Get rid of the 89 5.7 rig for an 85 6.2 rig?

[89WhiteBlaze]

Alright guys, caught blazer fever last year and picked up an 89 with a 5.7 that was in good shape. I've been customizing it to my liking since and absolutely love it so far. Here's how she looks now.


Now. Here's the reason for my post; I'm always scanning for other local Blazers that are for sale just for the heck of it. I just happened along an 85 with a 6.2 diesel in it That's only a couple hours away. It's tan with a black line x interior. Body looks perfect and it only has 80,000 miles. Here she is...


He's asking $7,000 at the moment, which is actually just a little more than what I have in mine right now. Don't know if he'll budge on the price... So anyways how would y'all say the gassers and the diesels compare? As far as fuel economy, power, reliability, and most importantly... Smiles per gallon??? I guess I could always get it and just see which one I prefer after a while... Any input will be appreciated!

 

[blazinzuk]

89 has a 241. So that's a win for me.

My diesel feels like a 305. Not much there.

Mpg 17-19. That's with a 6" lift and 37s. 4.56 in the diff.

I hear gassers can get 12-14. I never got that. Well maybe close to 12 a couple times.

 

[89WhiteBlaze]

89 has a 241. So that's a win for me.

My diesel feels like a 305. Not much there.

Mpg 17-19. That's with a 6" lift and 37s. 4.56 in the diff.

I hear gassers can get 12-14. I never got that. Well maybe close to 12 a couple times.

I currently get 11-12 on 33s with ~1-2 inches of lift. I don't really have any complaints with mine and I knew the gas mileage would be terrible, just wondering if I would like this even more. It just looks so clean! Haha I love that liner that's on the interior as well. Been thinking about doing it to mine...

 

[paratrooper307]

Unless you're really itching to get a diesel I'd stick with what you have. It's a known entity and you already have money and sweat equity making it like you want.

 

[diesel4me]

There is a lot to be said about keeping what you have,you know all its problems and potential ones,and you spent time & cash to make it "yours"..buying another vehicle always has risks,and might end up needing lots of repairs..

Not to diss the 6.2,but in a way a diesel might cost more to run,diesel fuel always costs more than gas,and will go up in cost quicker too--so the 5 mpg you may "gain" is likely a wash,and the diesel is a bit more complicated in ways to work on for someone who never owned one,also any problems with the injector pump and glow plugs aren't cheap to fix either..

My pickup's 6.2 feels very similar in performance to a straight six 250 I had in a C10 long bed with 3:42's...it was no powerhouse,acceleration was fair to brisk,and they both made the most torque under 2000 rpms..and got about the same mpg..

It would be great if you had the means to "test drive" a diesel powered truck first for a few days,and see how you like it..not everyone ends up loving them once they get one..a gas engine can be swapped in fairly easily though too..

Around here,any rust free K5 is worth that price--try and find one though,they are like hens teeth,unless someone had one hauled up here recently,and they want ALL the money for them,even if the engine or drive train needs work,or they need a paint job,they have that desert "patina"--up here that turns to rust & holes fast,if you dont get right on it....

 

[6.2Blazer]

I have owned a '90 K5 with the 6.2 diesel for 20 years and love it, but if I had a nice 5.7L version Blazer not sure I would be looking at trading. The '86 one you posted may be a CUCV military version (it's got the grill guard installed, manual windows, etc....). If so they are really not that nice of a daily driver. They have the TH400 with no overdrive and then crappy 3.08 gears to compensate. The 6.2's really need the 700r4 trans which has a lower first gear and the OD for cruising, and the OD allows for lower axle gears. My '90 came with the 700r4 and 3.73 gears and feels a LOT stronger as compared to a buddy's CUCV version with the TH400 and 3.08's, plus mine cruises down the highway better.

 

[89WhiteBlaze]

There is a lot to be said about keeping what you have,you know all its problems and potential ones,and you spent time & cash to make it "yours"..buying another vehicle always has risks,and might end up needing lots of repairs..

Not to diss the 6.2,but in a way a diesel might cost more to run,diesel fuel always costs more than gas,and will go up in cost quicker too--so the 5 mpg you may "gain" is likely a wash,and the diesel is a bit more complicated in ways to work on for someone who never owned one,also any problems with the injector pump and glow plugs aren't cheap to fix either..

My pickup's 6.2 feels very similar in performance to a straight six 250 I had in a C10 long bed with 3:42's...it was no powerhouse,acceleration was fair to brisk,and they both made the most torque under 2000 rpms..and got about the same mpg..

It would be great if you had the means to "test drive" a diesel powered truck first for a few days,and see how you like it..not everyone ends up loving them once they get one..a gas engine can be swapped in fairly easily though too..

Around here,any rust free K5 is worth that price--try and find one though,they are like hens teeth,unless someone had one hauled up here recently,and they want ALL the money for them,even if the engine or drive train needs work,or they need a paint job,they have that desert "patina"--up here that turns to rust & holes fast,if you dont get right on it....

Appreciate the reply. Yeah, I'm not too convinced that the diesels really save any money... maybe a little, until something needs to be repaired as you stated. Like you said, rust free blazers are hard to come by. That's why it caught my eye so easily. My current Blazer has been running great and I don't see any major problems coming up, so it would be hard to get rid of. I'd feel like I was betraying it. lol

 

[89WhiteBlaze]

I have owned a '90 K5 with the 6.2 diesel for 20 years and love it, but if I had a nice 5.7L version Blazer not sure I would be looking at trading. The '86 one you posted may be a CUCV military version (it's got the grill guard installed, manual windows, etc....). If so they are really not that nice of a daily driver. They have the TH400 with no overdrive and then crappy 3.08 gears to compensate. The 6.2's really need the 700r4 trans which has a lower first gear and the OD for cruising, and the OD allows for lower axle gears. My '90 came with the 700r4 and 3.73 gears and feels a LOT stronger as compared to a buddy's CUCV version with the TH400 and 3.08's, plus mine cruises down the highway better.

Good info. I guess I'll just stick with what I have then. Mine's kind of a pig already and would like to have a little more power, but based on the replies it doesn't seem like the diesel would be the way to go... Don't know if I've ever seen one this clean before, except for maybe some 1st gens that people have dumped a ton of money into, so I just got excited. lol

 

[campfire]

Appreciate the reply. Yeah, I'm not too convinced that the diesels really save any money... maybe a little, until something needs to be repaired as you stated. Like you said, rust free blazers are hard to come by. That's why it caught my eye so easily. My current Blazer has been running great and I don't see any major problems coming up, so it would be hard to get rid of. I'd feel like I was betraying it. lol

The 6.2 is not a powerhouse, it is a cruising engine. I disagree with @diesel4me's blanket assertion that they're more expensive to drive, as many things factor into driving cost (gearing & O/D being a large part). They can be 25MPG rigs or 18MPG rigs in stock form (and less when mods start coming into play), but I have yet to see an apples-to-apples comparison where a 6.2 lost out to a 350 in the mileage category.

Maintenance-wise, 6.2 engines are simple and reliable. Most of the accessories are very similar to the sbc, the only potentially expensive item that I can think of is the injection pump. Given that entire engines are $200-$300 in my area, I don't think I'd have a problem coming up with another IP if I ever needed it. I don't think I could come up with a new EFI setup for that cost.

I also think that one is a CUCV, but I'm not sure without a picture of the dashboard. If so, it originally came with no O/D no amenities, and some wiring quirks, but that one has enough things wrong about the interior that it has at least been modded if it is an M1009. Or someone may have placed a CUCV front clip on a civilian K5.


If you're happy with your current rig, keep it. If you want more power, the 6.2 isn't the ticket unless you get into turbocharging it. Though it's worth mentioning that the low-end torque does make it feel like a bigger engine than it is (until you get up to speed). And gearing makes a large difference.



P.S. - I think that diesel rig is overpriced.

 

[82355]

Appears to be an M1009. If so, you already own the better rig of the two.

Martin

 

[campfire]

Appears to be an M1009. If so, you already own the better rig of the two.

Martin

Even if not, you have a rig you like with some of your own custom mods. To put the same number of dollars into a different rig and wind up with a basic, stockish truck without your mods seems like a bad trade.

 

[89WhiteBlaze]

The 6.2 is not a powerhouse, it is a cruising engine. I disagree with @diesel4me's blanket assertion that they're more expensive to drive, as many things factor into driving cost (gearing & O/D being a large part). They can be 25MPG rigs or 18MPG rigs in stock form (and less when mods start coming into play), but I have yet to see an apples-to-apples comparison where a 6.2 lost out to a 350 in the mileage category.

Maintenance-wise, 6.2 engines are simple and reliable. Most of the accessories are very similar to the sbc, the only potentially expensive item that I can think of is the injection pump. Given that entire engines are $200-$300 in my area, I don't think I'd have a problem coming up with another IP if I ever needed it. I don't think I could come up with a new EFI setup for that cost.

I also think that one is a CUCV, but I'm not sure without a picture of the dashboard. If so, it originally came with no O/D no amenities, and some wiring quirks, but that one has enough things wrong about the interior that it has at least been modded if it is an M1009. Or someone may have placed a CUCV front clip on a civilian K5.


If you're happy with your current rig, keep it. If you want more power, the 6.2 isn't the ticket unless you get into turbocharging it. Though it's worth mentioning that the low-end torque does make it feel like a bigger engine than it is (until you get up to speed). And gearing makes a large difference.



P.S. - I think that diesel rig is overpriced.

Power isn't really a SUPER huge concern, it would pretty much just be a daily driver. Just cruising around in these machines is fun enough! I also tow a 6x12 enclosed trailer with some lawn equipment (which really doesn't way a whole lot) a few days a week, and was just looking for something with a little more grunt for that and when I pull out I want to be able to get out of people's way.

The 3 main things that are drawing me to it are the line-x interior (which I've been thinking about doing), the better fuel mileage especially because diesel is actually cheaper than gas... atleast for now, and it's good condition. If I were to get it, I would keep it pretty much stock other than maybe a 4" lift and some 35s, which at that point I might look into some other gearing options.

I agree about the price, however depending on how clean it is, it may not be too far off. You could easily put that much (or more) into buying one in worse condition and fixing it up. I still wouldn't pay 7k for it though. Assuming it's in really good condition, where would you put the price tag at?

Also, just to confirm it with everyone, it is the military version.

 

[89WhiteBlaze]

Even if not, you have a rig you like with some of your own custom mods. To put the same number of dollars into a different rig and wind up with a basic, stockish truck without your mods seems like a bad trade.

As far mods go, just about all of them are cosmetic things like painting, so not a whole lot of money invested, just some time. Really the biggest project I've done so far was prepping and painting the bed "rails" and the back of the cab black as seen in the first picture. Just not trying to make it sound like I've rebuilt the engine and front end or something like that. lol

I have approximately 6.5k in it right now including the wheels and tires. Also, he'd have to come down on the price before I'd buy it. He already has the interior line-x'd, which adds some value, as I'm considering doing that to mine. His is in better condition, has fewer miles (also 4 years older), and gets better fuel economy. So there would be some perks of getting it.

 

[89WhiteBlaze]

Been trying to talk my dad into buying it and letting me drive it on occasion... that way I won't have to choose between the two! lol It may be starting to work. I could buy it and keep both but I'm still living at home and pay the insurance on 2 trucks already and am trying to save for a house. Anyways, Gonna see if he'd be willing to take a 2.5 hour road trip and go check it out with me on Saturday and atleast test drive and see what the guy could do on the price.

 

[campfire]

Power isn't really a SUPER huge concern, it would pretty much just be a daily driver. Just cruising around in these machines is fun enough! I also tow a 6x12 enclosed trailer with some lawn equipment (which really doesn't way a whole lot) a few days a week, and was just looking for something with a little more grunt for that and when I pull out I want to be able to get out of people's way.

The 3 main things that are drawing me to it are the line-x interior (which I've been thinking about doing), the better fuel mileage especially because diesel is actually cheaper than gas... atleast for now, and it's good condition. If I were to get it, I would keep it pretty much stock other than maybe a 4" lift and some 35s, which at that point I might look into some other gearing options.

I agree about the price, however depending on how clean it is, it may not be too far off. You could easily put that much (or more) into buying one in worse condition and fixing it up. I still wouldn't pay 7k for it though. Assuming it's in really good condition, where would you put the price tag at?

Also, just to confirm it with everyone, it is the military version.

The 6.2 is quite torquey compared to what you have. When starting at a stoplight, I'd rather have a 6.2 than a 350 (in similarly-setup trucks). It's not till you get up to speed that the power drops off. So if you're looking for grunt you could do much worse, and you'll hafta test drive it to get a feel for how this particular truck is going to behave (gearing-wise). And cruising/DD use is that engine's specialty, so it's not hard for me to imagine it working well in your application.

If it is the M1009, with the 3-speed, those often pull 20MPG in stock form. It should have a 24V starter motor and a special ground-isolated second alternator, neither of which can be found at Autozone. So you may want to mail order a backup starter before it has the chance to fail, unless you're fine with waiting for parts. Additionally, the glow plugs are fed 24V through a resister bank. This allows the truck to receive a jump from a 24V military truck, but it also causes the glow plugs to all want to burn out at once. Everything else about the trucks is 12V, and aside from adding blackout lights, the truck is a fairly standard stripped-down strip-down model. They came without insulation (so the ride is noisy), dome lights, radios, carpeting. It's basically a tin can scooting down the road.

Also, all of them are built to 1984 spec, so it's not really an '85 model, even though it was made at that time. The differences are very slight, but I figure you'll wanna know as much as you can ahead of time.

As far as price goes, I can't tell nearly enough from those few pictures to do a good job picking a price. And the military rigs are often significantly overpriced compared to the much more luxurious civilian models (doesn't make sense to me). I personally would pay $3k for such a rig, but I doubt the seller would find that agreeable. Maybe 5k? I think mostly you're just paying the military rig premium, and only you can know what that's worth to you. The trucks are not always in great condition (mine, for example, was barely holding together when I got it) and 40,000 miles' worth of 2-mile trips across military bases is a great deal of wear compared to 40,000 miles' worth of highway cruising. Also, there is no way of knowing if the odometer has rolled over, so it could well be 240,000 miles.

 

[Cucv_M1008]

Even though its a 85 all cucvs are based off 84 parts. Always buy parts for a 84.

 

[82355]

You would be downgrading.

What gears do you have in your current rig?

Martin

 

[82355]

The 6.2 is quite torquey compared to what you have.

1989 LO5 350 TBI - 210 HP @ 4000 RPM/300 Torque @ 2800 RPM
1984 LH6 6.2 - 135 HP @ 3600 RPM/240 Torque @ 2000 RPM (J Code, the EGR version makes 5 less HP)

An LO5 is a stronger engine than a stock 6.2.

Martin

 

[campfire]

1989 LO5 350 TBI - 210 HP @ 4000 RPM/300 Torque @ 2800 RPM
1984 LH6 6.2 - 135 HP @ 3600 RPM/240 Torque @ 2000 RPM (J Code, the EGR version makes 5 less HP)

An LO5 is a stronger engine than a stock 6.2.

Martin

No contest about it. A TBI 350 will beat a similarly-modded 6.2 any day of the week at the track. What I meant with my simplistic comment is that the 6.2 generates greater torque at low engine speeds.

For my driving style, at least, when I'm cruising through town, I rarely get to 2800RPM, but I often get to 2000RPM. So the 6.2 offers power at the low engine speeds that I'm using, while the sbc is anemic when lugging. It doesn't have much low end "grunt." That's all I meant. I wouldn't recommend a 6.2 for someone wanting high-end power.

 

[82355]

A 350 TBI is a low end engine.

Martin