K5 front D/S vs M1009 front D/S

[Anubis8472]

Two different issues here.
The questions about parts is not a question of whether the m1009 has *special* military parts, but whether it has K-5 standard parts.

I keep reading questions about parts followed with responses declaring that the 1009 has no *special* military parts and it's just a K-5. Whether you believe this to be correct or not, it is irrelevent.
The 1009 is not a 'standard' K-5.
It has parts whether they are 'off the shelf' or not, that are not found on the civvy K-5.

The question is not "Can I use a standard K-5 driveshaft, or do I need a *special* military driveshaft", the question is "Does the M1009 use the same driveshaft as the civvy K-5, or is it from some other application."

It would be helpful if someone had one of each they could measure.
To measure you compress the shaft then measure from center to center of furthest U-joint.

I don't know if 80's K-5's all used the same length.
I don't know if GM's effort to standardize DS lengths included the CUCV line.
I do know that when I looked for a front for my 70's K-5 years ago there were several different lengths.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

ALL the suspension, drivetrain, powertrain, etc parts were standard GM K5 parts, save the 3/4 ton TH400/NP208 setup. THat was straight out of a 3/4 ton truck instead of the 700R4 a 1/2 ton would have gotten.

GM kept costs down by using everything they could on the K5's that was OEM original options. CUCV Blazers were built on the same line in Flint, MI as any civilian K5 of the time. I remember driving by and seeing parking lots FULL of them and the next time we'd go by there'd be civilian trucks.
In fact, it's harder to find NOS OEM GM 83-84 specific fullsize parts due to the fact that GM threw them all into the CUCV's. Try finding a GM NOS single headlight grill of that era that doesn't cost hundreds while the 85-88 grilles cost less than half that.
It's all parts bin stuff. Been debated and proven dozens of times. Just keeps coming back up as the membership turns over here.

In the 70's GM had a whole variety of driveshaft lengths due to different powertrain lengths. They decided to simplify things by using spacers that maintained the same lengths in the 80's.

 

[Anubis8472]

ALL the suspension, drivetrain, powertrain, etc parts were standard GM K5 parts, save the 3/4 ton TH400/NP208 setup. THat was straight out of a 3/4 ton truck instead of the 700R4 a 1/2 ton would have gotten.

GM kept costs down by using everything they could on the K5's that was OEM original options. CUCV Blazers were built on the same line in Flint, MI as any civilian K5 of the time. I remember driving by and seeing parking lots FULL of them and the next time we'd go by there'd be civilian trucks.
In fact, it's harder to find NOS OEM GM 83-84 specific fullsize parts due to the fact that GM threw them all into the CUCV's. Try finding a GM NOS single headlight grill of that era that doesn't cost hundreds while the 85-88 grilles cost less than half that.
It's all parts bin stuff. Been debated and proven dozens of times. Just keeps coming back up as the membership turns over here.

In the 70's GM had a whole variety of driveshaft lengths due to different powertrain lengths. They decided to simplify things by using spacers that maintained the same lengths in the 80's.

You seem to be having a comprehension issue.

"parts bin stuff"
Does not equal
"standard K-5"

Your statement about GM standardizing DS lengths is also a generalization and is no garauntee. I've worked on cars long enough to know that two vehicles that came out of the same plant may not have the same parts and that is the question here. Not whether they are "parts bin stuff" as you put it, but whether they are the same as found on the standard K-5.
Instead of saying something like "yes they are the same part" you keep forwarding the CYA statement of "parts bin stuff".
Perhaps the term "standard parts" to you just means "non-military".
I read "standard parts" as "same as on K-5" in which case many parts are not.

There is nothing wrong with checking, measuring, asking about a part being the same. You should do it every time you replace something on your CUCV because there are differences, just ask the guys trying to mount plows.
I don't understand why you feel this is so insulting, it isn't going to stop as long as these 'non-standard' K-5's continue to roll down the road.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Whatever you say bud. Guess I don't know anything. Have a good one.

 

[Miah]

for the time spent pissing & moaning about something a person *could* have looked up the part# in the TSM (7830927/7845043) & then googled those part numbers.

They're 29.58 long(or just 29 1/2 according to the company selling rebuilt shafts...for 1981-1991 Blazer/Jimmy

GM parts wiki shows those part numbers in usage for 305, 350, 292, 4.3, 6.2C, J.

 

[epitts]

What year did GM stop using the Govlock and would those axles work under my M1009?

 

[Cucvnut]

yes. the axles will work.

 

[chevyguy1976]

I wonder how many people have gotten a 1009 and were disapointed to find out it was just a stripped down K-5 with cammo paint? Dont get me wrong they are cool and I want one, but they are just a 1/2 ton blazer.

 

[Cucvnut]

they are still cool because they are a MV. you cant take that away from them. Nothing is wrong with a 1/2 blazer wait all blazers are half ton.

 

[Wildmax]

The M1009 were designated as .75 ton on the option sheet by their mother GM . and so they are .75 ton. It's not nice to fool mother.