M1009 CUCV Questions

[Evan the Diplomat]

I am considering an M1009 for a family BOV and weekend out vehicle.

These are pretty good examples of what I would be shopping for:

http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/v ... vertTo=USD

http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/v ... vertTo=USD

The Tan one is currently at $3,600 with a clean looking engine and immaculate body.

The Camo one is at $1710 with ridiculously low milage and only minor rust.

I will be shopping in a few months after those are gone.

On to my questions. Although a veteran the Navy did not have many of these so any Army or Marine vets as well as civilians that have first hand experience, feel free to chime in.

This is a two door vehicle with bench seat in the back. I assume the driver and passenger seats flip forward to allow easy entry?

Can the spare be carried elsewhere? From other pictures I've seen it is inside taking up space. Maybe some sort of aftermarket gate to go over the rear door?

Were a family of six. I was thinking about trying to move the backseat to the rear and and two single seats in the middle similar to a minivan layout or do 2 x 2 x 2 like some european station wagons. Am I crazy?

Since I've eliminated the interior storage withthe extra seats, I would be looking as adding a safari type basket on the roof like this that attached to rain gutters. Wait a minute do these things even have rain gutters?

http://www.xtremeterrain.com/safaribask ... ducts.aspx
Please let me know if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree or just barking mad.

Thanks

[Shaper]

This is a two door vehicle with bench seat in the back. I assume the driver and passenger seats flip forward to allow easy entry? Yes, the back rests flip forward and slide up to allow entry.

Can the spare be carried elsewhere? From other pictures I've seen it is inside taking up space. Maybe some sort of aftermarket gate to go over the rear door? There are various aftermarket manufacturers that produce a tire carrier/bumper for the K5.

Were a family of six. I was thinking about trying to move the backseat to the rear and and two single seats in the middle similar to a minivan layout or do 2 x 2 x 2 like some european station wagons. Am I crazy? No not crazy, but it would be a tight fit, and you would lose all of your interior cargo space. You should look into a suburban or similar if you want to roll out with that many people and their respective gear.

Since I've eliminated the interior storage with the extra seats, I would be looking as adding a safari type basket on the roof like this that attached to rain gutters. Wait a minute do these things even have rain gutters? A few problems with the roof rack on these vehicles...the removable top is fiberglass and is not meant to hold any sort of heavy sustained load (especially if you are off roading). The half cab could be modified to hold a small basket but the amount it would hold would be near useless.


Please let me know if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree or just barking mad. Wrong tree, my friend. If you like the basic idea of the K5 but need it to fit your family...go with the Suburban.


Thanks

Any future questions you may have about either of these fine vehicles can be answered here... www.coloradok5.com - particularly the message forum.

Take care, and good luck with your decision.

[Evan the Diplomat]

Thanks. What kind of diesel powerplants can I get with a Suburban?

[Rednex]

I think its the same 6.2 diesel motor as the M1009.

An ideal i have is to take a 1 ton Suburban chop the rear top off and stick a chateau camper tops for the K5 Blazer on it

[Dooms]

Thanks. What kind of diesel powerplants can I get with a Suburban?

On the older body style, the same engine as the K5 was offered (the 6.2L diesel). Newer ones had the 6.5L diesel, which used a mechanical injection pump up until 1993.

Here's my 1995 2500 Diesel pulling a new 4-place open trailer I had just bought. Pulling that trailer, loaded with 4 snowmobiles and gear, I can drive from my home in NJ to Old Forge, NY...a distance of 300 miles, drive around town while up there, then drive back again, and still have some fuel left. Other guys I've done the same trip with, pulling similar trailers with gas trucks, have to stop two or three times.



Honestly, the Suburban is the best vehicle I've ever owned, including out of three K5 blazers that I've owned in the past. It's just so much more useful on a day to day basis, especially with a family. That's why I wont get rid of it, as GM no longer makes the Suburban in diesel and I wont buy a pickup. Only other vehicle I might consider would be a diesel van (like an E250/E350), but I'd have to get the 4x4 conversion done and even then I'm not too keen on vans because I know working on the engine is such a PITA. I really wish Gm would just bring back the diesel engine option for the Tahoe and Suburban.

[Evan the Diplomat]

The last car I worked on was my 1985 BMW 633CSi and it was pretty much over my head, so let me ask this is a pre-1993 mechanical fuel pump a good or a bad thing?

[Shaper]

The last car I worked on was my 1985 BMW 633CSi and it was pretty much over my head, so let me ask this is a pre-1993 mechanical fuel pump a good or a bad thing?

I like mechanical above electric if I have a choice. The only real drawback IMO to a mechanical fuel pump is when you start modifying the engine for higher horsepower. Then your options are more limited for upgrade in that regard.

Other than that, I feel that there is less to go wrong with a mechanical fuel pump and this overall should give you more reliability in theory.

[Tater Raider]

The last car I worked on was my 1985 BMW 633CSi and it was pretty much over my head, so let me ask this is a pre-1993 mechanical fuel pump a good or a bad thing?

I like mechanical above electric if I have a choice. The only real drawback IMO to a mechanical fuel pump is when you start modifying the engine for higher horsepower. Then your options are more limited for upgrade in that regard.

Other than that, I feel that there is less to go wrong with a mechanical fuel pump and this overall should give you more reliability in theory.

Mechanical injection is simpler to work on for the average shade tree mechanic and are "EMP-Proof." Like Shaper said, the upgrade options are more limited, but they are also less expensive. Also, increasing horsepower nearly always comes at the price of motor longevity. With a few mild upgrades you can add 50% to the ponies of a Cummins (my motor of choice and the only one I've researched so YMMV, literally) without cutting into the reliability too badly.

With any motor upgrade you need to make sure the drivetrain can handle the increased torque. Having information on known weak links is a huge help and you can adress them in an order that makes financial and mechanical sense.

Diesel Power Magazine has a lot of budget build recipes on their website for free. I started by looking there and then talked out my plans with friends in the know, including this place.

[Dooms]

The last car I worked on was my 1985 BMW 633CSi and it was pretty much over my head, so let me ask this is a pre-1993 mechanical fuel pump a good or a bad thing?

I've never had any real problems with either design (other than some initial teething problems the 1994/1995 trucks had with the Pump Mounted Driver, which was quickly remedied by the manufacturer). However, some people simply prefer mechanical pumps over electric. Same with stick over automatic. A lot of people are under the opinion that, the less computerized their vehicle is, the more reliable it's likely to be in the long run.

With that said, for those that are really worried about it, for around $1,000 you can buy spare mechanical or electric fuel pumps. Then you are covered regardless.

[Tater Raider]

With that said, for those that are really worried about it, for around $1,000 you can buy spare mechanical or electric fuel pumps. Then you are covered regardless.

+1

[Blacksmith]

Go ahead and get the civilian version. It is easier than messing with the 24V system, cheaper and likely was not as abused as much. If the government is selling it, they are done with it. Better to walk away unless your expectations are "0" and you are planning on replacing everything. (just my $.02 from an soldier soldier who grew up abusing 1009s until they came up with the 998s)

[VeniVidiVici]

I was under the impression that the speed was limited at 45-55mph on the .gov versions because of the gearing, can anyone who has used these verify this? I'm not much on these old diesels but, that would definitely be a big factor for me.

[Blacksmith]

There are (were?) governors on the old CUCV. I was assigned to Germany when the CUCV was in all units, and had the opportunity to drive them on the autobahn with the governor removed. I will tell you that it could travel well in excess of 85 MPH for extended periods of time. I don't know how much because the speedometer only went up to 85 MPH. But it was buried for hours.

Indeed.

[Evan the Diplomat]

So was it fahrvergnügen for you or just a deafening, bone jarring ride?

[Muffin]

I believe the DB2 pump (mechanical) to be a lot better than the DS4(electronic), about the only thing the DS4 has over the DB2 is that the pump head has 4 pistons instead of two. On a DS4 equipped truck, once you change resistors and reprogram PCM that's as far as you can go. On the other hand, a DB2 can be modefied to pump out way more fuel than you could ever use or want and the ending result without a proper turbo is a lot of black smoke. Also, with the DB2, all you need is an allen key to turn up the fuel with a stock pump which will put your pyro readings in the red(YOU NEEED GAUGES BEFORE SCREWING WITH MORE FUEL) and make a lot more boost(if you get rid of the crappy GM vaccum wastegate actuator and replace with a boost controller).

[Blacksmith]

The autobahn is smooth as butter. The CUCVs rolled right along at that speed without issue for ride.

Loud it was.... very very, loud but smooth enough. Fuel economy also dropped a lot too. At a more normal US highway speed (60 MPH) the MPG was around 22-24 MPG. At high speed the diesel lost all efficiency and ran around 14-16 MPG.