M1008 VS M1028 for Fuel Ecconomy?

[AJMBLAZER]

'72 would have had one of the BEEG Eaton 3rd member rear ends. Big round housing.

 

[jj]

And it wouldn't have had a rear cover, would it? You are almost certainly correct, it has been at least 20 years since i saw that truck. I put a dump bed on it while i owned it, even with all of that weight, the granny gear 4-spd, the absurd gears in the axle, and the mystery modified 350 engine, it would still chirp the dual wheels when empty. And it still got better gas mileage at 50MPH than my 79 with the ALUMINUM flat bed does. Go figure.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

They did actually have a rear cover. Confuses a lot of people.

 

[ida34]

I have an F-350 1 ton with a 12,000 lbs gross rating. The truck is 6000 lbs so it is actually a 3 ton truck.

 

[Elwenil]

I think we are all on the same page but just looking at it from different angles. Basically all I am saying is that I wouldn't look at the M1009 as some sort of heavy duty truck and that I would use the same caution and common sense when hauling with one as I would with a K5 Blazer of the same era. Ditto for the M1008, the military and civilian classifications may be different but for all intents and purposes you aren't going to get away with putting more weight on an M1008 before doing damage to the truck than you would with a SRW 1 ton GM truck of the same era. We all know that you can put more weight on a civilian model than what they are rated for but we normally modify our driving to take the extra weight into consideration. I just don't want anyone really thinking like a local CUCV does. He seems to think that his M1009 is superior to any 1/2 ton truck and when I commented on the fact that the axles were the same as my grandmother's '85 K5 Blazer, he voiced his opinion that the 6 lug axles were "every bit as good" as the 8 lug D60s I have under my Ramcharger currently. All brand affiliations aside, such a statement is more than ludicrous.

In other words all I am saying is that aside from a possible spring upgrade and the addition of a diesel engine the trucks are basically the same as their civilian counterparts and not some sort of "super truck".

 

[CUCVFAN]

The problem is that people are used to seeing meaningless civvy ratings, but the military is VERY LITERAL with their ratings.

5/4-ton = 2500lbs.
3/4-ton = 1500lbs.
M1008 payload = 2900lbs. minus 400lb. crew weight = 2500lb. = 5/4-ton
M1009 payload = 1200lbs. = 3/5-ton
The M1009 rating is slightly less than 3/4-ton, but it is only expected to carry people (4@200lb = 800lb) and some minimal payload (400lbs). Really, it should probably have been rated at 1/2-ton, but it's a 25 year old contract, so who cares. Maybe someone made a typo and it stuck?

If you look at a M1028, it's more than a 1 & 1/2-ton truck when you actually consider what it can haul and a CUCV dually is a 2-ton truck (although that includes crew).

But, these are LITERAL values.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

I think we are all on the same page but just looking at it from different angles. Basically all I am saying is that I wouldn't look at the M1009 as some sort of heavy duty truck and that I would use the same caution and common sense when hauling with one as I would with a K5 Blazer of the same era. Ditto for the M1008, the military and civilian classifications may be different but for all intents and purposes you aren't going to get away with putting more weight on an M1008 before doing damage to the truck than you would with a SRW 1 ton GM truck of the same era. We all know that you can put more weight on a civilian model than what they are rated for but we normally modify our driving to take the extra weight into consideration. I just don't want anyone really thinking like a local CUCV does. He seems to think that his M1009 is superior to any 1/2 ton truck and when I commented on the fact that the axles were the same as my grandmother's '85 K5 Blazer, he voiced his opinion that the 6 lug axles were "every bit as good" as the 8 lug D60s I have under my Ramcharger currently. All brand affiliations aside, such a statement is more than ludicrous.

In other words all I am saying is that aside from a possible spring upgrade and the addition of a diesel engine the trucks are basically the same as their civilian counterparts and not some sort of "super truck".

Right...but no one here said that.

1/2 ton and 1 ton are just names basically. The actual capacities listed in the specifications of these trucks are more along the lines of what the Government uses and gives. That's why the government calls these 5/8 ton (M1009) and 1.25 ton (pickups). They're ratings are based off of the actual capacities of the trucks and not mythical sales names GM, Ford, and Dodge put on others.


Gotta love brand loyalists...nothing like half tons and 44's being good enough because their brand put them there to begin with...

 

[jj]

Well, yeah i see your point. The flat green paint does not make them "super trucks" But, all the same, they probably did get every heavy duty part or option the general had up his sleeve in 1984. And "heavy duty" will help any vehicle absorb abuse, to a point. Just because that "1/2 ton rated" pickup has more than a 1000lb difference between the empty weight and the manufacturer's GVW rating doesn't mean it should be loaded to the cab roof with firewood and driven at interstate speeds. And that cat who says 6 lug axles are "every bit as good as" an 8 lug D60 or 14bolt is just the kind of driver to do that sort of thing. Best thing that can happen when you see that sort of nonsense is let the guy pass. That way you get to keep the nut in front of you. And stop before you reach the scene of the eventual accident.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Reminds me of the various old guys I've seen driving around in just about every model of small pickup ever made (S10, Ranger, Mazdas, Toyotas, Isuzus, etc etc etc) loaded over the cab with shit and riding so low the springs are negatively arched.

Some even on the freeway!

 

[jj]

Oh,yeah, about the original question. Common sense says if the empty weight is heavier, than the fuel economy should be nominally lower. The mechanicals are essentially the same, so heavier weight, lower fuel economy. But, it is a small difference in weight, it probably won't make all that much difference. Differences in personal driving habits would probably make more difference in fuel economy. Two cent's worth

 

[swinters]

This is an older thread but just in case someone is using this info to make a decision, there are several items that need to be taken into consideration. First, the curb weight is based on the configuration of what you would get when you ordered the National Stock Number for a particular truck. For instance, the M1008 came with troop seats and a radio rack in the bed. The M1028 was originally a stripped bed with no tailgate but it did have some heavy tie-down brackets for the M250 Shelter it was designed to carry. It also had overload springs that the M1008 didn't have. Also, when comparing to civilian trucks you have to take all of the engineering considerations into account. For instance, the equivalent civilian truck axles will handle the 1 1/4 ton weight just fine (and more, actually) but the civilian 1 ton brakes won't stop like the 1 1/4 tons. You can bolt on a civilian master cylinder but you lose braking capacity (check the part numbers and specs) compared to the CUCV's. To classify it as a 1 1/4 ton it not only had to carry it but also had to be able to stop with a full load on it. Kinda makes sense.

 

[Cucvnut]

why did you bring up a almost 4 year old thread?

 

[skysix]

Threads

why did you bring up a almost 4 year old thread?

Why does it matter? - Maybe he had something to ask or say..

In any event I was told in training (Canada) that the 5/4, 2.5 and 5 ton military ratings were their capacities offroad, and that highway ratings were twice that. So carrying 2500# offroad should cause no problems at all. 5000# on the highway might be pushing it but I've seen cive K-30's with GVW's of 10120#, same spring pack/axles/brakes as the M1028, which is 720# heavier than the military limit of 9400# so cargo should also go up from 3600# to 4320#

 

[jimmyzwei]

why did you bring up a almost 4 year old thread?

I think it might be because that's what we are always told in this forum, search search, search and don't start a new thread. Add info to the old one so it is all in one place. really just a reader at this point, but will try not to make mistake that will get me in trouble.

 

[Davepo99]

local scrap yard

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

Yea scrap yards scales are usually a few hundred pounds are usually read lighter
I wonder why....?
my 1986 m1008 weighed in at 5400 with a empty tank

 

[hotbox]

Don't care about mpg on my 1028. Run mine on WVO! I did swap axles with a 1009. Gives me a 3:08 ratio and run 33 inch rubber. It runs all day at interstate speeds.

 

[rickf]

Don't care about mpg on my 1028. Run mine on WVO! I did swap axles with a 1009. Gives me a 3:08 ratio and run 33 inch rubber. It runs all day at interstate speeds.

You put 1/2 ton axles on a 5/4 ton truck?

 

[Sharecropper]

TIRES.

Tires make a big difference in fuel economy. Tall skinny tires (my preference) have less rolling resistance than wide fat tires. I haven't had my truck out of the shop long enough to check mileage (rebuilding the IP now) but will check it after I get my speedometer calibrated.

 

[rickf]

why did you bring up a almost 4 year old thread?

I think it might be because that's what we are always told in this forum, search search, search and don't start a new thread. Add info to the old one so it is all in one place. really just a reader at this point, but will try not to make mistake that will get me in trouble.

Got you there!

 

[islandguydon]

Same weight by 100 lbs and the same 6.2 I would guess the MPG is about the same, makes logical sense. The extra 100 lbs would be the difference in the front axle and the suspension. If you think about it my girlfriend weights 105 so think of it that way. No big deal.