# Military CUCV 1 1/4 ton 6.2 Diesel



## bowtechmadman

Hey guys need some advice/info. Looking at a 85 GMC 1 1/4 ton military (cucv) pickup. What can you tell me about the 6.2 diesel...reliability etc...
Truck has 28k on it and in real nice shape body wise. I've drove them a bit in the military and they are ALOT of truck, albeit spartan...yes this one still has 24v system.
I also realize that 28K miles can be decieving on a military truck, I'd imagine 24k of those miles are on rough two tracks at 10mph getting the snot beat out of it, and a good many hours idling some some troops can stay warm.
Thanks for any info you might have.
Thanks!


----------



## foursaps

if you can get it for the right price, i would jump on it!! the 6.2's are not powerhouses by any means, but they can get the job done. a lot of people have talked the 6.2 down, and it's gotten an undeserved bad name. 

if the body, frame, and running gear (axles) are good you have one hell of a beefy truck there. the motor can be swapped out for another small or big block, or keep the diesel and enjoy the gas mileage... there is a web site (73-87chevytrucks.com) that has a ton of info on these trucks. we that own them are a proud bunch


----------



## deer slayer

Dont have much expierence with the 6.2 either, but If i'm correct I think it's a small block chevy engine converted to run on diesel, non turbo. As said before isnt well know for the diesel attitude of today. I see the local guard still has them in the hummer and do well with them...I agree with foursaps, the right price go for it as for they are solid built vehicles in my mind. If ever becomes an issue swap the engine out..


----------



## indiansprings

Was in the service during the time of the CUCV, the 6.2 is a reliable motor, not the strongest in the world, but if I remember right the CUCV has either 4:11 or 4:56 gears so it makes up for less torque. The blazer version had really high gears and got great fuel mileage, the CUCV will use some fuel do the low gearing. The only issue I ever witnessed on the 6.2 was that we'd have a fuel pump failure every once in a while usually over 70k miles on them though. It's the heaviest pickup chevy ever made from a component standpoint, their spartan, but built. I wouldn't be afraid of one at all.


----------



## DANOAM

deer slayer said:


> Dont have much expierence with the 6.2 either, but If i'm correct I think it's a small block chevy engine converted to run on diesel, non turbo.



Not true.The 6.2 and 6.5 were built as diesel engines from the start by Detroit Diesel. I can't remember specifically but I think that rumor came from the diesel sharing a certain dimension, possibly bore spacing with the SBC. I have no personal experience with the engine but I have read that while the 6.2 was not turbocharged, the turbocharged 6.5 models in stock form were poor competition for Cummins and Navistar units. But when the turbo boost was upped to the same as the Cummins and Navistars, they were competitive and did not suffer any reliability issues.


----------



## indiansprings

Deer Slayer is thinking of the old osmobile 5.7 diesels that were converted gas blocks, that were absolute pieces of ch!t, your right the 6.2 was a pure diesel design from the ground up. A friend who is a machinist has over 250k on a civilian k5 blazer running the 6.2 although he's had to put a pump in it.


----------



## DANOAM

indiansprings said:


> Deer Slayer is thinking of the old osmobile 5.7 diesels that were converted gas blocks, that were absolute pieces of ch!t, your right the 6.2 was a pure diesel design from the ground up. A friend who is a machinist has over 250k on a civilian k5 blazer running the 6.2 although he's had to put a pump in it.



Yeah that Olds was a piece. My buddy's dad had one in a Caddy. It couldn't keep out of its own way on the interstate and broke down quite a bit. He ended up putting a 350 in it I think, no more problems.


----------



## deer slayer

DANOAM said:


> Not true.The 6.2 and 6.5 were built as diesel engines from the start by Detroit Diesel. I can't remember specifically but I think that rumor came from the diesel sharing a certain dimension, possibly bore spacing with the SBC. I have no personal experience with the engine but I have read that while the 6.2 was not turbocharged, the turbocharged 6.5 models in stock form were poor competition for Cummins and Navistar units. But when the turbo boost was upped to the same as the Cummins and Navistars, they were competitive and did not suffer any reliability issues.



Good to know.. Thanks for correcting me. Indiansprings your right, Now that you said it, it comes to me.


----------



## 04ultra

http://www.peninsulardiesel.com/WP-PENTEST/




They have been building 6.2's and 6.5's for a long time .....Marine injectors and pump sure help. Its still not going to be a cummins .....




.


----------



## DANOAM

deer slayer said:


> Good to know.. Thanks for correcting me. Indiansprings your right, Now that you said it, it comes to me.



That rumor about the engine being a conversion always drove me crazy. I hate to see an engine get a bad rap when it doesn't deserve it. Just setting the record straight


----------



## deer slayer

DANOAM said:


> That rumor about the engine being a conversion always drove me crazy. I hate to see an engine get a bad rap when it doesn't deserve it. Just setting the record straight



 Absolutly....I wasnt sure, Glad you stepped up and corrected me!! I have no problem being wrong, I know now...


----------



## Diesel Pro

There were good and there were bad. Being a military it will have a pump with "hard parts" and very anemic fuel delivery calibration. The hard parts pumps actually wear worse than the std ones, but that is easy enough to correct with a fresh rebuilt unit.

Add a BIG (4-6") snorkel from the air cleaner to the core support for fresh clean air will help a lot.

Myself, I'd suggest converting from 24v down to 12v at least for the glow plugs.


----------



## bowtechmadman

So what do the experts think is a reasonable price? From pictures it looks to be in excellent condition. They took specific close ups for me of known rust locations and it all looks good. Some surface rust at the cab corners.
Appreciate everyone's insight...truck is 500 miles away so want to have a good idea before making the trip.


----------



## Diesel Pro

Boy I don't know. I haven't shopped for 25 year old trucks in a while. 

Seriously though the best resource is The Diesel Page dot com

I also think there is a CUCV site somewhere.


----------



## CUCV

Obviously I am a big fan of CUCV's. My first vehicle was a 2wd c10 with 6.2 diesel. Put about 140k on it had to do a fuel pump and injector pump. My diesel mechanic has always had CUCV's and for years I wanted one but they were 10k for a clean low mile truck. Finally got a chance to get a sweet deal on my avitar. I had it shipped up from Georgia. It still has less than 10k miles! A year later I picked up another for a plow truck. It wasn't in the best shape (rust) and needed an injector pump. It had 38K and I paid $2500 but it was local. I plowed countless 24 hour plus days in that truck without a radio or other creature comforts. In the past couple years that truck became a backup and then the backup to the backup so I sold it this past fall after not using it for 9 months and the mice got in it. I sold it for $2500 without the plows (front and back). I have found that the price of CUCV's have come down in the past 3 years. You should be able to get a very nice truck for under $5000. The biggest concerns I would have is rust and it may need an injector pump because of the low sulfer diesel.


----------



## foursaps

as far as price is concerned, the lowest i have seen a cucv straight from the military yard go for is around 2500. the most expensive has been 7500. if you can score it for less than 5k, (as was stated) i'd do it. worse comes to worse you could part it out for a fair amount of money (the front axle alone will fetch 600-1000 to the offroad world)


----------



## bowtechmadman

Thanks CUCV...this one I'm looking at is going to probably cost me around 4. So sounds like it may be a fair price.


----------



## CUCV

bowtechmadman said:


> Thanks CUCV...this one I'm looking at is going to probably cost me around 4. So sounds like it may be a fair price.



Post some pictures if you have any or when you get it.


----------



## nilzlofgren

Check this link out.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Utility_Cargo_Vehicle#General_Motors


----------



## Wolfcsm

bowtechmadman said:


> Thanks CUCV...this one I'm looking at is going to probably cost me around 4. So sounds like it may be a fair price.



Glow plugs were always an issue for the 6.2 CUCV. For a long time the Army supply system could not keep up with the demand. German GM dealers made a lot of money selling them.

Also, if it is anything other than a 1008, you have to pay attention to weighting the back. Some of the heavier versions were actually not able to be driven without a load.

They last, hold up prety well. The 1008 was geared low. The engine is going to rev a lot at 60 or more. Parts are readily available.

Hal


----------



## Tawney

*I like mine...*

If you end up with one, check out the steelsoldiers forum, they really helped me a lot with mine.

The injection pumps don't like the new diesel, I run some two stroke oil in each tank to keep it lubed. The 24V system is nice for starting in cold weather, but the glow plug system is a rigged civy version with some kind of ballast resistor (i think that's what its called but don't quote me) that sends voltage to 12V plugs. if one goes out, the rest get his share of the voltage. they tend to mutiny all at once.

The 6.2 definitely gets a bad rap. Its not a modern diesel, but if you look at its competition at the time (the 6.9 international) it was a player. If you keep up with the maintenance it won't let you down, and even if it does the replacements are cheap.

Long story short, they leave the service with 4.56 gears. it will not cruise at 65. if you put 4.11s and tall tires it starts to get a little more friendly. I daily drive mine, but i very rarely get out on the highway and i've got 4.11s. I really like these trucks.


----------



## dingeryote

Bowtech,

http://www.colemans.com/milveh.htm

Thier website ain't updated regularly, but they get the CUCV's in quite often.

The only time I ever got to drive a CUCV was in 29 Palms on a bootleg beer run. SLOW! But they take a 500lb bomb crater in stride at 40 mph.

Stay safe!
Dingeryote


----------



## BlueRidgeMark

indiansprings said:


> Deer Slayer is thinking of the old osmobile 5.7 diesels that were converted gas blocks, that were absolute pieces of ch!t, your right the 6.2 was a pure diesel design from the ground up.




Bingo. Those Olds "diesels" were garbage, on their good days.


----------



## barneyrb

Dad had a truck with a 6.2 and it run fairly decent. He took a turbo setup off a 6.5 and turned the pump up a little and it really woke up. IIRC the non turbo 6.2 had ~21:1 compression and the turbo 6.5 had ~17.5:1 and the 6.2 could actually be made to run stronger that the bigger engine. All of the above was for non-military units.


----------

