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.

K5 Blazer vs. K10 Blazer?

As mentioned above, when it came to the front and rear axles, all evidence indicates GM did not stop use of them at XX year...if they had a 12 bolt with 3.73s at the end of 1980, but a 10 bolt 3.73 was to be THE half ton axle starting in 1981, they would use up the leftover 12 bolts into 1981 or beyond if the parts were there. Functionally no different. Not sure how that played with emissions, but it was certainly a factor with engines and transmissions (the fewer options/combinations available, the fewer EPA tests the manufacturer has to conduct, plus economy of scale in general) one would hope the EPA isn't so crazy that each half ton axle would have to be tested simply because it was a different design. The transfercases are a different matter...such as the 205 being the only case offered in 1980, and the last year it was used in a K5. 208 only from '81-88, then 241 to 1991. You hear all sorts of anecdotes about how someone knew the original owner of a K5 had a SBC 400 that was factory in a 1983 K5, but you also used to hear people argue about 12 bolt fronts, or that they could get everywhere in their 2WD truck that a 4WD one could go. :rotfl: (most of those people seem to be gone it seems) Doesn't mean it was fact just because more than one person made XYZ claim.

Not meaning to rankle anyone, but I doubt any 12 bolts or Dana 44's made it to the mid 80's. All it would take is perusing the shop manual for those years to see whether the service instructions are there for that axle or not. Go with an '80, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the 10 and 12 bolt service instructions. An '85, I highly doubt it. But with the crossover years, it would be easy to make one fit as if it were factory, I'm sure.
 
Not mentioned yet, the military Chevy CUCV vehicles used a letter "D" designation instead of K. Just to confuse things even more
Except the military used M1009 vs D10. I'm not sure if D10 came from Chevy or the government's trying to title them later.
 
Except the military used M1009 vs D10. I'm not sure if D10 came from Chevy or the government's trying to title them later.

And called them 3/4 tons, and used 1984-back parts even though they were made after '84. CUCV's are their own animal.
 
Not mentioned yet, the military Chevy CUCV vehicles used a letter "D" designation instead of K. Just to confuse things even more

They also got drivetrain combinations not offered in civilian trucks, too.

Except the military used M1009 vs D10. I'm not sure if D10 came from Chevy or the government's trying to title them later.

The "D" designation is embedded into the VIN, and the VIN is also stamped on the military plate. It must have had the designation from the factory, no?
 
I think they made most of that up lol. Ok, a bit harsh, but I don't even have to look at the specs to know that an '83 was never rated for 24/31MPG.

Rated? These trucks did not have EPA ratings like modern cars. But GM did use seriously-inflated mileage numbers in their advertising. I've seen >30MPG written on some of the 6.2 ads. There are photoshopped ads floating around the interwebz, so it might be fake (and, obviously, Blazers do not get 30MPG in real life). But GM sure was proud of those trucks and their specs.
 
Rated? These trucks did not have EPA ratings like modern cars. But GM did use seriously-inflated mileage numbers in their advertising. I've seen >30MPG written on some of the 6.2 ads. There are photoshopped ads floating around the interwebz, so it might be fake (and, obviously, Blazers do not get 30MPG in real life). But GM sure was proud of those trucks and their specs.
A 2wd with the original diesel not low sulfur would be close to that.
Not with today's ulsd though
 
Last edited:
Wow - that got hairy quickly. Thanks for all the responses! We made a few changes to the different buckets based on your feedback.
 
Top Bottom