Teach me about Blazer K5s...

Someone's been window shopping again...

I keep seeing the same Blazer advertised by a dealer in Reno and as we'll be in the area in a week end a half I thought "well maybe looking at it won't hurt". Many a bad idea was conceived that way.

Anyway, this is the car: http://reno.craigslist.org/ctd/1660922812.html

It ticks most of the boxes - 4x4, doesn't look like it's been messed about too much, auto so the wife can drive it and it's got the tow package. I realise it's a year too new so it doesn't have the 'convertible' hardtop, which is a pity. Any particular horrors to look for with these? I assume a combination of rust and bondo would be something to look for - time to get a fridge magent.

My buddies all bought these in the Chicago area and used them for plowing snow.

"Rust" - lots of crumbling metal.

"full-time" hubs - you can get unlocking hubs to replace those. It might save you 1/3 mpg.

Gas mileage was brutal with a 4" lift kit and 32" tall tires. Some had a 31 gallon gas tank that was rarely filled.

Those with lift kits ate front u-joints like popcorn.

And those with the same lift kit always had that "dude we're going to roll this thing" as we went around corners.

Despite all that I really like the old K5's

You can get any part you need aftermarket. I'm restoring a 75 Chevy 4wd truck right now and it's a very easy vehicle to work on. Not to mention reliable.
It looks like the one in the ad has the removable rear roof section. I like that rig....good looking and a decent price.

What do you want it to do? Drive in the snow and get groceries? Tow occasionally for short distances? Consume a lot of fuel. That will do just fine. :)

Should have disc brakes in the front (Dana 44) and it looks like full-time 4wd which means np203 transfer case. I think there have been some chain-slippage problems with these. Rear axle is likely a Dana 44 or 12-bolt - which is fine for those tires.

Stupid simple to work on. Lots of parts available for cheap (at least here in Idaho).

I think motors are mostly the same for these over the years with small insignificant changes. Most of them are probably not very stock at this point anyway.

Personally, I don't care for the looks of that generation Blazer. I'd rather get a 1st gen K5 or a Cherokee Chief of the same vintage.

I think there's a good forum (used to be anyway) at coloradok5.com

Didn't one of these roll over in that terrible movie with charlie sheen about the guy who carjacked a E36 BMW?

That's all I got.

twolittlebroncos wrote: What do you want it to do? Drive in the snow and get groceries? Tow occasionally for short distances? Consume a lot of fuel. That will do just fine. :)

That's pretty much it, with some trail driving thrown in, but nothing that would require lifting it or turning it into a hardcore off-roader. Actually I had hoped that it would do as an occasional longer-distance tow car, too.

I figured the 'consume a lot of fuel' bit, that seems to be the case for anything of that vintage or ilk.

worst rust spot i've noticed seems to be the rear wheel wells. hard to fix when started and difficult to get as a replacement piece for cheap. also sometimes the rear tailgate window gets off track and is a pain to reset and the seat vinyl is really cheap feeling. otherwise i love these things and have seen them go for years on a steady diet of beatings and neglect without complaint.

Are you going to be moving there or just passing through? I spent @ 4 years just across the Cali border from there.

81gtv6 wrote: Are you going to be moving there or just passing through? I spent @ 4 years just across the Cali border from there.

Not to threadjack, but whereabouts? You don't mean High Desert, do you?

81gtv6 wrote: Are you going to be moving there or just passing through? I spent @ 4 years just across the Cali border from there.

That depends on the outcome of a job interview I've got up there...

In reply to BoxheadTim:

I would think it would be much more sturdy for occasional trail use than most newer SUVs. Solid axles and body on frame construction help.

Fuel consumption, like you said, comes with the territory.

Fuel injection and overdrive transmission are features that came much later in history to these vehicles, but only help marginally anyway.

I had an 80 K5 for a while. Body rot in the floorboards and rear fenders. Mine even had some up where the top and body come together. I can't much more to what everybody else has said. Mileage sucks going into the wind, if you've got a strong tailwind you'll do ok. There are times when I miss Big Red, usually when I want to do away with an offensively driven vehicle.

I hope it goes well, that is a nice area. Lots of fun roads, paved and unpaved to play on, dry old cars to buy, the National Automobile Museum ( the remains of Bill Harrah's collection) and the national Championship Air Races, and a guy I went to High School with is a Detective with the Reno police just in case.

I had a 1987 model years ago. Loved it. It was an ex-South Carolina State Police vehicle with only 30,000 miles or so, rubber floor covering, and all the heavy duty extras when I bought it. Sold it with 160,000 miles a few years ago. Abused it, rode it hard and put it up wet (muddy) and never had any problems with it to speak of. Was a great tow vehicle for me as well. My son used to call it "the beast". Now it doesn't seem like it was a good idea to sell it after all. The guy that bought it from me was as excited as a kid on Christmas morning when he came to pick it up.

I had a 4" suspension lift (if memory serves correct) with 33x12.5 mud tires. The rear driveshaft is fairly short, thus, even with lowering the transfer case, lengthening the driveshaft and using angled shims to rotate the rear diff up, there was always a slight vibration in the driveline.

As others have said, these are simple vehicles with enough room to crawl in under the hood and sit on the inner fender. The top over the back seat and cargo area is removable, but difficult to keep from leaking once removed a time or two. They sell a soft top for these that will replace the hard top and is easily removable.

There is enough sheet metal on these things to re-skin an aircraft carrier. So regardless of the extent of rust, don't worry, you will have plenty left. You will wax it by hand only once.

I still miss all the exposed sheet metal on the dash and interior. You don't see that anymore.

Rust is about the biggest issue. More implement than luxury. You could probably build one from scratch through the aftermarket and sky is the limit on mods. So the question is more about whether the price is in line with condition. I'm more partial to the early ford broncos - same idea, but narrower and shorter - about LR Defender sized.

Another thing. If you want fuel injection and an overdrive it's an easy swap. My 75 doesn't have it, but my 91 Suburban (still old body style does). I have to say the modern features are nice to have and I'll probably at least put fuel injection on the 75. The Suburban, which is much bigger and heavier than the pickup, get better MPG. 14.5/15 in a 4wd that size isn't too bad imho.

I'd rather have a Bronco. Devotees of the K5 claim they are superior of course. I ended up with the odd one in the group, the Dodge Ramcharger. 37 gallon tank, 12 mpg, 4x4 and rust but I love messing with it.

That Blazer looks nice, though, surprised sellers not more greedy.

I drove an 81 K5 w/250 I6, AT, 4X4 for 14 years. Great truck. I bought mine in Fairbanks, Alaska and have driven it coast to coast. Tows trailers well. Rusts at the rear wheel wells/tail lights and floorboards/rocker panel. Typical Chevy truck stuff. Cab forward is Chevy truck. Shorter wheel base than short bed truck. Parts are easy to get. Easy to work on. That year has the full-time transfer case & hubs so to improve (slightly) gas mileage a part time kit and manual hubs would be advisable. Would also make things last longer. FYI, I believe up to 33" tires will fit without a lift kit. I ran 31" because of $$$. With solid axles and leaf springs front & rear, it will ride kinda rough but you get used to it. Probably no worse than our sportscars and autocross/track toys. The I6 version was lower than the V8's, minus one leaf, and it still fit 33" w/o lift. Most of my friends that had V8 K5's all had 33"w/o lift kit, a few had a small lift (2-4 inches). 4" lift would fit 35" but those tires are $$$. Lifting a solid axle & leaf spring truck is also easy though. And lifting does wear u-joints quicker.

Ramchargers of same era are similiar in setup w/solid axles & leaf springs, top doesn't remove and liftgate (hatch-type) instead of roll down window and drop gate. The big Broncos are Twin-I-Beam and coil springs so a better ride, IMO. A bit tougher to lift.

That does appear to be a nice one, especially for its age. Cheyenne is the trim level, one of the higher levels of trim, I believe. That would go for more than that here.

Rust shouldn't be a big isue if the truck has ben around Reno it's whole life. That looks like newer paint, so watch for what may be lurking underneath. Like everyone else has said, they are durable and cheap to repair. Theres a reason the U.S. Army bought a lot of these and instead of Broncos or Ramchargers....

I prefer Bronco and I'm a Chevy guy...

Just never cared for the 2nd gen Blazer

Of course it will take a big-block fairly easily. A D-max conversion would be interesting.