I know you are madly in love with the 6.2, but it is not as great as you think it may be.
Martin
Martin
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Get rid of the 89 5.7 rig for an 85 6.2 rig?
- Thread starter 89WhiteBlaze
- Start date
I honestly don't know. Haven't gotten into the mechanics of the truck too much yet. As far as I know, it's the stock setup.
As said before I am a 6.2 fan, but also realistic with what it is. My '90, which was stock except for 32" tires at that time, was stolen in the late-90's. I had already started looking for a replacement and test drove a '91 that a good friend of my dad owned which was basically identical except for the 350 TBI. Not sure what gears it had but was completely stock with 31" tires. Around town it did not feel any stronger than my 6.2 and I was actually kinda' disappointed with it. I was used to everybody bashing the 6.2 for being a dog and telling me how much more powerful the 350 was, and therefore was expecting to notice a huge difference in power but it wasn't there. Now keep in mind that the later 6.2s were rated higher, but still not that high in power. Nowadays the K5 is a trail-only rig with 40" tires and "only" 4.10 gears. The 6.2 has been tweaked slightly with a ported J-code intake, slightly increased fuel rate (still no black smoke), and dual exhaust. People are constantly impressed with it on the trail in regards to power simply because they think a 6.2 would barely be able to spin the tires in mud.
Back to the posts talking about diesel power, the 6.2 is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the modern Duramax, Cummins, or Powerstroke equipped trucks. Nowadays diesel stands for the more powerful engine option. Back in the 6.2 days it was mainly for fuel economy and was not the most powerful. If you wanted to tow a trailer you checked the box for the 454 and not the 6.2 diesel. My '90, when stock, always pulled 17-19 mpg and that was mostly city/country rode driving and a heavy footed teenager driving it and 32" mud tires. Pretty sure with all-season tires and sensible driving you could of hit the low 20's consistently. For diesel versus gasoline prices, gas has been cheaper on average for years now. Yes, diesel does periodically dip below gas for short periods of time but it is not consistently cheaper (at least here in the Midwest).
For maintenance costs the same argument holds true for the 6.2 versus the modern diesel crowd. I have found the 6.2 to be very reliable and very cheap to maintain. It takes a couple extra quarts to do an oil change and you have to routinely change the fuel filter but that is it. My '90 has somewhere around 120k on it (I've owned it since it had less than 50k) and it has always been run hard, including hardcore wheelin' for the last 15 years. The engine has never left me stranded nor has had anything internal replaced. The mechanical lift pump, glow plugs, and a couple sets of batteries are the only thing I have replaced that wasn't due to mud and water, and not even sure the fuel pump was bad (this is the pretty cheap lift pump, not the injector pump).
Back to the posts talking about diesel power, the 6.2 is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the modern Duramax, Cummins, or Powerstroke equipped trucks. Nowadays diesel stands for the more powerful engine option. Back in the 6.2 days it was mainly for fuel economy and was not the most powerful. If you wanted to tow a trailer you checked the box for the 454 and not the 6.2 diesel. My '90, when stock, always pulled 17-19 mpg and that was mostly city/country rode driving and a heavy footed teenager driving it and 32" mud tires. Pretty sure with all-season tires and sensible driving you could of hit the low 20's consistently. For diesel versus gasoline prices, gas has been cheaper on average for years now. Yes, diesel does periodically dip below gas for short periods of time but it is not consistently cheaper (at least here in the Midwest).
For maintenance costs the same argument holds true for the 6.2 versus the modern diesel crowd. I have found the 6.2 to be very reliable and very cheap to maintain. It takes a couple extra quarts to do an oil change and you have to routinely change the fuel filter but that is it. My '90 has somewhere around 120k on it (I've owned it since it had less than 50k) and it has always been run hard, including hardcore wheelin' for the last 15 years. The engine has never left me stranded nor has had anything internal replaced. The mechanical lift pump, glow plugs, and a couple sets of batteries are the only thing I have replaced that wasn't due to mud and water, and not even sure the fuel pump was bad (this is the pretty cheap lift pump, not the injector pump).
I love diesels. I currently have two in my rigs: a 6.2l with a Banks turbo in my pickup and a factory turbocharged 6.5l in my Suburban. I also have a L05 TBI 350 in my Blazer, and I love it as well.
The million-dollar question: what's this truck going to be used for?
Side note: I wouldn't personally choose to run any diesel without a turbo.
The million-dollar question: what's this truck going to be used for?
Side note: I wouldn't personally choose to run any diesel without a turbo.
I know you are madly in love with the 6.2, but it is not as great as you think it may be.
Martin
Not in love with it, just happen to think it gets more bad rap than it deserves. The engines both have their place. Depends a LOT on what his particular application is gonna be.
And what is this MM5 5-speed option that is listed as "not offered?" Were there some square-bodied rigs that could get 5-speeds? Or just the GMT-400 rigs?
I guess a turbo would always be an option if I picked it up.
The rig will mainly be a joy/daily driver, towing a 6x12 enclosed trailer with less than a 1k load, and also would like to get into some mild off-roading as they are obviously very capable of such.
http://greenville.craigslist.org/cto/5491232602.html
Here is the link for the blazer (trusting no one will grab it out from under me. Lol)
By the way, thanks for all the replies, didn't expect so many people to chime in. Any more opinions about what a fair price to pay for such a rig would be? I know it's hard to say without seeing it in person.
Here is the link for the blazer (trusting no one will grab it out from under me. Lol)
By the way, thanks for all the replies, didn't expect so many people to chime in. Any more opinions about what a fair price to pay for such a rig would be? I know it's hard to say without seeing it in person.
It does look nice (and that will factor into the price).
Definitely appears to be a military rig.It's worth noting that the truck appears to have its stock G8o 10-bolt rear. The carriers in these axles have a habit of fracturing under even moderate usage. So plan ahead for that so it doesn't catch you by surprise when it does break.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
An M1009 CUCV had 10-bolt axles with 3.08 gears. With 38" tires that thing will be an complete, absolute, unmitigated DAWG. You'll be praying you don't encounter a hill unladen. So, right off the bat in order to tow anything and/or do any wheeling you're looking at swapping differential gears (minimum) or axles (ideally). Then you have the military 24VDC issues to deal with. Throw in the optional turbo and you're talking several thousand dollars and a lot of hours whipping that thing into shape. It's already been somewhat civilized so it's lost any military "collector" appeal.
But it's got a nice body.
If you don't hate the Blazer you've got, I wouldn't personally do it.
Dunno...the ad just says it comes with brand new 38" Mickeys.Is he wanting to run 38s? I was thinking he'd keep the stock tires.
If those are 38s it's never been off the flat pavement - those fenders aren't trimmed and it would rub like a sumbitch.
I had thought that, too, until I looked at the tires. They're clearly not that large. It turns out that MICKEY THOMPSON DEAGAN 38 is a model name, not a size.
Correct. They appear to be around 33". It threw me off at first too. lol biggest size I see myself having in the future would be 35"
3.08 gears with 35" tires would be terrible.
Martin
Martin
That's why I said I would probably regear if I chose to run 35's.
I have owned both and currently own a 90 Jimmy with the 6.2 and a banks turbo. Turbo helps with pulling and climbing but doesn't really build any boost otherwise. I think if it's not a daily driver the choice boils down to what you like. I like the cool factor of the diesel, you rarely see them and every one wants to talk about it. Unfortunately it has some rust issues and I was collecting parts to lift it and fix rust and I fell into a 91 gasser rolling chassis that is lifted with the 8 lug axles no rust and a steering box truss so the frame has not cracked. I can't bring myself to tear apart the Jimmy to do the 91' so the Jimmy goes for sale to finance it.
Get what 'you' want. What ever suits your needs and sends your fun meter into the green.
Get what 'you' want. What ever suits your needs and sends your fun meter into the green.
