M1008 VS M1028 for Fuel Ecconomy?

[Loco_Hosa]

I just read something that said the M1028 is over a thousand pounds heavier than the M1008, despite the M1008 being rated as a 1.25 ton, and the M1028 only being a 3/4 ton. This surprised me and got me thinking.

I have been thinking a 3/4 ton is what I want, better fuel millage, less weight, ect. Now, after reading that, and finding out they are HEAVIER, I might prefer a M1008....

 

[CCATLETT1984]

the 1028 is not a 3/4 truck.

the only difference between the 1008 and the 1028 is that the 1028 has a limited slip in the front axle.

The dually 1028A1 and A2 are heavier, but are still not 3/4ton trucks.

 

[319]

The operators manual shows the curb weight of the M1008 at 5900 lbs and the M1028 at 5800 lbs. They are both 1-1/4 ton trucks. However the payload capacity is 2800 lbs for the 1008 and 3600 lbs for the M1028. I've read (unknown if true) that the M1028 has extra leafs on the rear springs. On the other hand, the M1009 is 5200 lbs curb weight and 3/4 ton. All according to the operators manual.

 

[JohnFire]

The M1028 also is rated higher than the M1008. That might be what you are thinking of. The M1008 has a GVW of 8800 lbs the curb weight is 5900 lbs, while the M1028 has a GVW rating of 9350 lbs and a curb weight of 5750 lbs according to the transportability TM.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Just out of curiosity where did you read this? It's wrong at any rate but I'm curious to know.

 

[m4A1]

The M1028 does have an overload spring that the M1008 does not have. The mileage are similar, I'm getting 15 with my M1028 in city driving but I have a gearvender on mine. Hopefully soon a turbo.

 

[JohnFire]

I just pulled it directly from the Transportability Guidance that you can download from the sticky at the top of the CUCV threads in the manual section. I know my tag on the M1028 say GVW9400 but I thought it was best to post what the manual stated.

Though the -20 states M1008 curb weight is 5900 lbs and GVW 8800 lbs. The M1028 curb weight of 5800 lbs and GVW 9400 lbs. Leave it to the army to not have their information match in their manuals.

 

[Croatan_Kid]

I, too, would assume that the M1028 would weigh a little more than the M1008

It's strange though, I've weighed my truck at the local scrap yard with a full tank of fuel, me, the lift, and the added weight of my XZLs. It only weighed in at 5940 pounds. Strange indeed!

Also, I get about 15 MPG with the swapped in 700R4

 

[Loco_Hosa]

CHEVROLET 3/ 4 TON, 4X4 M1028 CARGO TRUCK

M1008 Tactical Cargo, 1.25 ton

Thanks for clearing that up for me

 

[Loco_Hosa]

I think I want an M1009 more any way... Sounds like they have the better top speed, and the better fuel economy.... Much better for my plans.

M1028 will be coming a little down the road when I am ready to build a gallons per mile 4wd rig....

 

[Rebelpride]

I get 17-20mpg in my M1009, and have gotten 17mpg in my stock M1008 when I drove it home at 55mph.

 

[Croatan_Kid]

X2

I got 17 when my M1008 was bone stock I contribute the 2 MPG loss (even with overdrive) to wind drag, heavier tires, and the extra weight in general.

 

[wsucougarx]

I'm getting 20-21 w/my 2001.5 3/4 ton Dodge Ram w/High Output 6-speed Cummins Turbo Diesel :-0

 

[Elwenil]

It's also important to note that the military is generous in their weight ratings. A M1008 is rated at 1 1/4 ton by the military but for all intents and purposes is basically equal to a stock 1 ton civilian model. It may have heavier springs than the civi model but the axles are the same and the axle capacity is the limitation for weight ratings in most trucks. A M1009 is rated as a 3/4 ton but the majority of the drivetrain is identical to a stock 1/2 ton GM Blazer/Jimmy. Perhaps the military can expect these trucks to haul the greater weight with the high level of maintenance that they are expected to see but I wouldn't use the increased rating as a guide when buying one for civilian purposes.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

I'm getting 20-21 w/my 2001.5 3/4 ton Dodge Ram w/High Output 6-speed Cummins Turbo Diesel :-0

...and this matters in any way how?

It's also important to note that the military is generous in their weight ratings. A M1008 is rated at 1 1/4 ton by the military but for all intents and purposes is basically equal to a stock 1 ton civilian model. It may have heavier springs than the civi model but the axles are the same and the axle capacity is the limitation for weight ratings in most trucks. A M1009 is rated as a 3/4 ton but the majority of the drivetrain is identical to a stock 1/2 ton GM Blazer/Jimmy. Perhaps the military can expect these trucks to haul the greater weight with the high level of maintenance that they are expected to see but I wouldn't use the increased rating as a guide when buying one for civilian purposes.

You've got it backwards. The military ratings are the more realistic. Also the M1009's are rated as 5/8 tons I believe.
Just as a modern 1/2 ton pickup can tow and haul more than a 1 ton could 30 years ago or a 2 ton could 40 years ago the "1/2" ton, "3/4" ton, "1" ton etc ratings have become more of a class description than an actual capability description. You don't think a 1954 Chevy 1/2 ton and a 2009 Chevy 1/2 ton can tow and haul the same amount, do you?
The springs are also standard GM parts with regular GM part numbers or anything. The M1008's just got the regular K30 springs and the 1028's had the highest GVWR configuration GM had. The whole idea was for as many of these trucks' parts to be common, available, and cheap.


Oy I'm getting sick of repeating this.

 

[Elwenil]

I'm not comparing CUCVs to trucks 60 years old or to trucks that are brand new. There is an '85 K5 Blazer in my family with the same axles as a M1009 and I would not trust it to be considered a 3/4 capacity in any way. I look at the military ratings the same way I do the fact that I can buy license for a 1/2 ton truck in VA with a 10k lbs rating. Sure, the tag says I can haul 10k lbs but when I get pulled over they are going to look at the GVWR rating on the tag in the door frame, not what tags I bought. If that axle is rated by the manufacturer at "X" amount of weight, I don't think the military rating is really the more realistic of the two. Sure, the manufacturer probably adds in a margin of safety for their liability but I think that's a good thing for all concerned. I can add heavier springs and a more powerful engine to my Ramcharger and say it can haul or two more but the bottom line is I still have the same axles and the same braking system. It's an illusion. Same with the Dodge M880s. The idea that a Dodge with a front D44 axle is 1 1/4 ton is sort of laughable to me. Either way I'll stick with the manufacturer ratings than the military's oddly inflated ratings. They rate conservatively on most other vehicles so I it odd that they inflate the lightest trucks in the fleet. My Ramcharger now has front and rear D60 axles. Does that make it really a 1 ton Ramcharger? Not really and no DOT or State Police would accept that as an excuse for me hauling too much weight.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Just read the manufacturer's capacity specs on the trucks. You'll find they can haul more than 1 ton. This is why the military considers them 1.25 ton trucks.

The M1009/K5 issue is the same. Granted I think 10 bolts suck donkey balls but eh, GM gave us what they gave us.

Didn't know the M880 series was considered a 1.25 ton as well...that is a bit worrisome.

 

[Recovry4x4]

Didn't know the M880 series was considered a 1.25 ton as well...that is a bit worrisome.

M715 too is rated at 1 1/4 ton.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

The M715 at least has the old school D60 and D70 axles. They're not up to the strength of their later ancestors but they're better than what GM, Ford, and Dodge were putting in their 1 ton pickups of the era.

 

[jj]

Uh, the 1/2, 3/4, or 1-ton ratings haven't seemed to have any real connection to reality for quite some time. I had both a 72 and a 73 "one-ton" rated Chevy or GMC at one point. Both were dual rear wheels, both had a 60" CA wheelbase and both were rated by GM and licensed by the penna. DOT at 11,000 lb GVW. And they both weighed about 6,000 lbs empty. That means GM and PENNDOT said it was legal and safe for me to haul TWO and a half tons (11,000 minus 6,000 equals 5,000). Did i, regularly? You bet. Did i feel safe? Never gave it a second thought other than the basic common sense one about "This ain't no sports car". Did i hurt the trucks? I don't recall any heavy structural repairs and i sold each truck for more than i paid for them. I do not remember what the axle beneath the 72 looked like, but the 73, and my current 79, both had 14 bolt full floaters. The very same axle beneath the M-1008. And most, if not all of the parts inside are the same. Even the brake drums are the same, between the single wheel and the dual wheel. I've bought junkyard single wheel hub/brake drum assemblies because the yard wanted less for them than the dual wheel hub/ brake drum assembly. The difference is which side of the hub the drum sits on.
That is a long winded way of saying that the military weight rating is no more or less optimistic than the civilian ratings. And any of these trucks can haul more than the so- called 3/4 ton or 1-ton "ratings". Just remember that they are 20- plus year old vehicles and they "weren't not never no sports cars".