Why do people bash the CUCV?

[zout]

Old saying:
"What you're not up on - your down on"

Other than that - it is NOT an M37 like I really want so I do not give them a passing thought either way except for what I read here about them.

Its a love or hate novel that continues on - and that just gives me something more to read.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I always thought the CUCV, in the military vehicle line up, was in the same category as the Sportster, in the Harley Davidson world.......They were designed and built for girls, and everything else is for the men.

 

[DXTAC]

It's already been said but opinions are like, well you know the rest. I have NEVER had anyone talk smack to me about Mongo. Usually people are envious and come up and ask a MILLION questions and most conversations end up with "Where can I get one"?

I say if you like it, drive it! Who cares what others think. I will say they are loud, slow off the line, do not have the most HP or torque, can not compete with modern diesels (oh yeah, because they're 25 or so years old!!), turn more heads than ANY other vehicle I have ever owned, drum up conversation no matter where you are, are fun to drive with the top off, haul my camper well (with the wife, twins, dog and gear), great for trail rides and are a GREAT all purpose 4WD vehicle.

My

 

[McCluskey]

Depends on where you live. Around here people are more likely to think they are really cool. We also happen to be a state that maintains all of our rights to own firearms and carry them. Not a lot of fear of guns and Military to be found compared to oh...California etc.

Cheap shot.

 

[chevyguy1976]

The 6.2 is about as far from the 454 as you can get I am no big fan ofthe 6.2 but if driven properly they can last along time. They got a bad rap around here cause guys did not know how to take care of them. One of the bigest problems were the guys that would constantly start them drive a mile then sut them off. I have had a couple of mechanics tell me that this motor was designed tobe started in the morning and run for long periods of time. We had two of them , a 1 ton dually crewcab 4x4 with 456 gears and a 4 spd. Did it have the power of a 454 no, but it did get 17 mpg. Had one in a 85 1/2 ton 4x4. 700r4 and it got 25 mpg. A 80's K30 chevy( m-100 is as good if not better then any ford or dodge 1 ton of the same era. The 1009 blazer is a half ton chevy and as good and probbly better then any f 150 or dodge of similer vintage.

 

[kipman]

I love my 1009, like a old dog, slow but still is in the game.

 

[TexAndy]

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's what I thought too.

 

[jaxsof]

When I wore garbage green, if you needed to go somewhere, and didnt need to take or get anything big, you took the blazer or the P/U. both were good driving vehicles, the blazer was faster and got better mileage, but the P/U would carry about anything you could stuff in the bed. Even the P/U would keep up with traffic on the interstate. I have taken them into tactical situations and even chased "bad guys" through the brush with them. They are hard on the kidneys but what MV isnt? Heck, when they started going away I even tried to get one of the ones that were ours. I have a lot of good memories of them. Not one of them ever left me.

 

[wallew]

You folks ARE aware that the 6.2L has also been used in marine applications, as well as buses, bread trucks and almost EVERY light/medium truck GM produced, right?

6.2L Detroit diesels in marine applications - Google Search

 

[jimm1009]

M1009 cucv

I put 33/12.50 x 15 tires on the OEM 15 x 8 wheels and I have driven mine about 230,000 since I purchased it in mid 1995.
They require TLC from time to time but I paid $900 for mine and even if I put $1,000 each year into it (and I have not) well, do the math, that is still less than $16,000 over 16 years. That is only a good down payment for the newer trucks and their outrageous price tags.
I have driven it on 6 different trips of 940 miles one way and sometimes all in one day.
It's ugly, does not have AC, does not have cruise control, no power windows (except for the tailgate window), and is not as fast as the newer vehicles but it has never left me stranded and I can drive it at 70 MPH for 15 hours straight except for the obvious fuel stops and I get about 20 MPG on the highway. My friend at work has the same vehicle with a standard gas engine in it and he is very lucky to acheive 12 MPG at a lower speed with the same size tires and same tranmission as me.
Only my 1.5 cents worth but I plan on keeping mine for at least 15 more years unless some fool in the way-up office of government out east decides to make it illegal cause it does not have an electric motor under the hood.
They are not that badly priced and fun to drive as long as you are not in a hurry.
jimm1009

 

[mikes47jeep]

i like cucv's and i want one, a 1009 would be nice a 1008 would be more practical for me

slow? who cares arnt all MV's slow?? by they way my 85 c-10 tops out at about 65 (it could go faster but it would probibly go BANG!!)

noizy? not any worse then any other 80's vintage truck

unreliable? they are 25+ years old what do you want??

Mike

 

[Recovry4x4]

I rather enjoy the armchair mechanics and engineers bashing the often misunderstood CUCV and especially the 6.2. Because of folks like this, the price stays reasonable. I giggle to myself when I hear folks describe the 6.2 and it's origins. Folks sure don't realize how foolish it makes them seem to those who know. Yeah, keep bashing them and passing them up, us idiots will buy them and drive the crap out of them. Oddly enough, the alleged achilles heel of the CUCV, the electrical system, is the part that amazes me most. Very versatile when you understand it.

 

[wreckerman893]

I think if you watch the CUCV pages you will note that most of the problems are of an electrical nature......my take is a lot of that is due to the "militarization" of the vehicle.

I drove one when I was in Korea (I was the Battalion Commanders driver). We had a Blazer, a HUMVEE and a little civy jeep. Most of the time we took the Blazer because it was big enough to punk out the aggressive Korean drivers and there was leg room in it if we had extra passengers.

I don't hate them......I just don't have the urge to own one....that rear window flaw used to drive me nuts....none of our mechanics could keep the stupid window working correctly.

I don't remember ours ever failing us out on the road and we put a lot of miles on it.

They recently sold several at Restone and the prices seemed high to me...one of them sold for more than I paid for a M916 last year.

 

[dozer1]

opinions are like ace holes, everyone has one.

Yeah, and alot of them stink.

 

[pacebm]

Enjoy your truck. It is on par with any other manufacturers vehicle of the same era. Pickups have an excellent drivetrain and the Blazer is adequate. A Duramax it is not, but it is simple and cheap to work on. What other vehicle has such comprehensive manuals with troubleshooting guides? Excellent technical support here at SS. Total cost of ownership is very low. Above all else, it is OD (or desert if that is your preference). Drive on.

Also, the 6.2 was developed by Detroit Diesel, not even close to a 454. Detroit diesels are in just about everything from marine vehicles, construction equipment, etc, to over the road trucks, i.e Freightliner.

 

[wikallen]

I bash the 6.2, I have owned them before. They are slow, weak for pulling, and loud. But they are reliable, great mileage and cheap and easy to work on. I still bash them, but I like them at the same time. If I had more garage space, I would have a CUCV.

It was kinda cool back when I had my 86 Silverado, I would forget to watch my fuel and when one of the tanks runs out, the truck would all of sudden find a burst of power, before starting to sputter. The first time it was a "what the ....." moment, then quickly hit the switch on the dash for the other tank.

 

[jdemaris]

After driving my M1009 for about a week and half I think its a great truck.

And then I see people cutting down the 6.2 diesel. For what it lacks in power it seems to make up for in fuel consumption, reliability, cheap parts, and ease of maintenance.

25 years of service seems to be pretty good to me.

Note that I am NOT a 6.2 diesel basher. I own over twenty 6.2 powered vehicles and have been working on them, and driving them since they were invented.

That being said, the 6.2 is a light-duty, low-torque diesel engine . It uses a rotary distributor-type injection pump that is the WORST thing to have in areas of high heat and using thin fuel (like military JP. I suspect the 6.2 was a terrible choice for military duty, and the ARMY et . al has written aobut their regrets, many times.

There is no way a 6.2 engine ever gave "25 years of service" in the military. Not many in private use have lasted that long either.

No personal dig intended, but owning one for a week is not exactly a fair test for longevity and reliablitly.

In regard to fuel mileage - getting 18 MPG with diesel that was 50 cents a gallong cheaper then gas - when gas trucks got 12 MPG - certainly made the diesel cheaper to run. Now?? Here in NY, diesel fuel is 30-40 cents more then gasoline, per gallon. A diesel Blazer can get a best around 20 MPG, and so can a newer gas powered equivlent SUV that runs on a now cheaper fuel.

GM made many goofs with early 6.2 and many fixes had to be done along the way. So no, it was not very reliable. It started out with many problems in 1982, and by 1992 had many worked out (but not all). The Army claims that the 6.2s they used overseas rarely lasted more then 2000 miles.

I wll say that the miltary K5 Blazer is a better rig then the civilian version -mainly due to using the TH400 trans instead of the 700R4.

I agree that parts are plentiful and cheap IF you know how to scrounge around. I do NOT agree they are simple to work on. Simple for a well trained, "old-school" diesel tech - yes. Many mechanics that get by working on gas engines are clueless with diesels. How many independent mechanics do you know that fix their own injection pumps, fix and/or test their own nozzles, own a diesel timing light, etc.? I bet not many.

Here is one of many articles written about the 6.2 and problems in military use:

July 2004 issue of National Defense magazine, "Army Ponders New Diesel Engine for Humvee Trucks," notes that maintenance nightmares have been experienced in Iraq because engines regularly break down and often must be replaced after only 1,000 to 2,000 miles of operation. Much of the blame for this is placed on the bolted-on armor protection that adds weight to the vehicles. However, the inability of the rotary-distribution, fuel-injection pumps to operate satisfactorily for sustained periods of heavy-duty operation is probably a contributing factor, especially when low-viscosity fuel is used in a hot environment. Interestingly, the fuel-injection pumps in many, if not all, of the HMMWVs operating in Southwest Asia have been retrofitted with Stanadyne's Arctic Fuel Conversion Retrofit Kit. This kit apparently has done little to offset the significant increases in maintenance that have been experienced recently.
Rethinking the SFC
Combat operations that occur in higher temperature environments certainly will intensify the operational and maintenance problems of diesel-powered vehicles and equipment with fuel-lubricated fuel-injection pumps. Since almost half of the Army's diesel vehicles and equipment have rotary-distribution, fuel-injection pumps, a solution is urgently needed."

 

[73m819]

"Why do people bash the CUCV? "

BECAUSE it is easy to do with a BIG TRUCK

 

[linx310]

There is no way a 6.2 engine ever gave "25 years of service" in the military. Not many in private use have lasted that long either.

I wasn't talking about the 6.2, but the CUCV platform in general.

No personal dig intended, but owning one for a week is not exactly a fair test for longevity and reliablitly.

No its not a fair test..lol. My comment was made in regards to people claiming them to be extremely noisy or super sluggish. I found that some of these claims are highly exaggerated in terms of making them sound completely worthless. I have driven trucks of this and earlier eras with other "gas saving" engines and they are even more sluggish and nosier then the CUCV.

A diesel Blazer can get a best around 20 MPG, and so can a newer gas powered equivlent SUV that runs on a now cheaper fuel.

A lot have reported 21-26 mpg with the blazer. But that new SUV cost $20k-$30k...lol

Basically what I am getting at is a lot of the talk I see about these trucks makes them seem like they are worse the a Yugo...and after spending months rebuilding one, and now driving it, I think some of the claims about them are over exaggerated.

 

[Buzz]

down with the haters

Cucv's forever