1. Missed the live Ask the Expert event?
    Catch up on the conversation about fertilization strategies for success with the experts at Koch Turf & Ornamental in the Fertilizer Application forum.

    Dismiss Notice

ok, another truck to evaluate! chevy diesel!

Discussion in 'Trucks and Trailers' started by Jason Rose, Dec 21, 2005.

  1. Jason Rose

    Jason Rose LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 5,858

    Ok, I got my responces on the 2000 ford... I think I am pretty afraid of fords now, lol. Today I went out and drove a few trucks and I think found the one I want. I still want to bring it here and see if anyone has expierence with this model or engine or just has opinions!

    It's a 1993 (yeah it's old...) Chevy 2500, 2 wheel dr, Automatic, V-8 6.2 Diesel, 48,000 miles, yes that's not a typo! 48,000! Currently it has a flat bed on it, bare bones stock interior, which is fine by me for a work truck.

    I have driven it 20 or 25 miles, everything seens to be in very good condition. It was a government truck, even has a "US Property" tag under the hood (no it's not painted camo, lol)

    They have the price at $10,000. I ran a KBB and NADA they list it (retail) at $5,125 and $5,925 respectively. I honestly thought the price on the truck was going to be right on but now I know they are way high. Hopefully they will work with me on that otherwise I will be continuing on my quest...

    Thanks for any info all!!!
  2. Lawn Masters

    Lawn Masters LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 850

    Get the full report on that, its probably in pretty good shape. the US military version is an M1000 series, that was produced from 1984 to 1986, and were ALL 4x4 packing a 6.2l diesel motor, turbo 400 tranny, and normally have a metal tag on the dash. yours is 2x4, and made in 93, so its not an M1000 series truck.

    UNISCAPER LawnSite Bronze Member
    Messages: 1,426

    Stay away from that one. During those years when GM made coverted gas engines and used them as diesels, we ran Fords and dealt with bad trannies. trannies are cheaper than engines. The tranny on that truck is rock strong, and if you coupled that engine to any ford tranny after the C-6 was dropped, you would have the worst combination of power that money could be wasted on.
  4. Jason Rose

    Jason Rose LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 5,858

    Lawnmasters: I got your post right after you posted it, you mu8st have edited it! lol, I went out and was trying to find where it would say M1000 on it, obviously I didn't find it... Then I come back in and thought I was loosing my mind when I re-read your post, IT CHANGED!
    About all I learned fron looking in the glove box is that it has a 3.0:73 rear end.
    I also figured out that it's a bored out 350 gasser! It looks to have a new intake manifold on it too... As well as a re-maned starter, new alternator.

    It runs awesome, I did wonder about oil capicity? THe pan isn't that large but surely it holds more than 5 or 6 quarts?? most diesels hold like 12 to 16 don't they?

    Not too sure about knocking this engine yet. I don't see to many Ford engines that are cracked up to be all that. The V-10 and the 460 both are pretty flakey and both have a terribley high repair costs.
  5. kc2006

    kc2006 LawnSite Silver Member
    Messages: 2,443

    I'm a diehard chevy guy, but those engines were total garbage. No power, and as uniscaper said they were gassers converted. From what I've heard most of them would pop at 80,000, head gaskets or multiple other problems would happen.

    I have a ford 7.3 sitting in my 96 with 250,000 miles, still going strong, 20lbs of boost and 20-22mpg around town. I can't complain about the international after owning one.
  6. Dirt_Werx

    Dirt_Werx LawnSite Member
    from mass
    Messages: 38

    the deal on the old chevy diesels were that in the beginning, GM just used a standard 350 gas block and put the heads they designed for a diesel on there. Big mistake they didn't work at all and were a complete failure causing almost everyone who owned one to fear diesel engines. I'm not sure exactly when a diesel block was engineered but i know the early ones were really lacking in engineering and thus caused many problems. best of luck, just do some research and learn what you can before doing any investing.
  7. Az Gardener

    Az Gardener LawnSite Gold Member
    Messages: 3,899

    If I were more computer literate I would hook you up to my thread regarding this subject. Try-Cummins, Duramax or Powerstroke in the search and you will probably get the thread. To sum up the multiple pages the word I got was Powerstrokes were the best but expensive to service and repair, Duramax were kind of hit or miss either good or bad not much in between, and Cummins inexpensive to service and repair but problematic. Good luck
  8. Jason Rose

    Jason Rose LawnSite Fanatic
    Messages: 5,858

    Not sure that 1993 is exactly what you call "the early years of the 6.2L Diesel..." Actually it was the LAST year of it.

    I also found that it's NOT a 350 engine, it's a Big Block (ie. 397, 427, 454)

    Still hunting for info, tons of forums out there, just hard to find unbiast information. Opinions are everywhere, facts are few and far between. Reguardless, it looks like the 6.2 was around for many many years and was stuffed into just about every GM made vehicle there was if you wanted it.

    just wanted to add... I don't think there is anything perfect out there, lol! All the big 3 automakers have good points and bad. I just don't want to get stuck with another nightmare... If one ever does get it all perfect they would just bankrupt themselves eventually!
  9. kc2006

    kc2006 LawnSite Silver Member
    Messages: 2,443

    Your right, that engine is not a 350 with heads on it, that was the older 5.7's in the caprices, that poped in under 75,000 mostly. Their problem was the head bolts/studs were too short and only had a few threads in the block, then it would pop head gaskets.

    Have you looked at what the hp/torque output is on the older 6.2's? Its a dog, bad. Theres one piece of fact, not a opinion. I think they got what 135hp if its lucky? and 300ftlbs of torque maybe. I can build a v6 stronger then that. If you do search you'll find alot of people complaining that the engines were lucky to make it to 100,000 miles. The 6.5's weren't even that great until the later years right before the d-max was brought out. 10,000 is WAY too much also as you already found out. Good luck getting them to knock almost 5000 off the price.

    Like i said in my first post, i'm a diehard chevy guy, but when it comes to any 90's chevy diesel, I'm not there, they lacked big time. Now if we were talking d-max, I'm there in a second :D

    I'd keep looking.
  10. Lawn Masters

    Lawn Masters LawnSite Senior Member
    Messages: 850

    Evidently, the later 6.2 isnt as good as what hte army used. the US army one is the same motor run in the HMMWV, just different intake manifolds, and low compression pistons for the turbos. for some reason, I'm a military vehicle nut that knows too much. the 6.5 in a HMMWV, is much better on the durability and performance thing, and I think can be dropped right into a chevy truck, with the heavier front end springs, and beefier tranny of course.

    Oh yes, Jason, I did edit the first post after I realised the truck you're lookin at was a 93 not an 84-86 model. the CUCV was only in production for thse two years.

Share This Page