Why are CUCV prices so much higher that Civi Chevs

[reaper556]

I belong to the military vehicles collectors club of oregon, MVCCO, and I would say most of the club members don't know what a CUCV is. I don't attend many functions, but looking at the attendees and their vehicles, I have yet to see one in attendance in the newsletter. I took a M1009 to a campout a couple of weeks ago, I was the only CUCV. The leader/organizer of the campout didn't know what a CUCV was when I told him what i was bringing. I have an airforce M1009 as my daily driver. It is a very nice rust free example. Here in oregon you can't pump your own gas, it must be done by an attendant. When I pull up to the pumps, especially when the diesel is separate from the gas pumps I get motioned to pull forward farther to the gas pump. Then asked, "This is Diesel"? recently an attendant wanted to question me again and look puzzled when I said this is diesel. I don't think there were many civy diesel blazers made and if there were a few there aren't any left around here. You can pump your own diesel if your paying with a card, but it is so common to have them come up and try to put gas in the tank. Does anyone know what the cost of the option was for the 6.2 if you ordered it in a pickup or blazer?

Thanks

I too would be interested in knowing how much the diesel option cost back then

 

[Hasdrubal]

I read ; only 3% of all civy blazers made were diesels.
This also ;
1982 - 9,438 diesel Blazers
1983 - 7,176 diesel Blazers
1984 - 4,230 diesel Blazers - also 23,000 military diesel Blazers
1985 - 2,100 diesel Blazers
1986 - 1,260 diesel Blazers
1987 - 310 diesel Blazers
1988 - 270 diesel Blazers
1989 - 230 diesel Blazers
1990 - 160 diesel Blazers
1991 - 92 diesel Blazers
1992 - 1993 No diesel Blazers
1994 - diesel Blazer offered again - with 6.5 S turbo 6.5.

 

[Recovry4x4]

See if this works. It's a 28 page ordering guide for 1984. It's civilian but you can see the 6.2 as an option. Page 16 has the price you want to see. I think most will be surprised at the cost.

 

[TGP (IL)]

I too would be interested in knowing how much the diesel option cost back then

When I ordered my 84 K30 the 6.2 was a little under $1,500. right at $17,000. for the whole truck!
Now look where were at?
Tom

 

[reaper556]

See if this works. It's a 28 page ordering guide for 1984. It's civilian but you can see the 6.2 as an option. Page 16 has the price you want to see. I think most will be surprised at the cost.

That is surprising to the least. I wonder how many dealers took advantage of that for a little extra upcharge on there end?

 

[CUCVLOVER]

Wow.
I can't believe the price for the motor.

 

[2deuce]

One thing to remember was that GM diesels had a horrible reputation back then even though this one wasn't related to the olds conversion that didn't work.

 

[2deuce]

That also may have something to do with the puzzled looks if anyone thinks that there still is a 5.7 diesel still running under the hood.

 

[KansasBobcat]

cucv

One thing to remember was that GM diesels had a horrible reputation back then even though this one wasn't related to the olds conversion that didn't work.

I agree the GM diesel market was "poisoned" for a long time due to the converted gasoline engine fiasco. Still have to explain to some that the 6.2 is a different engine and the same one the army selected for the early HMMWVs

 

[Gunzy]

The 6.2 is actually a Detroit Diesel, and yes, I know that is still GM, but NOT a converted gas turd.

 

[swiss]

See if this works. It's a 28 page ordering guide for 1984. It's civilian but you can see the 6.2 as an option. Page 16 has the price you want to see. I think most will be surprised at the cost.

How come the military did not order my M1009 with air conditioning?

WOW Recovry, great find in that document. Thank you for sharing.

 

[welpro222]

I agree the GM diesel market was "poisoned" for a long time due to the converted gasoline engine fiasco. Still have to explain to some that the 6.2 is a different engine and the same one the army selected for the early HMMWVs

The 6.2 diesel still somewhat kept the market poisoned too, unlike most other diesels built to this day they were built to handle only the power output they make. A weak block, cast crank, weak pistons, and etc. Yes the engine will live long and run fine if treated like a light duty low power engine that it is. The Duramax is built to handle up to 1000 ft pounds of torque.

Don't get me wrong I still love my 6.2, its cheap and has plenty of torque for what I need.

 

[2deuce]

Welpro... total agreement here.

Someone earlier said it is basically a detroit diesel. That is misleading as the 6.2 is nothing like a Detroit Diesel. Any potential CUCV owners should forget they ever read that.

 

[NovacaineFix]

The 6.2 is actually a Detroit Diesel, and yes, I know that is still GM, but NOT a converted gas turd.

I still get asked questions all the time when they hear my 1009 start up. "That's a diesel?" Usually if they are old enough to remember, they'll ask, "It's not that diesel 350 motor, is it?"

For a little back story, I bought my 1009 about a year and a half ago, paid $960 for it site unseen, just internet photos. Took a chance but figured the description said the engine smokes, so I figured, if it smokes, it must run then.
Bought it, had it towed home for $400, ouch, but they were very nice.
Dropped 2 batteries in her, started right up. She is still a fully untouched 24 volt system that works perfectly
No lie!

She wasn't without her problems, but she ran. The smoke, someone replaced a valve cover gasket and grazed a small hole in the cover, that and she was fully loaded with red diesel.

I drive her everyday as a work truck, without many issues.

As to the main question why CUCV's are more costly than civi's, it's like adding the word "Pro" to anything, Pro must be better, so it cost more.

 

[Recovry4x4]

Welpro... total agreement here.

Someone earlier said it is basically a detroit diesel. That is misleading as the 6.2 is nothing like a Detroit Diesel. Any potential CUCV owners should forget they ever read that.

Actually, it is like a Detroit Diesel, just not a 2 stroker. Detroit was part of the reason it came about as they were a principle designer and it's similar to the 8.2. If one were to try to describe it, it's like the folks at Detroit chucked an 8.2 and a small block in a blender and hit puree. What poured out was a 6.2. The 8.2 was known as the penny pincher and GM was looking for just and only that in their design.

 

[reaper556]

Lots of false info in here. The 6.2 is a Detroit Engine. Detroit was a division of GM back in the day. Secondly the 5.7 diesel was not a converted 350 gasser. That myth has been regurgitated so much on the interwebs that it is quoted as gospel. The engine was built ground up as a diesel sharing only the cubic inch displacement with the gas engine. The block isn't even the same.

ETA: The only parts I believe that were the same as the Olds Rocket 350 were the valve covers, oil pan, oil pump and the head studs which caused the major problems of the heads walking around on the block

 

[Gunzy]

Lots of false info in here. The 6.2 is a Detroit Engine. Detroit was a division of GM back in the day. Secondly the 5.7 diesel was not a converted 350 gasser. That myth has been regurgitated so much on the interwebs that it is quoted as gospel. The engine was built ground up as a diesel sharing only the cubic inch displacement with the gas engine. The block isn't even the same.

ETA: The only parts I believe that were the same as the Olds Rocket 350 were the valve covers, oil pan, oil pump and the head studs which caused the major problems of the heads walking around on the block

If the valve covers and oil pan are the same that would show that the arcitecture is the same, thus designed off of the 350 Olds gas engine.

 

[reaper556]

If the valve covers and oil pan are the same that would show that the arcitecture is the same, thus designed off of the 350 Olds gas engine.

Designed from possibly but that's a far cry from bolting diesel heads on a 350 as many here and elsewhere like to believe

 

[KansasBobcat]

Lots of false info in here. The 6.2 is a Detroit Engine. Detroit was a division of GM back in the day. Secondly the 5.7 diesel was not a converted 350 gasser. That myth has been regurgitated so much on the interwebs that it is quoted as gospel. The engine was built ground up as a diesel sharing only the cubic inch displacement with the gas engine. The block isn't even the same.

ETA: The only parts I believe that were the same as the Olds Rocket 350 were the valve covers, oil pan, oil pump and the head studs which caused the major problems of the heads walking around on the block

You are correct. I was relying on memory from that era that it was a "conversion" It did have multiple problems...I had a friend who had one!

 

[cucvrus]

I was working in a GM garage at the time. GM came out with the Mr Goodwrench 350 diesel replacement. I know guys that swore that was a better design. That is a long time ago. But the Goodwrench 350 diesel was an improved version of the original 350 diesel engine. Anyone ever hear of that version of the 350 diesel. I still have the decals on my tool box in my shop.