Why did the army pick GM? With picture

[cucvrus]

I know why. It's because they are biodegradable!!!!!
View attachment 577722

No I would just add another HD rubber mat on that floor and then wonder why it rusted more. I remember when a notice was sent out by the military to remove all the rubber mats and the jute from the floors of the CUCV's to help prevent the rust. I have a few that had no rubber mat and they are relatively clean even here in South Central PA. The Line X is the best mat. And I must say that CARC holds up well on the floor. I was surprised at the abrasion resistance of CARC.

 

[CUCVLOVER]

My dad has bought a 2015 Chevy 3500 crew cab 4x4 flat bed diesel. In 30 years I will post side by side pics of the green machine (my m1008 ) and his truck. I bet there isn't much left of his.

 

[welpro222]

Newer trucks= Cheaper plastics, smaller gauge wiring, more electronics made in china, cheaper cast aluminum-steel parts, thinner body panels, higher price tag, etc

The only good thing I can think of is better creature comforts and a better quality engine (not counting the electronic injection system)

 

[KaiserM109]

USAF had and has a lot of Ford trucks. Last year I picked up 2 F350 crew cabs at auction that were in pretty good shape. They were both "Off the shelf" F350s, A/C, 351 FI, A/T, and long bed with just a little over 100k on them.

The AF has their own procurement system. They used the M16 rifle before it had been authorized elsewhere. The AF also bought a lot of International Harvester stuff, particularly buses and vehicles used on base.

PS I don't think the AF ever used any M715s. (How many guys just jumped out of their seat and grabbed their mouse?)

 

[welpro222]

Funny thing, I was watching the original Superman The Movie (christopher reeves) last night and the part when Lex blocks the road to gain access to the missiles. The air force was driving ford f-350 crew cabs with cucv like bumpers and canvas covers on the back. This movie was made back in 1977-78

 

[saddamsnightmare]

August 28th, 2015.

I did have a Ford F250 HD 4x4 that was prototyped in 1988-89, somehow it got out, and whenever I needed certain parts (speedometer cable- for an example) nothing Ford had in the inventory matched the truck, plus the axles were excessively heavy for that model. Whatever it was, the trucks still running back in W.Va. after 350 to 400,000 hard miles and beatings equal to a deuce and a half....

When they did use the CUCV's in Desert Storm, the army found out that they really weren't up to tactical vehicle usage in that environment.... At least the M715 and M725 series proved their worth in Vietnam. The M880 Dodges shared the weaknesses that their civilian cousins had at that time and they were in no ways equal to the M37 series that they were to replace.

 

[rustystud]

Have any of you guys seen the NEW replacement for the Hummer ? Looks really cool, but to much electronic crap for my taste.

 

[MarcusOReallyus]

Yeah, a heavy dose of electronics just doesn't sound like a winner on a battlefield. That's one place where we legitimately have to worry about something we are not supposed to discuss here.

 

[rustystud]

Yeah, a heavy dose of electronics just doesn't sound like a winner on a battlefield. That's one place where we legitimately have to worry about something we are not supposed to discuss here.

You hit the nail on the head with that one Marcus !

 

[98G]

. And I must say that CARC holds up well on the floor. I was surprised at the abrasion resistance of CARC.[/QUOTE]

I have painted over CARC, and then decided to redo it and sandblasted the new paint without damage to the underlying CARC.....

 

[patracy]

Yeah, a heavy dose of electronics just doesn't sound like a winner on a battlefield. That's one place where we legitimately have to worry about something we are not supposed to discuss here.

There's a MV that is impervious?

 

[eme411]

Tactical trucks are supposed to get you on and off the battle field ALIVE! they need to stay dumb under the hood and dash, keep the computers in the targeting and comms systems , as for the CUCV I have always wondered why they never tried putting one together using a entire electrical system from the 998 , that would have gotten rid of all the CUCV electrical gremlins,

 

[Jeepsinker]

That's why the lmtv trucks are junk. Too much electronic crap. It's all alright though, in the next war this country gets into the electronic issues will be such a hindrance and thus will begin getting enough people killed that our military will learn this old lesson over again. Simple is reliable, and over complicated may be cool, but it will break down and screw you.

 

[eme411]

hope the US army still has good combat boots, that will be their last option, Canada still has the MLVW (M-35) in service , the last good truck! but I know we have good combat boots!

 

[lonewolf90]

Ford had the hi boy in 77 my grandpa had one don't know if it was military but it had 16.5 inch some other odd stuff the lockout hubs were alot bigger diameter other ford models and the transfer case was not bolted right to the transmission it was connacted with a small driveshaft.

 

[gottaluvit]

GM actually had bigger problems in the early 80s based on some management decisions by focusing more on financial calculations rather then on the consumer. GM was in the process of trying to reverse engineer the Japanese cars that were selling like crazy. They ended up lowering the quality of a lot of their vehicles by reorganizing into a "big car" and "small car" divisions. After they did a joint effort with Toyota in California where they realized "lean" production was best. This led to "re-badged" vehicles which lowered consumer interest in their products because high end cars did not stand out as much from low end cars, besides some chrome or bumper extensions. Just think of the X-cars. By 1989 they were losing about $2,000 on the cars they were building. They spent too much on automation while not enhancing the quality of their vehicles. Think about how many 80s GMs have the dreaded paint peeling. We had a 84 Cutlas that you couldn't keep the paint on it. Now I'm not bashing GM, but this is just some of the bad decisions that started GM on a downhill slide. The other 2 big manufactures were also behind the power curve as the market and environmentalist pushed the smaller efficient cars. Then with the standard MPG requirements going up to 20mpg in 1980, made them all strive to reach the fuel efficient ability of the Japanese cars. Sadly this is an example of a company that got more focused on showing profit, rather then quality products.

Gotta agree with the last part of that on all U.S. made vehicles. They made quality vehicles before the regs but their hands were tied. They were all stuck in a groove of building power and a nice heavy vehicle and then slammed with environmental regulations with no idea on what to do or what the consumers would want while still meeting the regs. It took 30 years for any 4 cylinder made here to come near what the european cars had in power and economy. I was stationed in Germany and the taxis were BMWs and Mercedes' and flew! I know the first Polizei car I saw was a 4 popper Mercedes and I laughed. Yet today, my daily car is a '02 VW 1.8T and the '10 Camaro SS still isn't as manueverable (and sits in the garage all but a few days a year) and really not as fun (or safe, since I can't see crap) to drive. The Camaro is much more beautiful (and powerful) but just not so great handling or as many horses per liter.

 

[gottaluvit]

Well let's be clear, the CUCV was very different than the civy Chevys. 1st is the Dana 60 front axle which was not available in a Chevy. There are a lot of other required changes/upgrades that the CUCVs got too. Now, as far as not buying Fords? They did, and a LOT of them. Oh, and the Fords had the same off the shelf drivetrains and equipment as the ones sold at dealers to the public, NOT modified or ugraded. So what does that say? And yes, the CUCV was a "Low bid" contract like everything else the military gets. Now I admit that I am a long time Ford guy and just recently purchased a CUCV(M1031 Contact truck), the CUCV is interesting but I still prefer my Fords, but that's just me being me, your oppinion and mileage may vary.

Uh oh. Better be careful. I was a Ford guy raised in a Ford family (they still are as they havn't tested different waters) until I got my first Chevy 30 years ago. Never looked back. I guess they're all the same if one just puts gas in and goes, but if you work on your own stuff, that Chevy is gonna get you addicted. Simple design, and parts cheaper and everywhere and the same parts for long spans. That's just talking civy stuff. I just got a CUCV myself and I am impressed. New to diesels so I am greatful for SS for sure. The truck is almost overkill, but with the near unlimited funds of the initial buyer, why not.

 

[gottaluvit]

Ford had the hi boy in 77 my grandpa had one don't know if it was military but it had 16.5 inch some other odd stuff the lockout hubs were alot bigger diameter other ford models and the transfer case was not bolted right to the transmission it was connacted with a small driveshaft.[/QUOTE]

That is very interesting. Never saw anything like that even when I was a Ford guy. I have a friend that used to have one of those Hi Boys and never got under it, darn it. The older 3/4 ton and up trucks all had 16.5 rims. Hubs varied within every make. I've seen big warns on half ton trucks back when every truck was a solid front axle. Spicers I think were the fat ones.

 

[rustystud]

That's why the lmtv trucks are junk. Too much electronic crap. It's all alright though, in the next war this country gets into the electronic issues will be such a hindrance and thus will begin getting enough people killed that our military will learn this old lesson over again. Simple is reliable, and over complicated may be cool, but it will break down and screw you.

I was in Tanks in the Marines. In fact I was training at Fort Knox when the M1A1 Abrams came out. You would think that it would have the latest high tech gadgets in it, but it is really simple inside. The most complicated thing in it is the "target acquisition" system. We have the best system in the world. Everything else though is from the 1950's ! There is a reason for that. You don't want systems failing when your getting hit from enemy fire ! I feel the same should also apply to the trucks your using in combat ! KISS ! Keep It Simple Stupid or KISS your A$$ goodbye !

 

[rustystud]

Ford had the hi boy in 77 my grandpa had one don't know if it was military but it had 16.5 inch some other odd stuff the lockout hubs were alot bigger diameter other ford models and the transfer case was not bolted right to the transmission it was connacted with a small driveshaft.[/QUOTE]

That is very interesting. Never saw anything like that even when I was a Ford guy. I have a friend that used to have one of those Hi Boys and never got under it, darn it. The older 3/4 ton and up trucks all had 16.5 rims. Hubs varied within every make. I've seen big warns on half ton trucks back when every truck was a solid front axle. Spicers I think were the fat ones.

Ford was the last ones using "divorced" transfer cases in the 1970's. That is why the NP205 from a Ford was a highly sought after prize. You could adapt it to any vehicle.