Ford CUCV

[m16ty]

I remember seeing a add when GM came out with their IFS. It showed two stumps with tracks going over it. One set of tracks was a Chevy and the other was Ford. The Ford stump had a grove cut in the top from the diff. ( they were showing the added ground clearance of the IFS). What they failed to metion was what happened on the Chevy when you got to the back axle .

 

[DMgunn]

I like the GM IFS ground clearance-wise. It's just too bad the carrier won't hold up to any real use with real tires. Just imagine if they could get it to hold up, and then if someone built a lift that didn't drop everything, but instead increased height and travel at the control arms, and then came up with CV shafts that could tolerate the tires AND the travel, and do it all without costing the consumer more than the initial cost of the vehicle............well, then they would have something.

 

[Dabba]

True, i also like the gm body style better. Also because there was very little design changes between 73-87 (and to 91 in the k5s). Alot of things throughout the years can swap out easily and theres not too much fab work. The TH400 and SM465 are also known as bulletproof trannys, as well as the np205. I also cant be happier with my dana60 and 14bolt with the detroit. As far as the smaller trucks i cant comment, always liked fullsizes. I know its opinion but i had an 86k5 and my friend has the bronco and it never impressed me. Im not sure how an f350 would stack up to a civy k30, but if my m1008 is any indication, ill put my money on the k30.. but again, opinion

 

[Dabba]

I like the GM IFS ground clearance-wise. It's just too bad the carrier won't hold up to any real use with real tires. Just imagine if they could get it to hold up, and then if someone built a lift that didn't drop everything, but instead increased height and travel at the control arms, and then came up with CV shafts that could tolerate the tires AND the travel, and do it all without costing the consumer more than the initial cost of the vehicle............well, then they would have something.

so a redesign.. thats alll haha

 

[DMgunn]

True, i also like the gm body style better. Also because there was very little design changes between 73-87 (and to 91 in the k5s). Alot of things throughout the years can swap out easily and theres not too much fab work. The TH400 and SM465 are also known as bulletproof trannys, as well as the np205. I also cant be happier with my dana60 and 14bolt with the detroit. As far as the smaller trucks i cant comment, always liked fullsizes. I know its opinion but i had an 86k5 and my friend has the bronco and it never impressed me. Im not sure how an f350 would stack up to a civy k30, but if my m1008 is any indication, ill put my money on the k30.. but again, opinion

Dang....I was hoping you wouldn't bring up trannies...I really don't want to pick on you or GM.......but here goes........the t-cases are the same in either brand, so we can discount them. The TH400, yes, is a solid trans - but the builders tell me that the bands are similar in size to a C-4 - again, the Ford C-6 (TH400 equivalent) is markedly stronger. The SM465 is a great manual, but whether it's better than a T-18/19 or NP435 is debatable. The Ford Dana 60 - well everyone knows it is the all-time most desirable of any Dana 60 ever produced - esp. the '78-79 models which routinely sell for almost 3X what a GM/Dodge D60 will bring. The pinion is above the axle centerline, so not only is it significantly stronger than the GM/Dodge versions because of the pinion gear running on the "correct" side of the ring gear instead of the coast side, it also has much better ground clearance at the driveshaft. And it helps that the input is on the driver's side, which is where every major manufacturer is running their front outputs these days. That's not to say that your Dana 60 isn't strong - it's very strong - the Ford is just stronger.

Now as far as which is more capable - a K30, W300 or an F-350? On level ground, where approach/breakover/departure angles don't come into play, it is going to come down to particulars, ie tire size and tread design, differential ratio and traction device, HP and RPM, weight bias, driving style, etc. When breakover angle is involved, the Ford will win. That front driveshaft not hanging as low and the t-case crossmember that doesn't hang down and catch on everything really make a difference. Approach angles, I don't know, the GM and Ford are both pretty decent, and departure, they both suck.

 

[EZFEED]

Portal axles for the win baby! I hate CV joints! Imagine a Humvee with those!

 

[AJMBLAZER]

I know the bronco II had a very poor saftey record, with a high rollover rate and it had very poor sales. So poor infact they had to redesign it and give it the name explorer. But i guess i also need to point out that when i make a generalized statement such as "worst SUV ever" people would normally take that as opinion.

Bull****. The B2's safety record is no different than any of the others. However thanks to Consumer Reports, the bastion of all things half ass and tested with a bias, it has a reputation it doesn't deserve. Sure, if you take a B2 or a Suzuki Samurai out and try to do a 90 degree turn at 100 miles per hour it will roll but so will many cars! Consumer Reports nearly ended Suzuki America as a company and lost their nearly two decades long battle in court recently against Suzuki but the damage was done.


DMgunn, there's all kinds of fab shops in the SW that can make a long travel, high clearance, strong parts IFS front axle...oh wait, you said cheap...just junk the whole thing and put a SFA under it and big tires. ALWAYS comes out cheaper than trying to make the IFS better.

Oh, and GM won because the 1 tons were the majority of the contract and the drivetrain similarities between the CUCV's and the HMMWV's. However knowning GM I'm sure they also bid looooooooow. Then again it was all common available parts in their trucks so it was easy for them to do. Not to mention (keep in mind I said I don't mind TTB) but look at the Blazer's suspension setup and the Bronco's TTB and which do you think the Army folks would want to have to maintain and work on?

 

[allrevup]

I'am a Chevy guy, but worked selling Fords for a few years. I Have a stock 1991 Bronco E.B. 5.0 and prefer its ride over the K5, I like the power curve of the stock 5.0 better then the chevy 5.7 (but love G.M. parts interchageabillity and POWER built Bowtie engines) but the Ford are also a bit more expensive to upgrade no personal prolong experience with the highlly regarded 5.8, the Ford interior ergonomics are much better, do not like working on the Ford engine bay and hate the electric system. One of the all time SUV favorites and one of my favorites Full Size to have would have to be the '78 or '79(?) Bronco, SFA and 9" Ford rears and D60, NP205, SB or BB. My '84/'91 SWB Chevy truck has a Dynatrac propietary built D60 based on the Ford high pinion angle housing and with HD ball joints and Nuckles and spindles and acording to their gurus is 3X times stronger then a HD D60, the guy told me the king pin style built to the ultimate oviouslly would be stronger, but with 3 X stronger. Would it matter any way? and ball joint are tighter, cheaper and easier to exchange. With ALL the modifications that most people do to their vehicles, to inmpruve and personalise their vehicles does it really matter if individual componets in any given weight rating are stronger then the other? Sales competition among the manufacturers do a pretty god job of keping it close, base on price point and weight class. I really haite the Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Cummings,D'max, PowerStroke thing. As they say in football "On any given Sunday" the correct SUMME of parts and application, rules not the individual components. For us leaving here in the United States, any of then is right for YOU, that would be different if I live in another continent as the considerations and the solutions to my needs would be different...

 

[Dabba]

i too would love to have a first gen bronco

 

[chupa]

Dang it. I already forwarded that Ted Nugent thing to some friends.

 

[chevymike]

I don't know about Ford but it looks that if Dodge made a version of a CUCV. It looks like the main box is the same as a M1010 but they have the front part which I assume made it more aerodynamic.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

That's the old 70's M88x family. Lead to the GM CUCV as the Dodges weren't built heavy duty enough (as in only 3/4 ton, not a slight on the trucks per say).

 

[ssgtcampbell77]

Dodge made the M880, didn't do so well though.

 

[trucknut]

The "combatt" program run by tacom eight to ten years ago had a solid Ford presence and paved the way improvements on the fords in Iraq etc.

 

[Dodgeman1941]

COMBATT was built on a '99 F350 with F450 axles. I got a chance to monkey around with the prototype some 3-4 years ago. Neat truck but WAY to many bells and whistles and that is probably what killed the program.

 

[cucv1833]

I just seen a 1990s FORD BRONCO CUCV a few weeks at Ft. POLK it was still operational I thought it was a M1009 then i got closer and confirmed it was a BRONCO it was all legit had the proper woodland paint job and all i didnt notice any B/O lights or anything .before posting a new thread i found this one and decided to chime in. sorry no pictures
They aslo have a new Combat town with a CUCV graveyard on the side of it mostly M1031 that was cool to see.

 

[gijoe]

It would look like a bronco with green paint or camo paint with a light duty brush gruard and a 6.9L diesel engine.

 

[isaacucv]

Actually, the TTB lifts are expensive by my standards, too - but about 1/3 the price of a GM IFS. I am comparing apples to apples - same year vehicle.

As far as axle strength, it didn't start in '91. GM has had the weakest axles since the introduction of the 10-bolt in, what, '77? Ford tried the 8.8 in 1/2-tons for awhile, and even though it is stronger than the 10-bolt, they still realized it simply wasn't enough for a 1/2-ton pickup, and they went bigger. Dodge has always had good strength, at least in the rear. Only GM is using toothpick axles to this day.

My guess on why GM got the CUCV contract? Two words - "lowest bidder".

Its crazy to think that the lowest bidder came in at $32990.00 for the M1008. Think what you could buy for 33g's today

 

[AJMBLAZER]

I just seen a 1990s FORD BRONCO CUCV a few weeks at Ft. POLK it was still operational I thought it was a M1009 then i got closer and confirmed it was a BRONCO it was all legit had the proper woodland paint job and all i didnt notice any B/O lights or anything .before posting a new thread i found this one and decided to chime in. sorry no pictures
They aslo have a new Combat town with a CUCV graveyard on the side of it mostly M1031 that was cool to see.

Somebody made it then. There never was a military Bronco.

GM got the contract due to being the only maker at the time that used a diesel in their light trucks and SUV's (very early 80's) and parts commonality with the HMMWV's driveline.

 

[Danger Ranger]

I thought the M880 was a 1 1/4 ton??? And I was fairly certian on this. Did I miss something?