.0L gas in a 2500HD?

[GM Guy]

I have found a 2004 GMC C2500HD 6.0 gas, 5spd manual, 2wd. RC LB. I was wondering if there were any notable issues on these trucks. I also had a few questions similar to my 1/2 ton post.

1. What year was the last year for a changeable frame mounted fuel filter on the 2500HDs
2. what are the HP/TQ ratings on this?

Any input appreciated, thank you!

 

[jrkrace]

The filters changed over in 2003 I recall. The ratings are 300hp/360 tq. I had a crew cab auto with the 6.0 and it was a good truck. I plowed with it with zero problems. I only got 10-11 mpg but with your truck being a stick, it should do better.

 

[SSduramax]

I had a 2003 2500HD, ex cab, 4x4, short box, 6.0 with a stick, it only got about 13mpg and got progressivly worse if I towed anything or drove it hard. thats the reason for the LLY
You might get better with 2wd tho...

 

[DunesRunner08]

The 6.0 is a greta motor no issues just shiitty on fuel economy....but with EFI live the HP and TQ go way up and so does fuel economy from what I have seen on friends trucks

 

[woodchuck2]

Most 6.0's had problems with empty gas tanks.

 

[Ed HD]

we had an 03 ECSB 4x4 6.0, and it was a good truck, it didn't have as much towing torque as we wanted and it got really bad mileage, like, 13, best, and 6 or 7 on our horse trailer. Which is why we now have a CCSB LLY

 

[trouttrooper]

The 6.0 motor is a great little workhorse. I've had 2 patrol trucks with it and 1 personal truck. The only "issue" is some develop what is called CSK or cold start knock. Basically some will sound like a diesel or a bad lifter for a few seconds after inital start (worse in colder weather). Google it and you'll see 1,000's of posts, comments, theories about it. My belief is it's a result of using different metals to make the engine and they heat and expand at different rates.

In the end I personally don't see it as a problem. My '99 personal rig had it a little, my '02 patrol rig had it BAD. Neither one ever consumed oil when I had them. Had my patrol rig to 80,000 miles before it went to secondary fleet. It never saw a mechanic, and that engine saw some pretty severe abuse in the rpm department. I know those aren't many miles, but if there truly was a problem with engine design (as major as some people make it out to be) it would have shown up by then.

If I wouldn't have been able to get my big block I most likely would have stayed w/ the 6.0.

 

[GM Guy]

Are there any years to watch out for on the 6.0 in HD applications?

So it take it there is no cabin or fuel filters on this 2004?:skep: (as you can tell, I like to be able to maintain my truck, more filters the better!:biggrinjester::sifone

 

[Ed HD]

The 6.0 motor is a great little workhorse. I've had 2 patrol trucks with it and 1 personal truck. The only "issue" is some develop what is called CSK or cold start knock. Basically some will sound like a diesel or a bad lifter for a few seconds after inital start (worse in colder weather). Google it and you'll see 1,000's of posts, comments, theories about it. My belief is it's a result of using different metals to make the engine and they heat and expand at different rates.

In the end I personally don't see it as a problem. My '99 personal rig had it a little, my '02 patrol rig had it BAD. Neither one ever consumed oil when I had them. Had my patrol rig to 80,000 miles before it went to secondary fleet. It never saw a mechanic, and that engine saw some pretty severe abuse in the rpm department. I know those aren't many miles, but if there truly was a problem with engine design (as major as some people make it out to be) it would have shown up by then.

If I wouldn't have been able to get my big block I most likely would have stayed w/ the 6.0.

Actually, it's piston slap. GM went from fitting each piston/ring pack to the cylinder, and started assuming that all were close enough to each other, and just put pistons in the block w/o measuring tolerances, and the pistons sometimes slap when cold starting, due to excessive clearances.

 

[GM Guy]

Actually, it's piston slap. GM went from fitting each piston/ring pack to the cylinder, and started assuming that all were close enough to each other, and just put pistons in the block w/o measuring tolerances, and the pistons sometimes slap when cold starting, due to excessive clearances.

that is not encouraging!:yikes:

Old man is looking for a long distance 3/4 ton because our state has a new tax that taxes all vehicles above 10k gross that travel out of state, so a heavy 3/4 looks to be a nice way to get around that!

So will the towing fuel economy be similar to a 5.7?

 

[trouttrooper]

Well, I'm not sure I believe it 100%. If the tolerances weren't tight then there should be oil consumption. The 3 6.0's I've had all had zero oil use. These engines are consistantly making it past 200,000 miles without any issues, so it doesn't seem to be a longevity issue.

I'd have no problems owning another 6.0 if my 8.1 suddenly disappeared.

My '99 was a 2500LD ECLB 4:10 gearing. Empty I easily got 15-17 mpg. Towing light (5,000lbs ish) I'd get 10-12 mpg. Towing heavy (10,000lbs) it was around 6-7 mpg.

 

[GM Guy]

Well, I'm not sure I believe it 100%. If the tolerances weren't tight then there should be oil consumption. The 3 6.0's I've had all had zero oil use. These engines are consistantly making it past 200,000 miles without any issues, so it doesn't seem to be a longevity issue.

I'd have no problems owning another 6.0 if my 8.1 suddenly disappeared.

My '99 was a 2500LD ECLB 4:10 gearing. Empty I easily got 15-17 mpg. Towing light (5,000lbs ish) I'd get 10-12 mpg. Towing heavy (10,000lbs) it was around 6-7 mpg.

Well, that fuel mileage sounds bearable. :hurray: Thanks for the reply! I also feel that open deck trailers hauling farm equiment will get better mileage than any other trailer of the same weight.

 

[big block 88]

My old 6.0 was a stud it had 4.10 4X4 ExSb I got like 16 on the highway and a whoppin 7-9 pullin hard. But a good old motor it is way more powerful than the 5.7.

 

[Ed HD]

Yeah, they have a lot more power, but comparable economy. Ours was a good truck, we did a lot of towing with it and it was fine, but some new GM's have the piston slap.

trouttrooper, was your 99 the 88-98 body style or the new body style, because there are a lot of 2000 3500's that are the older body style, I'm confused by it all, LOL

 

[btfarm]

I had a 6.0 in my 2000 (NBS) 2500 and it had piston slap when cold. It was pretty loud but only for a minute or 2. It did not use any oil but the mileage was pretty normal at around 13. Went to an '03 8.1/A. Loved it but at 11 mpg on a good day, I went to diesels and haven't looked back...

 

[trouttrooper]

Yeah, they have a lot more power, but comparable economy. Ours was a good truck, we did a lot of towing with it and it was fine, but some new GM's have the piston slap.

trouttrooper, was your 99 the 88-98 body style or the new body style, because there are a lot of 2000 3500's that are the older body style, I'm confused by it all, LOL

My previous truck. 1999 2500 NBS ECLB 6.0/ 4:10 gearing. It replaced my '84 K20.

It wasn't enough truck for the family, so in 2005 I upgraded to the beast I have now.

Next to it is my '05 2500HD 6.0 ECSB patrol truck. Yup, 1999 and 2000 were some real confusing years for name badges on GM pickups. The window sticker on my '99 actually called it a heavy duty 2500, but when compared to the trucks nowadays it would be considered a light duty.

 

[Max Attitude]

The main problems I see with the 6.0's is the exhaust manifold bolts will break and you'll hear it leak bad when cold. It's a lot less noticable when they warm up. Other than that I like the 6.0's a lot...If I didn't have a max I'd probably have one with a 6.0.