Do I really want a M1009? (MPG)

[ryan77]

Rust, Rust and more Rust. It is your enemy! Watch out for rust around rear wheel wells. It takes over very quick if you don't stay on top of it. If your truck still has it's rubber floor covering. Remove it. Military was supposed to remove it. Traps water and can rust your floors out. Army guys left windows open all the time. Just my 2 cents. If hard starting in cold weather and cool days, replace fuel pressure switch located in the Stanadyne 80 fuel filter base, only on military trucks.

I agree with the remove the mat! My m1009 i just got from gov deals still had it! I removed it, and the floor has more holes then the Iraqi navy!!

 

[JSF01]

i did a cross country trip two weeks ago in my M1009 and got about 18 MPG the whole way, while towing a 70 somthing mini on a car doly. Keep it at about 55 and you will do fine with gas milage. when I was driving through and around yellow stone I averaged 21 MPG and that was doing only 45 tops and lots of good steep hills. On flat ground at 55 mph not towing I would gues 23-24 MPG is possible.

 

[Lothar]

I would suggest that, if it is possible, try to overcome the mpg hang up. I realize times are tough and some may be unable to afford extra expenses. However, its been my personal experience that the pleasure of owning, driving, and improving MVs is well worth every extra penny that I have invested. I am currently taking a stay at home vacation, and have,so far, spent the majority of time playing with and adding bells and whistles to my truck. It occurred to me a couple nights ago that MVs could, quite possibly, be the cure for post retirement boredom. Good luck in your decision.
I say go for it!

 

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I'm getting 13MPG at 65mph mostly highway driving.
A little better than my POS 2000 Dodge Ram 2500 gas engine.

 

[Bane]

i feel the poster will get rid of it as fast as He can after experiencing all these trucks are, some of us actually love all of it, but if MPGs are a big concern to be honest the poster is in the wrong forum

I specifically said I wasn't looking to buy the truck for fuel efficiency, but I wanted to know what to expect because a friend estimated I would get 5 MPG driving the tuck home. I am in the right forum because I wanted to talk to actual 1009 owners about it instead of taking the word of someone who has never driven or worked on one before.

If your counting pennies let me add this into the equation. Because of the poor quality of todays ULSD diesel you will have to figure a lubricity additive as well for the longevity of the IP. Average price $8 to $10 a bottle which can do up to 4 tanks.

Already know well about the ULSD issue, thanks for pointing it out though. Actually, I have contacted a few people about both 1009's and civilian Blazers, and I have been asking them if they are running additives in the fuel. About 3 out of 5 of the sellers I've spoken to have said they just run straight diesel. I think they didn't know anything about the need for lubricity in the fuel. When they tell me they are running straight diesel, I am turned off from buying it. I figure if they are driving it on straight ULSD, the IP might fail at any time. Should I not be so concerned about that?

Real world is 15-17MPG empty with no cargo, tools, etc. Load it up to go camping 12-15, add a large trailer, 12mpg over hills and in traffic. Out in the open on Flat roads with no stop and go 20 is possible.

i did a cross country trip two weeks ago in my M1009 and got about 18 MPG the whole way, while towing a 70 somthing mini on a car doly. Keep it at about 55 and you will do fine with gas milage. when I was driving through and around yellow stone I averaged 21 MPG and that was doing only 45 tops and lots of good steep hills. On flat ground at 55 mph not towing I would gues 23-24 MPG is possible.

I'm getting 13MPG at 65mph mostly highway driving.
A little better than my POS 2000 Dodge Ram 2500 gas engine.

Three very different results, 13 MPG highway, 15-17 MPG empty and 18 MPG towing. These are the type of numbers that make me confused. Seems like modifications might really be altering fuel economy for some folks, stock vehicles couldn't possibly vary this much in fuel economy, could they?

I would suggest that, if it is possible, try to overcome the mpg hang up. I realize times are tough and some may be unable to afford extra expenses. However, its been my personal experience that the pleasure of owning, driving, and improving MVs is well worth every extra penny that I have invested. I am currently taking a stay at home vacation, and have,so far, spent the majority of time playing with and adding bells and whistles to my truck. It occurred to me a couple nights ago that MVs could, quite possibly, be the cure for post retirement boredom. Good luck in your decision.
I say go for it!

I'm not hung up on it, but it's going to be my only truck and I just want to know what I am getting into. I will count on it out of necessity being my only truck, so I want to make sure it will do what I want. I am also looking forward to it being a fun project, thanks!

You guys seem to think I am so concerned about cost of operating that I ought to be driving a Prius or something. I was about to drive out to CA and buy a Blazer this weekend and my friend shocks me when he says he thought it would have taken me 65 gallons of diesel to get it home. Of course, cost is important, but it's not just about cost. I have friends who go out on 4x4 trips and they get out pretty far from a gas stations. I want to be able to join them, that's part of the reason I want this vehicle! When my friend told me he thought we would have to make 3 gas station stops driving home from CA (just 275 miles), it started to worry me that I would never be able to take the 1009 out on a camping trip because I won't be able to make it home! It's not just the money, I want a vehicle I can cover some serious ground with. I was wondering about adding an auxiliary fuel tank for those long trips, but even with an extra 30 gallons, 5 MPG isn't going to get me anywhere.

 

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Yes Vehicle MPG varies with the user, engine condition roads ect. As in any vehicle.

You're not going to get 5 MPG, your friend doesn't know what he's talking about.

As JSF01 pointed out, he drives at 55mph to get 18. I drive 65-70. That 10 mPH easily could make a 4 or 5 MPG difference.

 

[Lothar]

Maybe this will help you decide. If you buy it and find you don't like it, I would be willing to buy it from you for a tiny fraction of what you originally paid. On a more serious note: With proper maintenance and preparation for cold weather sounds like this truck will do well for you. I have several larger trucks that I drive for work, and when I get to take the CUCV off road, it seems as if it has all wheel steering the way it gets around. If you can accept that it will take time, money, and work to get it just right, then you are sure to love it. Besides, what fun can you possibly have with a Prius? Other than running it over, I mean.
Also, on the friend not knowing what he's talking about.

 

[JSF01]

Three very different results, 13 MPG highway, 15-17 MPG empty and 18 MPG towing. These are the type of numbers that make me confused. Seems like modifications might really be altering fuel economy for some folks, stock vehicles couldn't possibly vary this much in fuel economy, could they?

Well I can not speak for other people but my truck is pretty much stock. I will admit that I was using some additives while making those runs, which might help explain some what what I get compared to the other figures combined with keeping it at 55 mph. Its also important to remember that these trucks are all arounf 25 years old. Parts do get worn out over time, which will affect fuel efficancy. For example it may be that other people that said those lower MPG estimates based on their trucks preformance, might have injectors that are more worn than mine (or even the reverse for all I know). it could also be they have modified there trucks to get a little more power out of them at the cost of fuel efficency. Of course fo not discount what they are saying since if you do decide to get one it may get more around what they get. No two trucks are the same to begin with, over 25 years of being used differently in differant conditions, differances become much more profound.

 

[BIG_RED]

As injector pumps wear out or get out-of-time, these trucks lose MPG's. My M1009 got 18.6 MPG out of the last tank I kept records on with the truck full of junk in the back (probably 500+ LBs) with three people in it (one on the floor between the seats) on a 230ish mile highway trip on mostly flat ground at 60-65 MPH with some passing of RV's mixed in, followed by 4 days commute to work and back. My truck has 83,000 Miles on her. I have heard of people getting in the low twenties MPG's in 6.2 diesel trucks. Depends on the truck, driver, temperature, fuel supplier, air filter clean, tires inflated, front hubs disengaged, etc. My truck gets like 10 MPG fully loaded in 4X4 through 12+" of snow in -30* blizzards. My friends newish f150 gets like 16 mpg - I'd rather have my M1009.

 

[WARWAG]

My 2005 Dodge Power wagon got 15 mpg going down hill with a strong wind behind it. My 2013 Dodge 2500 Diesel got 16 mpg at best. My work 2012 Chevy3500 Duramax was never great on economy either. Maybe 16 or so. Don't remember but it sucked. My buddies M1009 was getting a consistent 18 mpg before he put the Banks turbo on it. After the turbo install it was a new vehicle to him. He was able to climb hills and on flats he swears he was getting 23 mpg all day. He drove to my house in Ely Nevada back then and he averaged 21. Thats with hills and flats combined. He had stock size tires and stock gearing. My next CUCV will be a M1009. I will put a turbo on it. To be fair he also installed a rebuilt injector pump and new injectors when he installed the Banks Turbo. BUT that is still a huge improvement. If I hadn't of found that M1010 (was looking for a M1009) with such low miles on it I would have picked up a M1009. There were no M1009s listed and I haven't seen a good one in awhile. Looks like I will have to buy one from a private citizen. If you find a good one grab it. You will see about 18 MPG and for a bit of work can increase that greatly. Most new trucks don't even get that MPG.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Mine gets around 20mpg highway, and probably about 15 city. Fuel economy is part of the reason I chose this truck. I'm a big guy and need to drive a bigger vehicle, and after my last truck, an 89 Bronco with a 351 gas motor that got me 10/13 mpg, I knew I needed to do better.

 

[Gripy]

LA to barstow is at MOST 10 gal for me in my m1008. Including pretrip grocery shopping. Which works out to at least 15mpg. A 26gal blazer with the 3.08 gears should be able to get you from LA to vegas on one tank.
But, I do recommend stopping by the "food 4 less? (kroger store)" in barstow to refuel. They seem to have very reasonable fuel prices.

 

[Drock]

I know we're talking M1009's here but I thought I'd list my numbers incase it helps... M1028,.. Banks turbo,.. Gear vendors over drive,.. stock 31" tires,.. stock 4.56 gears,.. Best so far 13.84MPG- highway 70-80 MPH... I found by eliminating the Banks muffler and installing a glass pack gave me 1MPG.. Also I did the same ATL route once at 55MPH and forgot to check MPG's, but it was significantly better buy about half a tank. For this reason my next set of tires will be 33" in hopes of saving some more MPG's..

 

[richingalveston]

stock form I got 20+ MPG in both 1009's that I had, both had 33 inch off road tires.

With my 1009 in current form (see sig. line for mods) I am getting 18 hwy at 70mph. and 15 city (same as 2014 duramax I have)
My current setup the drivetrain is actually a 1008 with the OD tranny and 39 inch tires.

Rich

 

[2deuce]

The CUCV is anything but aerodynamic, so anything over 55 starts moving air. The M1009 starts to sound wound up above 65mph, these 2 things really limit mileage. I believe the military made this truck to achieve very good mileage running in a convoy. If you can keep your speed at 50mph you will find incredible mileage is possible. I have tested my mileage by filling my tank to the same height in the filler neck at the same pump. The long and short of it is if you try to save fuel you can save a lot. Headwinds and tailwinds, use of brakes, acceleration,tire pressure and speed, especially speed have an effect. On a long trip cruising at 60 yields about 22mph max. Once my son followed me while I was towing a Mutt with a HMMWV, so my speed was about 50 tops. Half of this trip was on the interstate and half was on state highways. The trip was about 170 miles with some elevation changes on the state highway of about 1000' max and the CUCV got 30mph. I was really surprised it used so little fuel, but the speed was extremely steady and 50mph.

 

[Drock]

The CUCV is anything but aerodynamic, so anything over 55 starts moving air. The M1009 starts to sound wound up above 65mph, these 2 things really limit mileage. I believe the military made this truck to achieve very good mileage running in a convoy. If you can keep your speed at 50mph you will find incredible mileage is possible. I have tested my mileage by filling my tank to the same height in the filler neck at the same pump. The long and short of it is if you try to save fuel you can save a lot. Headwinds and tailwinds, use of brakes, acceleration,tire pressure and speed, especially speed have an effect. On a long trip cruising at 60 yields about 22mph max. Once my son followed me while I was towing a Mutt with a HMMWV, so my speed was about 50 tops. Half of this trip was on the interstate and half was on state highways. The trip was about 170 miles with some elevation changes on the state highway of about 1000' max and the CUCV got 30mph. I was really surprised it used so little fuel, but the speed was extremely steady and 50mph.

Yeah my M1028 gets the identical MPG loaded as it does unloaded (13.84). Which leads me to believe that MPG is RPM, not load related. I'm hoping 33" tall tires will be an improvement.

 

[2deuce]

The higher you are up in the air, the more air drag you will have. My experience is you will not see any improvement unless you keep your speed down to 50.

 

[wayne461]

I had an M1031 with the Banks turbo and a 700R4 that got 25 mpg. I wired the torque converter so I could manually lock it up which probably helped.

 

[FrankenCub]

I think as long as you start with a good and solid 1009 to start with you should be fine. I don't have one yet, but my 1008 with 4.56 gears got me a best of 18mpg. I bought it to use as a truck and wasn't a bit concerned about mileage, I was pleasantly shocked when I seen how good it was. The K5 design is a brick on wheels to begin with, weather conditions can account for some reports of lower mileage. The wind on a K5 is highly noticeable. But overall I don't think your friend knows the 6.2 very well. Another thing to consider is fixing what breaks. In all the years I've been doing all my own vehicle repairs and working as a mechanic in garages, the military TM's are by far the best documentation I've ever run across for troubleshooting and repair. That right there is a huge plus! My first repair before I could even drive my 1008 was the IP, turned out to be a really simple venture. Especially when the TM's are so good.
You should check them out, it'll help make up your mind.

 

[LastFbody]

I've squeezed 20 mpg highway out of my m1009, but I think it's still running slightly rich even after I tweaked the fuel delivery down. More commonly I get about 18 highway, 13-14 city. It's not gonna win any awards for efficiency, but when you compare it to a gasser k5 that does 10-11 city and maybe gets 16 highway with overdrive, it looks pretty darn good.

Worst I ever got was 12.5 combined. But that was running pretty rich, beat up probably original air filter with the foam ring, old fuel filter, and a trans that didn't like holding 3rd speed... Yeahhh it wasn't doing so hot before I started tinkering. Kinda wish I would have gone with some sort of 4 speed auto and a little lower axle ratio instead of fixing the TH400 when I had the chance, but hindsight is 20/20.

Edit: Important note. Figure out what % wrong your speedometer is and factor that into calculating mpg. Mine runs ~10% slow. Was getting real pissed at the mileage I was getting until I realized that was an issue.