84 blazer military

**cuervo25_1** · 06-06-2009, 06:31 PM

Ok I have a deal with the wife when she gets a job i can get a military blazer. The question is was it a GM diesel they used in those(6.2) or some other make? I know the GM diesels was not as good as many others,But is it still worth keeping once it bites the dust. it only has 34k on it so I am thinking on keeping it in there and converting it to burn veggie oil.

**JoshieDoom** · 06-07-2009, 12:42 AM

Of course!!!! It is a 6.2 and they get up to 24mpg bone stock. They are great engines! Mine is a sbc but the diesel is a good thing to stick with!

**NaviDyn** · 06-08-2009, 04:15 AM

I think it has a 28 gallon tank and 3.73. It has been a while.

**Mich's04** · 06-08-2009, 01:57 PM

I normally hang out in the GTO section, but noticed this thread which peaked my interest.
I worked on the CUCV series Military trucks back in my Army days. '85-'96.
Yes, as Josh said, it was a 6.2L Diesel with a Turbo 400 trans. This engine was Detroit Diesels first 4 stroke diesel. They were noted for their screaming 2 stroker's which I also worked on. I wouldn't really call them a great engine. Back then they had high failure rates. Especially when the HUMVEE first came out, those were also equipped with the 6.2L diesel. So if you buy one, don't beat the piss out of it.
We compared a 6.2L out of a Sgt's civilian pickup truck (which blew up after 100,000 miles) to a blown up military 6.2L with way less mileage. Needless to say the castings in the civilian 6.2 were way better than the military 6.2. For example the intake manifold, pistons were very porous in the military engine. We laughed and figured GM was sneaking their reject parts into the military stuff.
The "5 quarter" ton trucks had 3.73 to 4.10 rearends and the "Blazer" model had 3.08's. Top speed was around 83mph.

As for the CUCV II I have seen but never worked on, those had a 6.5L Detroit in them.
Have fun with the split 12/24 volt system. If it's still wired that way.
Good luck with it when you get one.

**cuervo25_1** · 06-08-2009, 03:52 PM

Thanks for the info!!! I really wasn't planning on beating on it,just using it to get to work and home,hunting fishing ect. So what I will do is just keep saving up to get a better engine when this one pisses out on me.

Oh do you recall if the np 208's was gear driven or chain?

**JoshieDoom** · 06-09-2009, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by cuervo25_1

Thanks for the info!!! I really wasn't planning on beating on it,just using it to get to work and home,hunting fishing ect. So what I will do is just keep saving up to get a better engine when this one pisses out on me.

Oh do you recall if the np 208's was gear driven or chain?

Chain driven. I have BRAND NEW outta box one for 500 bucks. Brand New.. haha

Mine bit the dust and the cheapest route was to buy two NIB ones

**NaviDyn** · 06-14-2009, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mich's04

I We compared a 6.2L out of a Sgt's civilian pickup truck (which blew up after 100,000 miles) to a blown up military 6.2L with way less mileage. Needless to say the castings in the civilian 6.2 were way better than the military 6.2. For example the intake manifold, pistons were very porous in the military engine. We laughed and figured GM was sneaking their reject parts into the military stuff.
The "5 quarter" ton trucks had 3.73 to 4.10 rearends and the "Blazer" model had 3.08's. Top speed was around 83mph.

That is interesting. Thanks for the info.

3.08 would certainly boost that range, in addition to the size of the tank.

Have fun with the split 12/24 volt system. If it's still wired that way.
Good luck with it when you get one.

The Army still has that dual system on some things, instead of just getting 24v bulbs.