(first posted 4/11/2013) We recently had a Blazer CC, but it barely touched on the military version, the M1009 built between 1984 and 1987. The Blazer version was just one member of the Chevy CUCV (Commercial Utility Cargo Vehicle) family, which also included 1¼ ton pickups, ambulances, and other body types. The Blazer was rated at ¾ ton, with a heavier duty suspension and axles than the civilian version.
They were not designed for front-line use, but as cheap wheels for various support roles (no armor). They fulfilled that role well enough. But they did all have NATO-compliant 24V electrical systems, although really it was a split 12/24V affair. The starter was 24 volts, and there were two 12 v batteries, as well as twin 12v alternators (that’s what wikipedia says!). But the rest of the truck kept the 12 v system, and changing out the starter and ditching a battery turns it back to a civilian grade straight 12v system.
Power is supplied by an un-smogged Detroit Diesel-designed 6.2 L GM diesel V8, making 155 hp, whose torque is fed through a TH-400 transmission.
This one has gone vegan; the insulated veggie-oil tank is quite clearly visible under the bumper. I got a confirmation of that from the driver a couple of lights down the road, when he pulled a camera out and pointed it at me!
Ive never seen a Blazer that model without major rust it must have been kept dry somewhere, I still prefer the LRDG Chevrolets of WW2.
I have seen some of those around the midwest. Like yours, they are often not rusty at all. I suspect that some of the military bases don’t use much salt, or just avoid driving these out on the roads much.
I had no idea that these were specially equipped an any way other than the camo paint job.
I read in my local paper this week that we have in Indianapoliis one of there major sales lots for disposal of modern military surplus trucks. I will have to try to go visit some time.
Here, the Army was careful of taxpayers’ money, both in procuring COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf), & keeping them from rusting out (intentionally or not).
Armor has historically been unnecessary for rear-echelon vehicles like these, but the advent of IEDs has changed all that.
Some of those are even more modified, I have seen photos of winterized CUCV Blazers with a quilted covers over the rear side windows and auxiliary heaters. The GM CUCV pickup and its Dodge predecessor were semi common in the 90s but seem to be fading as they either wear out or are made more civilian looking. I recall 4 Wheeler doing a writeup on CUCVs in the late 90s as cheap, tough and slightly slow.
No mystery about lack of rust. Despite the civilian underpinnings, the 1009 was considered a tactical vehicle that was assigned to units by TO&E (Table of Organization & Equipment). As a tactical vehicle, many of them saw use mainly for training and deployments. Training is usually in training areas where roads are often unpaved tank trails that never see salt. Most of the vehicle’s life is spent in a motor pool maintained by grumbling soldiers who would like more of a chance to actually use the thing as opposed to washing it and touching up paint. For National Guard and Reserve units, the duty cycle often sees even less use since drills are one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer. Still others are kept in supply depot stocks as replacement for losses. These were in the twilight of active duty use when the frequent unit deployments in support of America’s longest wars began. While many of these have been used to death, it is not uncommon to find low mileage rust free examples of tactical vehicles that some like to convert to civilian use when the military is done with them.
See these on eBay a lot but never on the street. In fact, I rarely see these Blazers around. Maybe they were victims of cash for clunkers. Maybe the army coated those trucks in a really rust resistant enamel and even placed zinc bars on their undercarriages to inhibit rust? 155 hp for a truck that size? What is the torque rating??? These things were just mobile generators and used for hauling stuff on or around bases. Maybe another reason we don’t see these on the road is that they cannot pass the states’ newer emission laws so you cannot pass yearly inspections? I would love to have one as a second truck. Think they’re kinda boss looking.
Maybe another reason we don’t see these on the road is that they cannot pass the states’ newer emission laws so you cannot pass yearly inspections?
In California at least, new emissions laws only apply to new vehicles. Older vehicles are grandfathered under whatever laws existed when they were new. So a 1987 truck only has to meet the requirements from 1987. I would assume other states work the same way. I suppose it’s possible they didn’t even meet the emissions requirements back then but had an exemption as military vehicles, although I don’t think diesels were regulated as strictly, it at all, back then.
Most if not all of these CUCVs went to civilian agencies after their miltary tours were through. I have no idea what the Defense Departments critiera was when they were deemed a money pit and had to go. Back when they were new I sold a ship load of parts for them as I worked down the highway from Stratcom(SAC for the Dr.Strangeloves out there). I’ve seen them with no miles and with high miles. I know every cop agency in my area had one, if not two or three of them parked on the back lot back in the early 90’s. My favorite feature on the M1009 was the twin gun rack welded to the floor right behind the drivers seat. Just perfect for your M16 or AK47 clone. I still see stories of the Big 2.5 building CUCV prototypes for the various military organizations. (NATO,etc.) Imagine a Silverado or Ford Super Duty in olive drab.I’m not 100% for sure but I think one of the criteria for these D-Trucks(Instead of C/K they labeled them a D) was a NATO specification that the engine had to run a mixture of fuels. I.e. diesel mixed with mud and gasoline or even veggie oil. I guess they figured in war time that you wouldn’t just pull into a 7-11(like in the movie Red Dawn) to steal some fuel for your vehicle and that you most likely would have to soak it up from a ditch or enemy vehicle with a sponge and bucket. Something stupid like that anyway. Paul nice touch saying that the 6.2/6.5 was built by DD. I think DD designed the motor but GM still built it on their assembly line. Sometime around the turn of this century they sold the design to AM General. Long after AMG bought thousands of them for use in the HMMVW(thats HumVee for the Dr.Strangeloves).
Back in the 1990’s I worked as a civilian employee at Ft. Leavenworth, there were a lot
of these vehicles running around. A friend of my-who was in the Army Reserve at the
fort did maintenance on them. He told me one day they had to replace the glow plugs
on the diesels-they procured the parts from a local dealer-unfortunately for the civilian
version and they burned out rather quickly. According to my friend, the military versions
had a 24 volt system and they fried the 12 volt glow plugs pretty quickly. It seems like
they all disappeared about 10 years ago-I haven’t seen one for years.
I wonder how easy it is to convert to a 12 volt system? I’d bet the 24 volt glow plugs are rare and expensive!
The glow pugs were the standard 12v units, but with a special igniter pack that reduced the 24v to 12v.
The glow plugs were problematic on these.
When they went bad, they often swelled, and getting them out involved a little home made fork to pry with and putting a torch to them so they got soft and could be pulled out of the hole. Kind of a giant pain in the ass.
I don’t recall the details, but I think it was caused by improperly cycling the glow plugs repeatedly, as poorly trained Privates will do.
I think Banks made a nice turbo kit for the 6.2 Detroit. This seems like a good application for it.
My Uncle Doug was in the National Guard for many years, and I recall him bringing some of these home back in the Eighties to pack up when he would have to drive up to Camp Grayling. My cousin had told me that the little rectangular thingys in the back bumpers were some kind of little lights that were used so that they could see each other in the dark without using the headlights. Does anyone know if this was true? (we were kids back then, so who knows…)
Yes those ‘slits’ in the bumpers were lights. Most all military vehicles have those type of lights,;sometimes they’re ‘eyebrow’ caps over the headlights. Still see these and the pick-up version on a semi-regular basis around here in North Florida. I believe there was a Suburban version, too.
Yup.. we called them “blackout lights” – very dim and were meant so ground-level personnel could see each other, but so aircraft couldn’t. However, with NVG’s, even those dim blackout lights are like a beacon.
I’d rather have a HEMTT, but the CUCV’s were cool.
Blackout lights on all military vehicles use a system of 4 “cat’s eyes” in each light to guide the drivers. When you fall too far behind, the 4 cat eye slits seem to merge into a single light. When you’re too close, you can see all 4 cat eye slits are clearly separate. You try to keep distance in the band between seeing 4 slits and 2 slits.
Saw one of these located in Dallas and on ebay last year. Seller talked some about extra battery etc.
I think one of these could be a real bargain.
Drove plenty of these during tours in Korea in the 80s – they were fairly good vehicles but weren’t geared very well for freeway driving – too many revs and too much noise – we preferred the Dodge 2X4 “6 pax” for highway trips.
Many were designated as “WRM” or war reserve materiel – stored instead of driven and only used during major exercises. Many were 4-5 years old but had less than 12000 miles.
I recall seeing dozens of these at the state surplus auction, circa 2004. All ’84s, as that seems to be the year in which most were ordered. I was there looking for fleet vehicles for the new business and on a tight budget, so I shunned the camo-clad and mostly windowless lot of Blazers. Many went super-cheap. Some didn’t sell at all; it took several auctions before the last of them disappeared.
Of course, now that they’re commanding prices in the $3000-4000 range locally, I’m wishing I’d grabbed a bunch of them back when.
IIRC, they also came standard with a red vinyl interior.
I remember one Sunday at church, one of the men there was chatting with a couple of others – seems he was the GM Govt Sales Mgr – and he had just nailed this deal.
I asked him what was different, and he went thru a list like Paul gave in the story.
Going to church was fun for me, from those days, I either met, or knew through my folks, all kinds of Vice Presidents or Chief Engineers from all the Big-3. Oftentimes, by Sunday, the last thing these guys wanted to talk about was cars, or something secret, and one learned who to avoid. But many of them enjoyed discussing the business with a kid who hoped one day to enter the biz. Fun times, good memories.
These Blazers Are Tough & Fun To Drive. Gov.Liquidation.com Has Auctions Every Week Selling These Blazers & Trucks. Pick One Up. You Will Be Amazed. When I Went In The Military These Truck Were Just Replacing The Jeeps. They Are Built Tough & Will Go Any Were. I Drive Them All Over The Place & Get 18-20 Miles Per Gallon. Scotty.
84 M1009 Blazer. 6.2 Ltr. Deisal/ 400 turbo Transmission.
My dad was in the Army my whole life, so I’ve been in these (and the Dodge M880) a lot. The very definition of “bare bones” vehicles! Bare steel interior, “oxblood”/reddish maroon seats, and nothing else. I know the Dodges didn’t have power steering, but I’m not sure if the GM stuff did. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t. Oh, as far as rust, these would rust just as much as any other Blazer, if you drove it in the winter. A friend bought one at an auction, a fire department had
bought it from the army before my friend had it and the underneath looked just as bad as any street driven Blazer… plus his developed plenty of holes in it from our salty winter roads… but that thing was totally unstoppable in the winter, even on the barely-there logging roads in northern Wisconsin. The special paint these were painted with
“CARC and WD CARC Paint. CARC (Chemical Agent Resistant Coating) was developed as the basic camouflage topcoat (described in MIL-C-46168). It is a two component, solvent-based polyurethane that was used on all Army (and other services’) combat vehicles, aircraft, and tactical equipment.”
could be laid on as thick as bed liner, so when my buddy and I checked a few of these out, there were lots of places our magnets didn’t stick (easy to conceal bondo or whatever under the thick CARC paint) I wouldn’t hesitate to get one that I knew was from a dry area, though… And yeah they were slow and noisy on the freeway, but that really wasn’t what they were meant to do.
My unit had both these and Humvees. Frankly for most tasks the CUCV was the preferred vehicle.
As I mentioned in the original post, drove these frequently in 80’s. Being 6’6″, I could never fit in a HUMVEE – their seats, especially the drivers, had limited back and forth movement – I could never get comfortable driving one. The GM CUCV pickups were OK, but these Blazers were the most roomy, a big benefit when wearing full “battle rattle” (helmet, flak vest, harnesses, etc.).
One interesting feature of these vehicles – as well as the M880 (Dodge) series was the ignition key. A single key cut fits every one of the GM vehicles of this series. Ditto for the Dodge series. Because the propensity of soldiers to “borrow” unsecured vehicles, almost every unit welded a chain to the floor and secured the steering wheel with a padlock. I always found it a bit odd that the military would specify a common ignition lock, then use a chain with unique padlock keys as a substitute.
Looking for aM1009 Blazer 802 272 6933