• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

Why are CUCV prices so much higher that Civi Chevs

reaper556

Member
282
3
18
Location
HOCKLEY, TX
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

New member
690
4
0
Location
Vancouver BC
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.
 
Last edited:

reaper556

Member
282
3
18
Location
HOCKLEY, TX
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?
 

2deuce

Well-known member
1,479
147
63
Location
portland, oregon
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

Well-known member
1,479
147
63
Location
portland, oregon
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

Member
641
8
18
Location
San Antonio, TX
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
 
Last edited:

Gunzy

Well-known member
1,769
66
48
Location
Roy, Utah
The 6.2 is actually a Detroit Diesel, and yes, I know that is still GM, but NOT a converted gas turd.
 

swiss

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
2,726
836
113
Location
Oakwood, Ga
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

New member
393
0
0
Location
Bellingham, WA
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

Well-known member
1,479
147
63
Location
portland, oregon
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

Member
662
1
18
Location
San Diego, California
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

LLM/Member 785
Super Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
34,012
1,808
113
Location
GA Mountains
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

Member
282
3
18
Location
HOCKLEY, TX
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
 
Last edited:

Gunzy

Well-known member
1,769
66
48
Location
Roy, Utah
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

Member
282
3
18
Location
HOCKLEY, TX
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

Member
641
8
18
Location
San Antonio, TX
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

Well-known member
11,473
10,427
113
Location
Jonestown Pennsylvania
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.
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks