Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

1986 M1008 Cucv Chevrolet Pickup W/ Plow (government Surplus) on 2040-cars

Year:1986 Mileage:46455 Color: Brown /
 Brown
Location:

King William, Virginia, United States

King William, Virginia, United States
Transmission:Automatic
Body Type:Pickup Truck
Vehicle Title:Clear
Engine:6.2 DIESEL
Fuel Type:Diesel
For Sale By:Private Seller
VIN: 1GCGD34J8GF368442 Year: 1986
Make: Chevrolet
Model: Other Pickups
Cab Type (For Trucks Only): Regular Cab
Trim: BASE
Options: Plow, 4-Wheel Drive
Drive Type: 4 WHEEL DRIVE
Mileage: 46,455
Exterior Color: Brown
Disability Equipped: No
Interior Color: Brown
Number of Doors: 2
Number of Cylinders: 8
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Condition: Used: A vehicle is considered used if it has been registered and issued a title. Used vehicles have had at least one previous owner. The condition of the exterior, interior and engine can vary depending on the vehicle's history. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections. ... 

1986 Chevrolet CUCV M1008 w/ Plow that was original military surplus, but has been used in local government since the 2001

It currently runs and serves as a backup plow for the County.

The GM CUCVs were produced in the 1983-86 time period (model years were 1984-87 and mostly 1984) and were powered by 6.2L Detroit Diesel V8 engine. The GM CUCVs were assembled mostly from the heaviest duty bits and pieces from the light commercial truck lines. The CUCVs came in four basic body styles: pickup, utility, ambulance body and chassis cab. The M1008 was the basic cargo truck, the M1010 was the ambulance and the M1009 3/4 -ton utility rig, which was a stripped Blazer uprated to 3/4-ton capacity. With the exception of the M1009, the trucks were all rated as 1 1/4 ton (commonly called a “five-quarter”), even though some of them had payloads in excess of that. In the truck lines there were some heavy duty variants, to include the M1028, M1028A1, M1028A2 and M1028A3 shelter carriers, the shelter being a mobile command, communications or intelligence operations enclosure. The M1031 was the chassis cab which was most commonly found in the two door version. These latter trucks were all rated for heavier 3,600 or 3,900 pound loads, vs. the M1008s 2,900 pound load capacity. The M1028A2 and A3 models had dual rear wheels. Many M1028s were upgraded at the company level to M1028A2 and A3 specs. The Dual wheel rear end was a result of incidents where the M10128 flipped on its side because of the high center of gravity when carrying the equipment shelters.--

Powertrain

All the CUCVs were powered by GM’s 6.2L J-series Detroit Diesel V8 engine non-emissions diesel. These were rated at 155 hp (116 kW) and 240 lb·ft (325 N·m), which was 5 hp (3.7 kW) more than the emissions diesel engine of the time. They were all equipped with the TH-400 automatic. All but the M1028A1 and M1031 used the NP-208 chain drive transfer case. The M1028A1 and M1031 units had a slip-yoke rear output version of the NP-205, which was specified mainly for its PTO capacity.

Axles

The M1008 trucks used open Dana 60 front axles, with the M1028 and M1031 variations often having a Trac-Lok limited slip. In the rear, the M1008s used the GM 10.5-inch (270 mm) 10.5" Corporate 14 Bolt Differential with No-Spin lockers (the commercial trade name for the Detroit Locker). Though the M1028A2 and A3 duallies have Dana 70 HD axles. Axle gear ratios were 4.56:1.

Electrical

As with other military vehicles, the CUCVs used a 24-volt electrical system. It was actually a hybrid 12/24-volt system that used 24-volts under the hood, complete with dual 100 amp alternators, the mandatory NATO slave receptacle for jump starting any NATO vehicle, and hookups for military radios. The rest of the truck was 12-volt.

GM Defense

GM produced some 70,000 from 1983 to 1986 most for the military. For the past several years, GM Defense has been working over the newest GM trucks as CUCV-II and CUCV-III units for a new generation. The older Dodge M880s were used on the battlefield in some of the brush wars of the early 1980s and the results were reported to be “disastrous.”[citation needed] Likewise, the GM CUCVs saw combat time in Desert Storm and as one unit commander said, the results were “less than desirable.”[citation needed]

However, CUCVs were not intended for direct frontline combat use, as evident by their lack of bulletproofing and no protection from improvised explosive devices or other ordnances. Windshield, cabin glass, and body panels are civilian-grade and offer no protection from firearms or explosives. As a result some CUCV's were replaced by the same HMMWV's they were to augment.

The original purpose of the CUCV was to be a dollar-saving bridge between out-and-out tactical vehicles and off-the-shelf civilian vehicles. CUCVs were intended to perform "background" roles, much like the rear echelon human troops, providing support for frontline forces, such as cargo transport, background support, ambulance, and communications.

It is these roles which the CUCV performed admirably enough, that the U.S. military continued to keep them in active service long after their projected lifespan. CUCVs of all generations are still in U.S. service, though there are also many that have passed through military surplus sales into civilian ownership. In U.S. military service, CUCVs have been removed from MTOE-based organizations in the Army and Marines, but are still in use as base / garrison support vehicles for organizations like Range Control, Base Facilities and Engineering, and other TDA[?] uses.

Variants

  • M1008 - Basic General Motors Model K30903. The M1008 was the most numerous of the CUCV truck types. It was often seen with troop seats for eight in the bed. Some of the unique accoutrements to a CUCV are the military brush bars and tow hooks front and rear, as well as a pintle hitch. These trucks are rated to tow 3,000 pound cross country and were often used to tow the M101 3/4 -ton trailer.
  • M1008A1 - M1008 fitted with additional 100-amp 24-volt generator and communications kit.
 

Auto Services in Virginia

Winkler Automotive Service Center ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service
Address: 401 E Diamond Ave, Greenway
Phone: (301) 258-2774

Williamsons Body Shop & Wrecker Service ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Towing
Address: 2603 English Tavern Rd, Timberlake
Phone: (434) 821-3735

Wells Auto Sales ★★★★★

New Car Dealers, Used Car Dealers
Address: 74 Broadview Ave, Warrenton
Phone: (540) 347-8552

Variety Motors ★★★★★

Used Car Dealers
Address: 3530 N Military Hwy, Norfolk
Phone: (757) 853-2385

Valley Collision Repair Inc ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting, Automobile Restoration-Antique & Classic
Address: 23101 Old Valley Pike, Bentonville
Phone: (540) 459-2005

Tidewater Import Auto Repair LLC ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Transmission, Auto Oil & Lube
Address: 10410 Warwick Blvd, Fort-Eustis
Phone: (757) 506-7759

Auto blog

PickupTrucks.com's latest test results in a familiar winner [w/video]

Wed, 19 Jun 2013

PickupTrucks.com has gone and thrown the latest batch of half-ton pickups into a cage match to see who would come out on top. The site put the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, GMC Sierra 1500, 2013 Ford F-150, Ram 1500, Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan through a battery of tests. Those included 0-60 miles per hour acceleration, 60-0 mph deceleration, fuel economy, a hill climb, and payload and towing. They even threw the rigs on an autocross course to evaluate overall handling. Each truck was given points based on how it scored in each evaluation.
Who came out on top? Somewhat surprisingly, the 2013 Ford F-150 walked away with the gold, though fewer than 50 points separated first and fourth place. Head over to PickupTrucks.com to read the full evaluation and the final results. You may be shocked to see exactly where some of the segment's newest additions placed. You can also watch a video on the test below.

Camaro spy shots show subtly different grille, front fascia

Sun, 03 Feb 2013

It looks like there some changes in store for the Chevrolet Camaro - the only thing is that we just don't know what Chevy has up its sleeve. Looking at these spy shots, we'd initially be inclined to think that there is just a minor facelift or a new special edition, but upon closer inspection, there are a few oddities about this car that definitely have us intrigued.
The most obvious difference on this prototype is the slightly restyled front fascia with a smaller lower air inlet and the two-bar grille. Then we get to some of the car's mysterious details. For starters, this fascia has the SS vent above the grille, but it looks to be blocked off. Granted this could just be a one-off piece used for testing. What really piqued our interest was at the rear of the car where it has quad exhaust outlets that are used on the ZL1. Could this be the LS7-powered Camaro that we reported on back in December?
At this point, your guess is as good as ours as to what we're looking at here, so let us know in the comments what you think this could be.

GM won't pay owners of recalled cars for lost value

Thu, 12 Jun 2014

Kenneth Feinberg, the man in charge of the General Motors compensation fund dealing with the its widespread ignition switch woes, has issued an informal, two-letter response to the plaintiffs in more than 70 lawsuits seeking redress for lost resale value of their Cobalts: "No." The cases were recently combined into one, but Feinberg told The Detroit News that the fund will deal "only with death and physical injury claims," and that "perceived diminished value" will get no consideration.
ALG, the firm specializing in establishing residual values, determined that Cobalt owners had lost $300 compared to the segment competition and doesn't envision any long-term effects from the recall situation. Feinberg's statement comes in advance of public details on how the compensation fund will work and adheres to GM's long-held position on the matter. The company has already asked a judge to throw out such suits using the pre-bankruptcy defense, even as it stopped using that defense in cases of injury and death.
With plenty of potential gain from the GM suit, however, don't expect the plaintiffs to give up yet. When Toyota was sued for the same reason during the unintended acceleration debacle, it eventually settled the case for between $1 billion and $1.4 billion just to get it over with. Since the 85 law firms involved in the Toyota litigation took home more than $250 million of that total, we shouldn't expect the attorneys to give up on a GM payout, either.