Why do people bash the CUCV?

[True Knight]

Cause it looks way better than any other truck when completely covered in mud!

 

[m16ty]

Here's my take on it. Alot of civilain vehicle people don't like them because they aren't a civilain vehicle. Alot of MV people don't like them because they're really not a tactical MV either. They are kind of an orphan.

The 6.2 is kind of weak out on road but so are most other MVs (they will outrun a deuce empty after all).

With all that being said, I think they're ok vehicles for what they are. If I can find one worth the money I've been thinking about buying a CUCV just as a "knock around" truck to try and keep some miles off of my current DD ('98 Dodge Cummins).

 

[Wmwaller]

I am planning to check out an M1009 this weekend. I have an old farm that I need to access and the mini van just ain't cutting it. That being said, I am looking for a vehicle that will hold four people, has 4x4, can tow a 3500 lb camper, and can take the occassional scratch from a tree branch. I don't intend to go mudding, but I wouldlike a tough dependable vehicle. Should I even be looking at the CUCVs?

 

[Cucvnut]

I have heard the M1009 is not the best for towing

 

[sarge1]

Here's my take on it. Alot of civilain vehicle people don't like them because they aren't a civilain vehicle. Alot of MV people don't like them because they're really not a tactical MV either. They are kind of an orphan.

The 6.2 is kind of weak out on road but so are most other MVs (they will outrun a deuce empty after all).

With all that being said, I think they're ok vehicles for what they are. If I can find one worth the money I've been thinking about buying a CUCV just as a "knock around" truck to try and keep some miles off of my current DD ('98 Dodge Cummins).

I bought mine as a 3rd vehicle to keep the miles down on my other two vehicles. Other reasons for buying were to have an older extra vehicle to wrench on, yet not being stranded at home with no operating transportation and my work doesn't always have the dregs of society very happy with me so if they decide to take it out on my truck, I won't be too distraught.

 

[Cucvnut]

I bought mine for a wheeler. the M1008 IMO is the best wheeling truck to buy from the military. plus it has a huge civvy after market. and its easy to work on.

 

[Gottlos]

I was looking at two vehicles when I bought my M1009. I wanted a vehicle to do some trail driving and perhaps survive the Mojave Trail. Something that, as mentioned earlier, I wouldn't be devistated if a tree reached out and bit it. I was torn between the first gen (60's/70's) Toyota Land Cruisers and the K5 Blazer. All the Toy's were expensive in bad condition, really expensive in good condition and holy **** expensive in nice condition. I was lucky to find an M1009 that was purchased by a company that leases/rents MVs to the movie industry. In ten years the odometer only moved 1,000 miles. With a little work on the transmission and electrical I was in business.

I couldn't be happier with this truck. Tough off road, decent fuel economy on the road, roomy and for all intents and purposes a shoebox of a truck. Just completed the Brooklyn Mine Trail near 29 Palms CA.

 

[Myopic]

Because it's a chevy, built in the mid 80's with a low power engine and full time 4wd.

Those who can't see the value of AWD have simply never owned one.

If the military had spec'd a 350 and a manual transmission in them,umm...
this thread would not exist...

 

[McCluskey]

Because it's a chevy, built in the mid 80's with a low power engine and full time 4wd.

Those who can't see the value of AWD have simply never owned one.

If the military had spec'd a 350 and a manual transmission in them,umm...
this thread would not exist...

M1009/8/28 have Part-time 4WD. Full-time 4WD is typically referred to as AWD. And isn't AWD a marketing term for Traction Control?

 

[Derrickl112]

I really don't think of them as MV's, they were not designed for the military.

 

[Wmwaller]

About the towing...I was looking at a M1009 that I found on Craigslist in Atlanta. The seller told me that the tow capacity is less with the military trailer (with pintel hitch). He said that a class 3 (standard ball) hitch would allow me to tow my 3500lb camper. He said that it wouldn't be the best experience, but that the blazer could handle it. Is that true or was he trying to make a sale?

 

[mktopside]

Just sayin..........

 

[jdemaris]

Yes . . . I've heard many BS stories and "pipe dreams" about diesel fuel mileage for 50 years.

There is not a K5 Blazer with a 6.2 on the planet that gets 26 MPG. Best case is a C-code Blazer with stock 15" tires, overdrive trans and no torque converter slippage, 3.08 axle ratios and driven at sea level with high-sulfur fuel. That can get 21 MPG at 65 MPH on a flat highway.

A military type Blazer with 3.08 axles, fat tires, and a T400 trans will get around 16 MPG average all-around mileage and 18-20 MPH on a flat highway run.

I do know of a Blazer with a 3.9 liter turbo Cummins that can get up to 25 MPG.

 

[jdemaris]

About the towing...I was looking at a M1009 that I found on Craigslist in Atlanta. The seller told me that the tow capacity is less with the military trailer (with pintel hitch). He said that a class 3 (standard ball) hitch would allow me to tow my 3500lb camper. He said that it wouldn't be the best experience, but that the blazer could handle it. Is that true or was he trying to make a sale?

I towed a 3000 lb camper trailer for 5000 miles with a 6.2 diesel Blazer with a T400 trans and 3.08 axles. Overall fuel use average of 13 MPG and on many steep hills my top speed was 35 MPH. This was a full height camper trailer with lots of wind drag. The wind drag is a bigger factor then the weight. A pop-up trailer will pull much easier.

 

[Wmwaller]

Thanks. Is there an adapter that can be used for the light hook-up or do I need to get a new plug in when the receiver hitch is added?

 

[emr]

That is the first I have heard of that. Since it is only 378 what did they change/take from the 454?

I thought the 6.2 and 6.7 were GMs first diesel engines designed from the get go, unlike the Oldsmobile designs which were converted gas engines.

So much confusing info out there...

That I have heard for years and never had anyone say other wise, I sure would like to hear about it more, I can not remember all that was told to me, to much info to long ago, same block, and bearings? not meant for a diesel maybe, i am asking hear, I am sure some of the really good honest info from some chevy guys here would know more for sure, but with all i said, its a cool truck and for the right price they sure are worth it, but still a dog ... I have had blazers with a 350 and one with a 454, and man they are miles ahead of the 6.2 in ability, but now thats my opinion from use...

 

[Cucvnut]

The 6.2 6.5 motors have no parts in commen with the BBC at all. Its a Detroit Diesel motor not designed by Chevrolet.

 

[Bighurt]

And isn't AWD a marketing term for Traction Control?

Nope there is a difference there to. You can have 4wd and traction control as well as Awd and Traction control. Same traction control different gearing. Although you will always see Awd with some sort of traction control.

Yes the CUCV is 4wd as the front is not always engaged.

 

[dave wells]

Yes . . . I've heard many BS stories and "pipe dreams" about diesel fuel mileage for 50 years.

There is not a K5 Blazer with a 6.2 on the planet that gets 26 MPG. Best case is a C-code Blazer with stock 15" tires, overdrive trans and no torque converter slippage, 3.08 axle ratios and driven at sea level with high-sulfur fuel. That can get 21 MPG at 65 MPH on a flat highway.

A military type Blazer with 3.08 axles, fat tires, and a T400 trans will get around 16 MPG average all-around mileage and 18-20 MPH on a flat highway run.

I do know of a Blazer with a 3.9 liter turbo Cummins that can get up to 25 MPG.

i have a m1008 with blazer axles with 3.08 gears and a sm 465 tranny and every thing else is completely stock and i get 27-30 mpg at 60-65 mph

and it will still go anywhere i want it to go with no problem plus great gas so it can be the best of both

 

[jdemaris]

The 6.2 6.5 motors have no parts in commen with the BBC at all. Its a Detroit Diesel motor not designed by Chevrolet.

The only engine I know of that shared anything with the 6.2 diesel, is the old V6 Too GMC diesel 478 c.i. engine. It has the same stroke as the 6.2, but shares no parts. They do both use the Ricardo Comet disesl precombustion chamber design (I think).

After the disaster GM had with using the Oldsmobile 350 gas engine as a platform for the 350 diesel. they gave their Detroit Diesel division to job to design and build a totally new engine. The task was to build an engine that would be a direct power repplacment and direct physical replacent for the 305 V8 gas engine.

Thus the 305 gas small-block had the same horsepower and torque-curve at the 6.2 diesel. And they both share transmission bolt patterns and even the exhaust Y-pipes interchange.

6.2 has 3.98" bore by 3.8" stroke. 6.5 has 4.06" bore by 3.8" stroke.
GMC 478 c.i. V6 diesel used 5.1" bore by 3.8" stroke.
I don't know of any other Chevy or GM gas engines that use that same bore and stroke. Thus it is unique.

Stroke is what pretty much determines the block footprint. Only other engines that GM made that have close to same stroke as the 6.2 diesel are - 235 straight six gas engine with 3.9" stroke, 248 six with 3.8" stroke, 454 V8 with 4" stroke, 396 V8 with 3.76" stroke (and 4.09" bore).