[Bob_Sheaves]

The CUCV GMtrucks were NOT 1500's The base truck we started with was the 1 ton and then uprated from there. These trucks were as disaster in Desert Storm, as I predicted to TAACOM at many of the program reviews, but they did not want to spend the extra money for the XMV version.

Military specs are a bit harsher than a simple commercial truck is capable of handling....all this has been gone over years ago on Allpar and the TAACOM demands haven't changed. "Tinker toys", like the silly stuff shown here from PDO, is a joke.

The Egyptian military specs that AAV uses does not even come close to TAACOM specs. Comparing the 2 is nowhere close to apples and oranges....closer to apples and orangutans.

[Trailmaster]

Bob_Sheaves, on Apr 26 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

The CUCV GMtrucks were NOT 1500's The base truck we started with was the 1 ton and then uprated from there. These trucks were as disaster in Desert Storm, as I predicted to TAACOM at many of the program reviews, but they did not want to spend the extra money for the XMV version.

I know I've never seen a CUCV that didn't have 8 lug wheels, so that is probably correct. I think the biggest problem with the CUCV is the Army mentality that the truck isn't loaded till the bed is full, combined with manuevers downrange where a lot of the roads(?) are tracks where the tanks run. IMO one of the reasons the old Jeeps were so succesful is that with a load area of maybe 3'x3', it's pretty hard to overload it, combined with the small size meant that you cold maneuver around things that a larger vehicle has to go over. One of the reasons that the Humvee makes it is because they are built extremely heavy duty. For a rig about the same size as a full size pickup, they are at least half again heavier. The one time I had to load a milspec Hummer on a rollback, I had a 1 1/2 ton rollback and it was a load for the truck, I'm glad I didn't have the 1 ton rollback that day. On the other hand, I used to haul civilian pickups on a 1 ton rollback with no problem.

Prior to the CUCV, the civilian based pickup chasis that the military used was the M715, based on the Jeep Gladiator PU. Look at the difference between it and a J20 to see what Kaiser decided it took to make a civilian truck survive military service.

[Bob_Sheaves]

The M880 series came between the M714/715 and the M1008/1009. Those Dodges were even worse than the GM's.

Semi floating front hub and bearing packs that grenaded (on a 44 axle no less...for a 5/4 ton vehicle), NP203 transfer cases that shredded drive chains horribly, frame rails that buckled under airdrop lloading were just some of the problems.

The M714/715 was not too much of a winner either, until NAPCO came out with the DDC 3-53 retrofit kit to get that light duty gas OHC inline 6 out of it......

[TENMMIKE]

Chris The Mopar Man, on Apr 26 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

People are chasing their tails in circles. Somehow, the Ram is not tough enough, but the WRANGLER (made by the same company from the same components), that's something else altogether. Your talking about the ol' Chevy pick-ups? Wern't they 1500 series? I have a really hard time believing, with the wealth of extremely heavy truck components at mopar, that a Pickup can't be built tough enough to putter around military bases and haul stuff. Both of the arguments I have heard so far, that the Jeep is more manuverable and that somehow military bases are all remote outposts, just don't hold water. I've been on military training grounds here in Virginia, and other than tracks specifically designed to test off-road driving, NONE of them has ever been beyond the capabilities of a well outfitted 4x4 truck. We also have a lot of loggers here who operate in just as tough a conditions as our military guys do, and somehow their civilian vehicles (mostly ton trucks) last for years. I still don't see the need for either a wrangler or a specialty built vehicle.

The problem with this logic is that loggers ( i live in washington state 1/2 the time in ashford ,wa.where logging is a major industry, ,i spend a lot of my times with loggers and my best friend is a logger by profession) they dont drive at night where serious obsticals must be overcome in the dark, i have extinsive expieriance with night vision devises (pvs series) they are a great help but also can get you in trouble with serious lack of depth perception.
Like i stated, a pickup, is perfectly suited for ON BASE OPS but even modified pickups dont have the incredible integraty of the HMMWV(HUMVEE),i wish i could explain better in this short reply but suffice to say"no pickup is as massavly built as a humvee, i also would like to say that in all due respect to the great state of virgina, only its wooded terrain is of any tactical obstical on a large scale area , the areas i trained in were forests(western, WA) and the deserts of the eastern northwest and california mojave,these(the deserts) are far more difficult on vehicals because in the woods you can affford to go SLOW and careful, in the desert you cannot ,if you want to live .you must go fast or your dead

This post has been edited by TENMMIKE: 26 April 2009 - 11:09 PM

[Trailmaster]

Bob_Sheaves, on Apr 26 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

The M714/715 was not too much of a winner either, until NAPCO came out with the DDC 3-53 retrofit kit to get that light duty gas OHC inline 6 out of it......

I think that's what killed off the M715. We had a M725 ambulance when I first joined the volunteer fire dept, my 50 Chevy with the 29 hp stovebolt 6 could run with it. It would go about anywhere, but you better not be needing to get there quickly.

[Bob_Sheaves]

As a sidebar of info...

The owner of Alfa Heaven in WI took a basic M715 and installed the powertrain of the CUCV (GM 6.2 and TH400 transmission) . It turned into a really nice updated vehicle with a durable drivetrain.

[Chris The Mopar Man]

Quote

The problem with this logic is that loggers ( i live in washington state 1/2 the time in ashford ,wa.where logging is a major industry, ,i spend a lot of my times with loggers and my best friend is a logger by profession) they dont drive at night where serious obsticals must be overcome in the dark,

I was referring to vehicles that would be used in support roles on bases, not on the front line or even deployed overseas for any mission. Last I checked, there is no need to run over obsticals at night to haul an ammo case out to the firing range, and I'm not aware of bases were you have to drive fast through sand to survive, I'm pretty sure most of them have roads.

[Bob_Sheaves]

Chris The Mopar Man, on Apr 29 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

I was referring to vehicles that would be used in support roles on bases, not on the front line or even deployed overseas for any mission. Last I checked, there is no need to run over obsticals at night to haul an ammo case out to the firing range, and I'm not aware of bases were you have to drive fast through sand to survive, I'm pretty sure most of them have roads

Sorry Chris. What you are describing are the GEM purchases by the GSA. There is no military use for what you are describing for Jeeps...especially the toys shown by PDO. They are applicable nowhere in service. There is no need for them. TAACOM will not be specifying anything like what you are describing. "Obstacles at night"? What do you think is used in FTX's? Assigned tactical vehicles and these tactical vehicles are organic to the unit....they go where the unit goes.

[Chris The Mopar Man]

Bob_Sheaves, on Apr 29 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

Sorry Chris. What you are describing are the GEM purchases by the GSA. There is no military use for what you are describing for Jeeps...especially the toys shown by PDO. They are applicable nowhere in service. There is no need for them. TAACOM will not be specifying anything like what you are describing. "Obstacles at night"? What do you think is used in FTX's? Assigned tactical vehicles and these tactical vehicles are organic to the unit....they go where the unit goes.

Fine, and I wasn't really referring to your informative post. If the military cannot use commercial trucks, then it would be hard to see how there would be a fuel savings over the current Hummer. Developing the hybrid drivetrain for the Hummer would be better than purchasing vehicles that would not hold up. That was just about the 4th or 5th time I stated I was talking about a vehicle for use at a base only to have an example of storming through enemy territory as to why the vehicle would not be useful. My original argument was that there is no point in the military buying Wranglers since the Ram will deliver comparable fuel mileage, carry 4 passengers, and haul and do a lot more.

[MD80891]

Challenger392, on Apr 7 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

As always Mr. Positive (goodnightjohnway) has to chime in with Chrysler not measuring up and all others are superior.

Look at the bright side, we now could build such world class diesel powered beast the equivelant of the true Power Wagon and would have a world wide distribution network in place.

I am liking that concept a lot. :)

Bob_Sheaves, on Apr 26 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

The M880 series came between the M714/715 and the M1008/1009. Those Dodges were even worse than the GM's.

Semi floating front hub and bearing packs that grenaded (on a 44 axle no less...for a 5/4 ton vehicle), NP203 transfer cases that shredded drive chains horribly, frame rails that buckled under airdrop lloading were just some of the problems.

The M714/715 was not too much of a winner either, until NAPCO came out with the DDC 3-53 retrofit kit to get that light duty gas OHC inline 6 out of it......

I can vouch for the cammer being less than desirable even in light duty use. (66 Waggoneer)

[MD80891]

Chris The Mopar Man, on Apr 29 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

Fine, and I wasn't really referring to your informative post. If the military cannot use commercial trucks, then it would be hard to see how there would be a fuel savings over the current Hummer. Developing the hybrid drivetrain for the Hummer would be better than purchasing vehicles that would not hold up. That was just about the 4th or 5th time I stated I was talking about a vehicle for use at a base only to have an example of storming through enemy territory as to why the vehicle would not be useful. My original argument was that there is no point in the military buying Wranglers since the Ram will deliver comparable fuel mileage, carry 4 passengers, and haul and do a lot more.

Current mode of transportation is an 85 W-150 that came from Dugway Proving Grounds. 356k miles on the original 318 and 4spd overdrive tranny (High 4th) Dana 44s and the rear axle is high as well making it the oddest spec'd 4wd truck I have ever owned.

The Army rigged it for 24volt operation at Dugway and wired it for some communication/testing module? as well. If that hatchet job wasn't bad enough my brother who I originally bought the truck for was in Search and Rescue. So the next things added were: stereo, two way radio, red and blues, trailer lights and trailer brakes.

I think I am carrying an extra hundred pounds of wire and the truck is basically a rolling fault.

The fact that so many can do so much to one poor vehicle and it still rolls on is a credit to the Dodge Truck. Dodge Trucks Rule!

I am all for building a new truck for our military that would see civilian use as well. Leaving outfitting of commercial units to them is pretty frightening.

This post has been edited by MD80891: 30 April 2009 - 11:47 AM