Factory Heavy Blazer Package(s)?

[bryson-builtK5]

Hey y'all, I'm real confused and I'm hoping anyone can help me out. I'll keep looking at brochures and using the search bar but so far everything I've found has just made it muddier. I'm looking at buying another Blazer (sold my first one a few years ago when gas was like $4.30 a gallon, going to school I couldn't afford to feed it) and there is a guy advertising his '78 as factory 3/4-ton rated. I had only ever heard of one other, my buddy's former '78 supposedly was rated heavier and came with a D44/12-bolt combo.

Now I asked this guy if I could look at the VIN and the SPID to try and confirm but he gave me the story about the manufacturer's playing with GVWR to beat emissions. He is claiming this one is from out of state, and in his email he is also telling me something I find very hard to believe - he told me here in CA one could only order automatics and that GM put the SM465 in the heavy-duty category thus helping confirm this one's validity. I think he's full of crap in order to overcharge, so I don't plan on contacting him again, but maybe y'all can inform me of a factory package for the Blazers similar to the F44 "Big 10" or Heavy Half? So far I got nothing, except that even 2WD Blazers had a GVW that beat light duty emissions in '78 (Federally speaking). Looks like the individual options to make it heavier were there. I'll keep digging. Thanks everyone!!

 

[wazzabie]

Don't buy if you are thinking this is a factory setup.

 

[dyeager535]

Emissions in California did prevent (or force) certain drivetrain combinations for that state only. I don't know about that one in particular, but I do know that trans/gearing options were sometimes either required for CA, or prohibited in CA. It wasn't CA doing that, but for some reason GM must have known those specific combo's wouldn't meet whatever CA was testing for.

D44/12 is standard half ton fare, if it's not 8 lug, it's not 3/4, and even if it is, it's been swapped.

FWIW, here is a "federal emissions" only tag. The very bottom, middle blurb is pertinent:

Here is a CA approved sticker:

 

[tRustyK5]

Seller is full of shit.

The SM 465 was offered in all the half tons, including the K5 throughout the production run. My buddy has a 1990 with a factory SM 465.

For perspective, a 12 bolt/D44 combo is almost identical in strength to the 10 bolt/10 bolt combo found in later models. The 10/10 is stronger by a little bit. 2 extra cover bolts don't make a diff stronger. Dana is just a manufacturer's name, not some code word for unobtanium.

As far as suspension and brakes go the big difference in a K5 is either a two leaf front suspension, or three leaf. Also most models had single shocks, but some got the "quad shock" option up front.

GVW numbers are pretty much bullshit too, as most were manipulated in order to dodge emissions requirements. Grain of salt...

This is a good breakdown of what could be found or be available in a K5, broke down by year, from '80-91. There is another article covering 69-79

https://ck5.com/forums/resources/k5-blazer-specifications-1980-1991.8/

 

[ChrisPerry]

Military Blazers, M1009s, were 3/4 ton...... as in they were rated for 1500lbs of cargo and personel.

Just like the M1008 was a K30 (1 ton) rated at 1.25 tons of personel and gear.

Same trucks as their civilian counterpart, just with a more literal capability sticker.

 

[The Griff]

I'm not entirely sure as to what option code mine had, seeing as how the RPO sticker in the glovebox is long gone, But It has three front leaves, where most other half ton's usually only have two.

 

[dyeager535]

As far as I've seen, GVW changes were also linked with brake changes. I don't think the pure load carrying capability of any of the trucks is realistically near the 1-2000lbs of their "name" (1/2; 3/4; 1 ton), braking seems to have been a bigger issue, specifically in the rear.

 

[Barrman]

The 3 leaf front spring was the "snow plow" equipment option. Not a weight rating change.

 

[6.2Blazer]

You got to be careful when going by "1/2 ton", "3/4 ton", or "1 ton". Those terms have been more of a general class of the truck as compared to the actual weight capacities of them for a long time. You probably have to go back to the 60's to find trucks that actual match those monikers. Just look at a new 2500HD, which is considered a "3/4 ton", and the payload is in the 3,000 lb. range.......so 1 1/2 tons! The military CUCV's from back in the mid-80's were the same way. I don't even thick the listed GVWR on them was greater than the civilian counterparts, just that the military actually referred to them based on the true listed capacity.

My suspicion of the Blazer in question is that the current owner has been given false information and truly thinks it is some sort of special 3/4 ton version. I have seen people make claims like that in the past because of stuff like the SM465, D44 front axles, etc... when they are just typical factory components.

 

[longbedder]

Agree with the above gouge - there were a lot of combos out there with spring packs, brakes, engine/emissions variations, and axles...but they were all common components just mixed around. Anyone who tells you they've got a truly special K5 because it was a rare factory configuration doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[ChrisPerry]

Agree with the above gouge - there were a lot of combos out there with spring packs, brakes, engine/emissions variations, and axles...but they were all common components just mixed around. Anyone who tells you they've got a truly special K5 because it was a rare factory configuration doesn't know what they're talking about.

WRONG!!!!!! Mines a super rare factory rock crawler its worth its weight in unumtanium.......

 

[dyeager535]

My suspicion of the Blazer in question is that the current owner has been given false information and truly thinks it is some sort of special 3/4 ton version. I have seen people make claims like that in the past because of stuff like the SM465, D44 front axles, etc... when they are just typical factory components.

Not sure about earlier years, but it's clearly shown on the 6th page for the Blazer here: http://brochures.slosh.com/index.shtml?1987 that heavy duty front springs were an option. You might be able to find the same for earlier years, but sellers aren't normally interested in fact, especially if you can tell they are entrenched in their view. Still doesn't make it a K20 Blazer lol.

 

[bryson-builtK5]

Well gee guys, thanks a bunch! I thought he was full of it, but figured I would ask just in case... I mean come on, manuals not being offered due to emissions standards? In the era of manual transmissions no less? Come on guy. I always knew 3/4 ton didn't actually mean 1500 pounds payload but if I could get heavier parts up front that's just money ahead. Also, is it just me or does that CA emission sticker look a lot scarier...?

 

[dyeager535]

Especially during the carbed area, emissions was a nightmare. By the 80's it seems all were pretty standard across the US, but those pictures are car vs. truck, and they were definitely different.

As much as some hate the "complexity" of EFI, trying to comply with emissions on a carbed vehicle in a state like CA (if they even require visuals now) is so difficult converting to EFI makes sense IMO.

 

[Blue85]

Unless you have the elusive front 12-bolt axle. That should increase GVWR by 33 1/3 lbs.

 

[longbedder]

Especially during the carbed area, emissions was a nightmare. By the 80's it seems all were pretty standard across the US, but those pictures are car vs. truck, and they were definitely different.

As much as some hate the "complexity" of EFI, trying to comply with emissions on a carbed vehicle in a state like CA (if they even require visuals now) is so difficult converting to EFI makes sense IMO.

Yes. Fuel injection is good.