Ford CUCV

[hiluxxulih]

Does anyone know if Ford ever entered into the CUCV contract bid in the 80,s , it would be cool to see what they looked like .

 

[maddawg308]

Yes, Ford entered into the CUCV contest in 1981-2 before Chevy was awarded the contract. They only produced one example of their version, it did well in the trials but GM's entry had the upper hand. The one example made was sold surplus in the early 1980s to Ted Nugent.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Just wondering but is there any documentation to that?

Not saying your word isn't good but I've met a guy who used to own a few different 4x4 shops here in Michigan and he claimed to have built several of Ted's Broncos. Might have just been talking out his butt however I trusted his work and had no reason to disbelieve him.

GM definitely had the ins as the HMMWV used a GM-ish power train that was pretty compatible with the then current GM trucks.

 

[maddawg308]

AJMBLAZER - I was joking. The whole thing. Most people would see that as humor, but you missed it. Sorry.

As far as Ford's entry, I don't know for sure if they even tried, however one would think that Ford and/or Dodge would at least have tried to give GM a run for their money during the competition.

Perhaps David Doyle might be able to chime in and shed some light on this subject?

 

[AJMBLAZER]

The great part about the internet is that it makes it completely possible and relatively easy to miss all but the most obvious of ironies and humor.

I am curious now though.

The original AMG HMMWV predecessor (the dune buggy looking thing) had a AMC 360 in it I believe. All kinds of automotive DNA in this story.

 

[datsunaholic]

Ford did in fact enter the CUCV contract bid process. So did Chrysler and American Motors.

The following excerpt is from March-April 1982 "Field Artillery Journal". I'm assuming since Diesel Power was a requirement Chrysler and AMC (which soon merged) ended up dropping having not developed a suitable Diesel for their trucks.


New truck expands
tactical fleet mobility
The Army's new 4x4 commercial utility cargo vehicle
(CUCV) family will result in an expanded mobility
capability of the tactical fleet and help to ease a current truck
shortage.
Planned for introduction late this year, the CUCVs will
replace about 20 percent of the current M151 ¼-ton trucks
and all M880-series 1¼-ton commercial trucks. They will
include a ¾-ton utility truck and a 1¼-ton vehicle that will be
available either as a cargo truck or an ambulance.
The CUCVs will have commonality of major components
and will feature diesel engines, automatic transmissions, and
power steering. Additionally, they will have a payload
capacity ranging from 1,200 to 2,900 pounds and a cruising
range of 250 miles. Moreover, various kits will make them
suitable for specific military applications.

"The CUCV will fill a growing need for a modern tactical
standard-mobility commercial fleet for use in combat
support and combat service support roles," explained LTC
Lawrence W. Day, Weapon Systems Manager for the CUCV
in the US Army Tank-Automotive Command's (TACOM)
Research and Development Center. "They will be operating
in areas where the environment is not severe and a more
expensive high-mobility vehicle is not required."



The CUCV program began in July 1980 when Congress
directed the Army to buy commercial trucks to replace
many of the current M880 vehicles and those ¼-ton trucks
operating in areas where high-mobility is not required.
On 27 April 1981, TACOM authorized the purchase of
26 candidate commercial trucks for technical feasibility
testing to determine a commercial truck's adequacy to meet
the Army's needs.
These vehicles, consisting of a variety of 1981 utility
and cargo trucks built by the four major US auto
companies, underwent 10,000 miles of tests at Aberdeen
Proving Ground last summer.
All 26 trucks were equipped with gasoline engines, since
none of the domestic auto manufacturers offered a diesel
engine specifically designed for light- and medium-duty
application in the 1981 model year. However, General
Motors Corporation (GMC) has introduced a new 6.2-liter
diesel in its 1982 truck models, and Ford, Chrysler, and
American Motors are expected to have diesels in 1983.
So, to evaluate the use of diesel power in the CUCV,
TACOM recently purchased two 1982 GMC vehicles
equipped with the new power plant, and these are
undergoing the same 10,000-mile test. Also, a 6.2-liter
diesel is being tested at TACOM.
Following testing and a successful review, TACOM will
initiate competitive procurement actions, with a multiyear
production contract award projected for August, this year.
"The Army currently needs 110,000 ¼-ton trucks," Day
said, "but has only about 58,000 in the inventory. Nearly
half of these are nearing the end of their expected life of 15
years."
"A similar situation exists in the 1¼-ton category," he
continued. "Our M880 trucks, which were bought during
1976 and 1977, are only two to three years away from the
end of their expected service life of seven years.
"Procurement of the CUCVs will help to ease the current
shortage and will allow the Army to phase out those
vehicles which have served their expected life."
"In addition to filling its own vehicle requirements, Day
said the Army will also be buying CUCVs for the US
Marine Corps and Air Force." (George Taylor, TACOM)

 

[Dabba]

ehh to ford. As for the picture, bronco II, worst SUV ever..

 

[acmunro]

That's a full size Bronco in the picture. The Bronco II just like about everything else some people swear by them, some people swear at them. I would be a swear at them.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

Yep, that's a Big Bronco.

Got one sitting in my driveway right now. FIL's and MIL's B2 beater. Starts and goes reliably and gets decent gas mileage while having 4x4. MIL just drove it 3.5 hours up here this morning with no troubles. I'd take a B2 over a S10 Blazer/Jimmy any day.

 

[hiluxxulih]

I wish that Vintage Video would get some test footage of the GM CUCV , there must be a time limit for releasing the video to the public .

 

[Dabba]

oh crap that is. My bad, eh, i hear alot more bad about them than the s series, though id rather have neither.

 

[AJMBLAZER]

S-10's = pathetic little rear axles and GM's torsion bar IFS abortion in miniature form. BAH!

 

[Dabba]

ifs = crap in anything. Im surprised ford went to ifs in the full sizes so early, a major reason i dont like ford. My friends got a 92 bronco, i mean honestly its not that bad, but its got some sort fo electronic issue we cant figure out that disables normal tranny shifting, and the speedometer and abs, and the ifs just sucks and makes lifts expensive. and bumper droop! but i would like a first gen bronco for sure

 

[AJMBLAZER]

TTB isn't quite IFS. It's sorta like IFS and a solid axle had a kid. The only problem is Ford never developed it right. It's kick ass with the right setup at high speeds and can still be made to flex pretty decently. I loved it in my '96 Ranger.

 

[m.walker]

I thought about camo paint and installing all the cucv related parts on this . I just didn't want a blazer .

 

[DMgunn]

ifs = crap in anything. Im surprised ford went to ifs in the full sizes so early, a major reason i dont like ford. My friends got a 92 bronco, i mean honestly its not that bad, but its got some sort fo electronic issue we cant figure out that disables normal tranny shifting, and the speedometer and abs, and the ifs just sucks and makes lifts expensive. and bumper droop! but i would like a first gen bronco for sure

Oh, boy..............IFS does not equal crap in a HUMVEE...try to achieve ground clearance like that with a straight axle.

Your buddy's '92 Bronco is expensive to lift??? Check the price of a lift for a '92 GM ANYTHING, before you make such a ridiculous and ignorant comment. At least the Fords (fullsize and BII) absolutely kill the GM "equivalents" in axle strength. In fact, the first-gen Explorer (you know, a four-door Bronco II), and every Explorer since, has a stronger rear axle than any GM 1/2-ton up to and including the '09.

Bronco II - worst SUV ever? Well, they don't do anything for me, either, but worst ever? I guess you are entitled to your opinion - would be nice, though if you would state it as such.

 

[Dabba]

1st, okay ill admit i was wrong, the humvees ifs is good and they do have great ground clearence. Expensive? Yes, apparently whats expensive to you is different from whats expensive to me, which makes sense as we hold different values and opinions. Let me rephrase in that the lifts for his bronco are expensive COMPARED to my older solid axle gms. Last time we checked, about twice as much. And in my OPINION, easier to do on a solid axle truck. I wouldnt know about axle stregths in ford vs gm in anything newer than 91, nor would i care to as i dont bother with newer SUVs or the mid sizes, to each his own. I know the bronco II had a very poor saftey record, with a high rollover rate and it had very poor sales. So poor infact they had to redesign it and give it the name explorer. But i guess i also need to point out that when i make a generalized statement such as "worst SUV ever" people would normally take that as opinion.

 

[DMgunn]

Actually, the TTB lifts are expensive by my standards, too - but about 1/3 the price of a GM IFS. I am comparing apples to apples - same year vehicle.

As far as axle strength, it didn't start in '91. GM has had the weakest axles since the introduction of the 10-bolt in, what, '77? Ford tried the 8.8 in 1/2-tons for awhile, and even though it is stronger than the 10-bolt, they still realized it simply wasn't enough for a 1/2-ton pickup, and they went bigger. Dodge has always had good strength, at least in the rear. Only GM is using toothpick axles to this day.

My guess on why GM got the CUCV contract? Two words - "lowest bidder".

 

[Dabba]

I cant argue because i dont know much about ford axles, but ive seen people do some hardcore stuff with 10 bolts, i mean i beat the crap out of my k5 with 10 bolts and never had an issue, but im certainly more happy with my 14ff and dana 60. True Gm probably got it because of lowest bidder, much like everything else, but another reason i like gm trucks (fullsize mind you) Cheap, plentiful, interchangability, and alot of mods. To argue your point it seems your only comparing half ton axles.. And as for you comparing GM ifs lifts to ford ifs lifts, yeah i belive you but when i said expensive i was comparing to my older hm fullsizes, if i owned and 92+gm i wouldnt have said that.

 

[DMgunn]

I cant argue because i dont know much about ford axles, but ive seen people do some hardcore stuff with 10 bolts, i mean i beat the crap out of my k5 with 10 bolts and never had an issue, but im certainly more happy with my 14ff and dana 60. True Gm probably got it because of lowest bidder, much like everything else, but another reason i like gm trucks (fullsize mind you) Cheap, plentiful, interchangability, and alot of mods. To argue your point it seems your only comparing half ton axles.. And as for you comparing GM ifs lifts to ford ifs lifts, yeah i belive you but when i said expensive i was comparing to my older hm fullsizes, if i owned and 92+gm i wouldnt have said that.

Agreed on the 14-bolt. That is a great axle. And I will agree with the appeal of the '73-'87 GM trucks - everything is available, and most of it is cheap. AND it's a clean, attractive body style. My argument about axles will hold up across the board, in every weight class available. The 14-bolt is the only thing they've ever gotten right when it comes to strength. And I'm afraid that's not just my opinion

Fortunately for you and me, all the shortcomings (without regard to the brand) can be remedied, as you have shown with yours.