Do I really want a M1009? (MPG)

[Bane]

I have been reading around about M1009 and civilian Blazers for about a year. Recently, the itch is getting serious. I am concerned about one thing in particular, MPG. I almost drove from Las Vegas to Los Angles today to look at a civilian 1983 Blazer with a 6.2. The truck ended up not being as good of a deal as I thought, so I bailed on the trip. Today, a mechanic and diesel truck driver friend of mine told me he thought it would have taken that truck 2 full tanks of gas, plus a little to get the 275 miles home. I told him that these trucks get around 20 MPG, and he said that even with that kind of MPG, the mountains between CA and Vegas would eat up the tank much faster. I was really surprised to hear this, because I thought the CUCV and civi Blazer were going to be really efficient vehicles. Anyone have anything to add about what kind of MPG the M1009 will get driving in mountains/hils? Specifically, if anyone knows the stretch of I-15 between Vegas and Los Angeles. If I can't drive from Vegas to Los Angeles on a single tank, I think I might rethink my plans to get a M1009. I hope that's not the case.

 

[Stonepicker1]

The M1009 has a 27 gal tank. If you burn a hole tank for the 275 miles that would put it at around 10 mpg.
If your not pulling a trailer I think you should be good at getting around 16 mpg in the mountains.

I know someone has driven that route before and will post more info.

 

[ryan77]

If you want a vehicle that gets good gas millage i would not suggest a k5 blazer!!!

 

[panama]

It has been my experience, both personal and on this board, that most people do NOT buy CUCVs because of their fuel economy. I had wanted an M1009 Blazer for years and when I had the opportunity to buy one I did.

I knew it would be a labor of love. I knew that a 25 year old truck would cost me money...potentially LOTS of money. I knew that keeping it in it's military state would be more and more difficult as the years past. I knew that I would NEVER get my money out of it if I ever sold it. I knew that at 155 HP I would NOT drive it like I stole it and I knew that it would NEVER see the type of fuel efficiency I could have enjoyed with other vehicles.

Don't take this the wrong way, I feel your pain with the rising fuel prices and I LOVE my CUCV, but if you NEED a fuel efficient vehicle with a powertrain that is suited for mountain driving you may want to look at a different vehicle.

 

[my86m1009]

A M1009 does get pretty decent mileage considering its an 80's truck but nothing compared to cars now. So far i can get 200 miles and still have a little over half a tank. Just driving in the city i was averaging 14.7 MPG, which isn't too bad

 

[Goose2448]

I think most of the guys on here report around 18-20 on the highway with the 09. Even in those mountains you should get at least 15 unless you have some kind of bad problem, or REALLY heavy foot.

 

[Bane]

I wasn't looking at a M1009 or Blazer particularly for it's fuel economy. But everything I have read about them tells me that you can get about 18 MPG mixed highway and streets. To me, that is great for a full size truck. I live in Las Vegas, where it's pretty much flat anyway, but I also want something to take to go camping and stuff in the mountains. I don't expect it to be efficient compared to something newer, but for a 30 year old truck with a 6.2L engine, 15-20 MPG seems fair to me. Now I'm just going off what everyone says they are getting on the forums, and those are the numbers I see frequently. If I'm dreaming, someone wake me up!

My friends estimate was that it would take at least 60 gallons of diesel to get the 275 miles home. At that rate, we're talking about 5 MPG. That number is way off from what people say they get with a M1009 or civi Blazer. I know there are some serious grades on this route, but it's not like it's uphill the entire 275 miles. Most of the trip is desert, it's just that you have a few passes one in particular that goes up to about 5000 ft. It's not like we're talking about the Alps here!

 

[GPrez]

The M1009 has 3.08 gears in the axles which is very helpful at obtaining 20 mpg consistently, but not so helpful climbing the mountains. The Civi versions might have 3.42 or 3.73 which will lesson fuel economy, but help climbing the hills.

 

[Bane]

The M1009 has 3.08 gears in the axles which is very helpful at obtaining 20 mpg consistently, but not so helpful climbing the mountains. The Civi versions might have 3.42 or 3.73 which will lesson fuel economy, but help climbing the hills.

I thought the civi model was supposed to be a little better on fuel economy, but you make sense.

It has been my experience, both personal and on this board, that most people do NOT buy CUCVs because of their fuel economy. I had wanted an M1009 Blazer for years and when I had the opportunity to buy one I did.

I knew it would be a labor of love. I knew that a 25 year old truck would cost me money...potentially LOTS of money. I knew that keeping it in it's military state would be more and more difficult as the years past. I knew that I would NEVER get my money out of it if I ever sold it. I knew that at 155 HP I would NOT drive it like I stole it and I knew that it would NEVER see the type of fuel efficiency I could have enjoyed with other vehicles.

Don't take this the wrong way, I feel your pain with the rising fuel prices and I LOVE my CUCV, but if you NEED a fuel efficient vehicle with a powertrain that is suited for mountain driving you may want to look at a different vehicle.

I clarified the "mountains" in my last post. But you still seem pretty pessimistic about the fuel economy of the M1009. I look at it this way....... I want a truck that can be had for under $5000 that I can use as an off road toy, around the town driver, occasional long distance camping/hunting truck and a get out of dodge vehicle should that day ever come. I don't expect to get amazing fuel economy in a 25 year old truck, but I want it to be decent for a 25 year old truck. A newer truck will probably get better fuel economy, but it will cost more to buy, insure, register and repair/maintain. When you add all that together, it becomes less desirable. I will drive this truck maybe 15,000 miles a year. How long am I going to have to drive the newer more efficient truck before the added fuel economy makes it pay off? My guess, if I spent another $10k on a newer truck, it would take me 5 years of driving to break even on it based on the fuel economy. And that doesn't include the extra registration expense, insurance and maintenance & repairs. All of that costs more on a newer vehicle. Anyway, like I said, I'm not looking to get a M1009 simply because it's supposed to be efficient, I've wanted one for a long time because I think it would be fun to own. And by my figures, it's worth it for me to get one. But when my friend threw out those numbers, all my justification for getting a M1009 instead of something newer and more efficient went out the window. Again, from the replies here, it sounds like he was wrong.

 

[richingalveston]

5 mpg

if you calculated that the 1009 was only going to get 5 mpg. you may want to take the transfercase out of Low gear. (lol)

previous post are right about cost of ownership. to buy fix and drive with only half the gas mileage it is still a good deal.

the depreciation from the new truck each year will be more than the fuel cost difference between it and a 1009. a 1009 if taken care of will probably appreciate. where nothing coming from any assembly line today or within the last five years will start to appreciate in your lifetime.

if you are considering a honda civic vs 1009 then you are apples and ornges but a truck capable of a what a 1009 can do for the same money. gas mileage between the two will prob. be the same.

 

[Bane]

if you calculated that the 1009 was only going to get 5 mpg. you may want to take the transfercase out of Low gear. (lol)

previous post are right about cost of ownership. to buy fix and drive with only half the gas mileage it is still a good deal.

the depreciation from the new truck each year will be more than the fuel cost difference between it and a 1009. a 1009 if taken care of will probably appreciate. where nothing coming from any assembly line today or within the last five years will start to appreciate in your lifetime.

if you are considering a honda civic vs 1009 then you are apples and ornges but a truck capable of a what a 1009 can do for the same money. gas mileage between the two will prob. be the same.

This is what I was thinking, I would never compare a 1009 to a "car". I am talking about trucks only here. I also require the back seats and covered cargo area. With those requirements, there aren't a whole lot of better options, in my opinion.

Well, I still hope someone who has driven the stretch of road I am talking about will chime in. I do drive to CA every few months and I would like to know what to expect on that road if I chose to drive a 1009 to LA. I have another vehicle I could drive when I go there, but I think it would be fun to drive around LA in a 1009 just for the looks you would get!

 

[cpf240]

I picked up my M1009 at Nellis last November. The tank was pretty much empty when I drove it off the base. Filled it up down the street and hit the freeway back to Los Angeles. Stopped in Barstow for food, and topped up while there. I doubt it was down even a quarter of a tank at that point. By the time I got home, there was at least 2/3s of a tank left.

While I sure wasn't flying down the highway, I wasn't in the slow lane either.

No complaints here!

 

[hunderliggur]

Around the DC Beltway, which is basically flat, but not as flat as Vegas, I get 22MPG at 55-65 and 20MPG at 60-70 (50 mile one way trip). By comparison, my 2005 Silverado 2500HD Diesel gets 17-18 on the same route while my 2008 Trailblazer (gas) V8 gets 18-19. Your not going to break any 0-60 time records but if some jerk in a BMW runs into your rear who is going to win?

 

[Bane]

I picked up my M1009 at Nellis last November. The tank was pretty much empty when I drove it off the base. Filled it up down the street and hit the freeway back to Los Angeles. Stopped in Barstow for food, and topped up while there. I doubt it was down even a quarter of a tank at that point. By the time I got home, there was at least 2/3s of a tank left.

While I sure wasn't flying down the highway, I wasn't in the slow lane either.

No complaints here!

I already drive kind of slow, so I know I won't mind that too much! By your figures, it sounds like it took maybe 15 gallons or so. That's an average of 18 MPG. My car gets about 22 MPG on the highway, so its not too much less than what I am already used to. Diesel does cost a little more though. Based on today's fuel prices , it would only cost about $15 more to drive a 1009 to LA than my Dodge sedan. Between that and the fact that I could buy 4 1009's for the price of a decent newer truck, I'm perfectly fine with that!

 

[Bane]

Around the DC Beltway, which is basically flat, but not as flat as Vegas, I get 22MPG at 55-65 and 20MPG at 60-70 (50 mile one way trip). By comparison, my 2005 Silverado 2500HD Diesel gets 17-18 on the same route while my 2008 Trailblazer (gas) V8 gets 18-19. Your not going to break any 0-60 time records but if some jerk in a BMW runs into your rear who is going to win?

 

[stuinnh]

Rust, Rust and more Rust. It is your enemy! Watch out for rust around rear wheel wells. It takes over very quick if you don't stay on top of it. If your truck still has it's rubber floor covering. Remove it. Military was supposed to remove it. Traps water and can rust your floors out. Army guys left windows open all the time. Just my 2 cents. If hard starting in cold weather and cool days, replace fuel pressure switch located in the Stanadyne 80 fuel filter base, only on military trucks.

 

[emr]

It has been my experience, both personal and on this board, that most people do NOT buy CUCVs because of their fuel economy. I had wanted an M1009 Blazer for years and when I had the opportunity to buy one I did.

I knew it would be a labor of love. I knew that a 25 year old truck would cost me money...potentially LOTS of money. I knew that keeping it in it's military state would be more and more difficult as the years past. I knew that I would NEVER get my money out of it if I ever sold it. I knew that at 155 HP I would NOT drive it like I stole it and I knew that it would NEVER see the type of fuel efficiency I could have enjoyed with other vehicles.

Don't take this the wrong way, I feel your pain with the rising fuel prices and I LOVE my CUCV, but if you NEED a fuel efficient vehicle with a powertrain that is suited for mountain driving you may want to look at a different vehicle.

Panama U have a realistic and right attitude for a military vehicle, U are the type of guy that will Love it and always have one, i feel the poster will get rid of it as fast as He can after experiencing all these trucks are, some of us actually love all of it, but if MPGs are a big concern to be honest the poster is in the wrong forum, I sure may be wrong, maybe this is just His starting point, and will end up with one and love it , if thats so GREAT!! all the best and good luck, but there sure is alot more to these than MPGs , and most is expensive unless U can do all yourself and not comfortable at all, but that is what makes it what it is ,

 

[epartsman]

The M1009 has 3.08 gears in the axles which is very helpful at obtaining 20 mpg consistently, but not so helpful climbing the mountains. The Civi versions might have 3.42 or 3.73 which will lesson fuel economy, but help climbing the hills.

And a 700r4 trans with overdrive and cruise control.

 

[epartsman]

I already drive kind of slow, so I know I won't mind that too much! By your figures, it sounds like it took maybe 15 gallons or so. That's an average of 18 MPG. My car gets about 22 MPG on the highway, so its not too much less than what I am already used to. Diesel does cost a little more though. Based on today's fuel prices , it would only cost about $15 more to drive a 1009 to LA than my Dodge sedan. Between that and the fact that I could buy 4 1009's for the price of a decent newer truck, I'm perfectly fine with that!

If your counting pennies let me add this into the equation. Because of the poor quality of todays ULSD diesel you will have to figure a lubricity additive as well for the longevity of the IP. Average price $8 to $10 a bottle which can do up to 4 tanks.

 

[epartsman]

Panama U have a realistic and right attitude for a military vehicle, U are the type of guy that will Love it and always have one, i feel the poster will get rid of it as fast as He can after experiencing all these trucks are, some of us actually love all of it, but if MPGs are a big concern to be honest the poster is in the wrong forum, I sure may be wrong, maybe this is just His starting point, and will end up with one and love it , if thats so GREAT!! all the best and good luck, but there sure is alot more to these than MPGs , and most is expensive unless U can do all yourself and not comfortable at all, but that is what makes it what it is ,

I am with EMR. These trucks are bone stock with no insulation or creature comforts so they are lighter unloaded and get better MPG. They are loud, slow, noisey, smelly, and obnoxious. If you are not a do-it yourselfer repairs will be expensive and there are alot of parts replacers out there that will thow your money at guesses. You have to know these trucks. A mistake will throw right out the door any fuel savings. These are over 25yrs old and maintenance intensive. Mods like larger tires etc cut MPG. Rust is a big issue as mine is swiss cheese. Real world is 15-17MPG empty with no cargo, tools, etc. Load it up to go camping 12-15, add a large trailer, 12mpg over hills and in traffic. Out in the open on Flat roads with no stop and go 20 is possible. A blazer is a brick with no aero dynamics. However I absolutely love mine for no other reason than it's uniqueness and that it is outright fun after everything is said and done. If your sole purpose for buying one is MPG I suggest a VW diesel or equivalent.
If its to satisfy something more carnal I say go for it! Good luck!