Navistar Shows Off GMV 1.1 for Military

Navistar pickup II
When the U.S. military puts in an RFP, or request for proposals, for a stronger, smarter, better personal-use vehicle to replace many of its Hummers, you can bet plenty of companies will be looking to land that contract. And that's exactly what happened, with Navistar and several other suppliers debuting their Special Operations Tactical Vehicle at the Special Ops Industry Conference in Tampa, Fla., a few weeks ago.

This more-mobile vehicle follows the debut last March of the Navistar  Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) that we reported will be running Ford's 6.7-liter Power Stroke turbo-diesel engine. Whereas the JLTV is more of a heavier-duty troop carrier and mobile command center, with weights and GVWRs in the 14,000- to 26,000-pound range, this smaller Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV) will range in weight and GVWR between 6,000 to 14,000 pounds, respectively. The intended users are likely to be the Green Berets, Army Rangers and Navy SEALs.

Some reports peg the GMV with a 123-inch wheelbase, but we're guessing from the photo that the number is likely to be 15 to 20 inches longer — more comparable with a full-size, crew-cab pickup truck. The GMV would likely be much smaller and lighter-duty than the current Navistar lineup (TerraStar, Saratoga, and MXT) and, most importantly, less expensive.

Navistar GMV rear II
The GMV will use Navistar's corporate MaxxForce 6.0-liter V-8 turbo-diesel, which they continue to use even after Ford decided several years ago to take its Super Duty diesel engine in-house. The GMV is reported to have a 50-degree approach angle, a 45-degree departure angle and up to 36 inches of fording depth. According to the original request form from the military, the vehicle needs to be able to carry as much as 6,000 pounds and be carryable with an MH-47 or CH-47 helicopter.

There's no telling what Navistar might do (commercially) if they get this contract, but the company says the vehicle platform is versatile enough to make it a four-, six- or eight-passenger transporter. The vehicle uses a coil spring, four-wheel-independent suspension with eight-lug, bead-lock rims. No doubt the vehicle is configured to be a 1- or 1.5-ton truck for the needed strength and durability needs of the military. We assume the powertrain could also be set up for bifuel or hybrid technology as well. If we ever get a chance to drive, we'll let you know.

For now, all proposals will need to be into the military by the end of this month, with a final decision made later this year.

Current Gen MXT

Navistar MXT pickups 2 II


if they use the 6.0 stroke they will be in a lot of trouble, there will be a lot of stranded troops

Looks promising but I can't begin to imagine how bad Navistar could screw up that project.

should use Ram HD trucks!

Gicen how much their powerstroke engines sucked, these are probably not the most reliable vehicles

I wonder why they didn't choose the Cummins or DMAX?

I wonder why they didn't choose the Cummins or DMAX?

@Frank, as a Ford diehard, even I agree with that. Give me a few more years to evaluate the new Ford diesel program longterm. They have the best 'truck' out there IMO but the engine itself has yet to be proven. As for the formerly Ford sourced Navistar 'Powerjoke' 6.0, forget about it. If I was a soldier I'd want the Cummins or Duramax pulling my ass out of harms way. Not that I care for the Chevy HD truck itself with it's torsion bar suspension, low frame and poor interior but the diesel motor it contains is truly a gem. The Dodge truck is a winner all around IMO. Proven diesel, proper HD suspension and superb build quality. Not much Ford can do to counter that but give their new diesel some time to gain credibility.

It's worth mentioning that the military gets to run "Export Only" versions of 6.7L and 6.0L diesels. These engines have none of the emissions equipment we get saddled with.

They also test these engines heavily beforehand, as they need to ensure they will be reliable with the variety of fuels the military uses.

Only time will tell on this one!

Take a look at the suspension on these military vehicles, IFS not what is offered on Dodge and Ford. I looked at the front suspension on a new one ton Ford the other day and I could not believe how cheap it looks and how low it hangs to the ground. If this is what you Ford boys brag about then I will take the torsion bar suspension on GM's trucks. And what is up with the Ford rear springs? Every new Ford super duty with a load squats something terrible. Great for looking at the stars but nothing else.

The Duramax is a joint venture between GM and Isuzu. Regardless of whichever engine is chosen it NEEDS to be totally owned, controlled and built by and in the USA. DMAX is built in the US, but with a Japanese company having controlling interest, it does not make sense from a national security standpoint.

The Navistar's newest 6.4L engine made of a compacted graphite iron block has turned out to be a rockstar. They've learned from their mistakes. This is the most reliable and fuel efficient mid-range diesel on the market.

I would not send troops into combat in a vehicle powered by a 6.0L or 6.4L Navistar engine. Rockstar? They still can't get the dealers to order them, and it's starting to look like the TerraStar is a flop.

DMAX is entirely owned by GM at this point, but it doesn't matter because I don't think the 6.6L is in any of the proposed JLVT's.

@ mike

are you a bit slow? Isuzu's part of the duramax was simply some good injection system knowhow. GM produced the rest of that powerplant and its OWNED by GM. GM owns or did own a good portion of Isuzu and that has NOTHING to do with National Security. By your own suggestions the 6.7 powerstroke is Hecho en Mexico. that would be just as much of a stretch to call that a matter of national security you dolt.

@Greg - do you reallly thing the military is using IFS that is comparable to a GMC HD?
Are you an engineer? When you look at components under a truck there is no way of telling strength by appearance. If you looked at 3 different company's a-arms, the biggest one isn't necessarily going to be the strongest. Type of metal, forging, casting etc., shape, welds, attachment points etc. all play into the strength of a component.
We all know you base your opinion on the badge on the hood. Some components are easily distinguishable as "cheep" and "flimsy" by appearance. The interior of your favorite brand is a prime example.

This truck looks like an incomplete offering. The previous Navistar MXT looks like a much cleaner finshed product. I've seen 1 civilian MXT and 1 CXT. Both were impressive trucks.

Mike, are you that SinterCast investor guy that pops up on all the truck enthusiast websites and goes on and on about how great CGI blocks are?

Just curious.

@hemi lol @Big Bob. Isuzu has no GM ownership and is still getting royalties on the engine, although there was supposed to be a "divorce" between GM and Isuzu.
Izuzu and GM have collectively worked together on the New Colorado and Isuzu Dmax Pickups, both coming from the same Thailand based factory.
New Isuzu Dmax Pickup
Chevrolet Colorado Pickup

Isuzu still manufactures various Duramax 6.6L components for GM. The 6.6L rights and plant (known a 'DMAX') are owned by GM, as GM bought Isuzu out of the joint venture a few years ago. Affimative on the next gen. Colorado.

They put Cummins in 90% of there tanks there cleaner and quiter and way way bigger most are the ISC engine the 8.3 L cummins but they also use the big cummins engines like the ISX15 with 700hp and 2500lb-ft of torque, they put Cummins in Humvies also. Cummins is also used over seas in other countries military Cummins is used in everything, Semis,boats generators mining equitment, logging, etc.

Just one more example of the military moving away from solid axles and towards fully independent (front and rear) suspensions. Hopefully we will start seeing this switch to begin to occur on full-size pickups as well.

If IFS/IRS is good enough for the military, surely it can withstand the abuse of pickup owners.

If IFS/IRS is good enough for the military, surely it can withstand the abuse of pickup owners

I'd say you can't argue with that but I know the diehards here will not disapoint.

@ Stevadore:

If the diehards were running the military, we'd still be using horses and conestoga wagons.

yea a new civilian model could be called The Scout III


Humvees don't use Cummins, at least not the ones I've worked on. They use a version of GM/Detroit's old 6.5L (and I think the 6.2L on some of the older ones).

Actually, after being saddled with the 6.5L (and 6.2L) for years, it doesn't surprise me they aren't using a Duramax. Who would ever trust GM again after having a fleet of those engines, haha.

@DDGERAM - most of the current crop of "super tanks" use gas turbine engines not diesel engines. They will run diesel but they will also run on kerosene and jet fuel.
You need to stop memorizing Chrysler press info.
BTW - Cummins is an autonomous corporation that has nothing to do with Chrysler other than selling them engines. Therefore bragging about Cummins engines has nothing to do with Fiat/Chrysler.

I have read that Navistar is looking at using Cummins engines, to get them over the emission hurdle they have with their current MaxxForce ones. Navistar has quite a few technical problems at the moment.

The Cummins in a Navistar truck would be a welcome sight. The 6.4 is no rockstar in their medium trucks and buses. I'd like to see the military running Chevy with Duramax or Ram with Cummins. No stopping those engines.

The new unproven 6.7 Ford diesel is a big mistake. They chose the worst most unproven enigne to power their military prototype, figures coming from Navistar. I think Ford needs to find out why those engines are granading and not filtering properly before they allow them to be used and trusted by the military. If I were a troop and knew I was riding in a vehicle with a Ford Diesel under the hood, I would not be riding easy I can assure you that. Navistar says they picked it for power and mileage, but the Duramax clearly has more power, even though the Ford looks best on paper, the real world says otherwise and the Dmax is within what a quarter of a mpg of the PSD. A proven Duramax or Cummins would have been a much better choice, period.

What proven Duramax would they use? The LML is as new as the Powerstroke (and actually uses a lot of the same components, like the high pressure fuel pump).

The only really 'proven' engine is the 6.7L Cummins ISB, which gets the worst fuel economy of the bunch.

@Robert Ryan - I had read that Navistar was suing the EPA over emission laws. I haven't bothered to see how that was working out for them. It mustn't be going in their favor if they are having to use Cummins engines.

US military vehicles are emission exempt. So older (ie. Tier III) engines can be integrated from companies that still make them for "industrial" applications. The CAT C6.6 and C4.4 come to mind. Also, the Steyr Motors M14 and M16 (used in some of the Humvee variants).

Giant Bun fight all round. Volvo and Daimler are suing Navistar over the fact they are using "illegal engines." As a stop gap measure Navistar is looking at Cummins to get over that problem. Lot of Management problems with Navistar, very good range of products though.

The 6.0L issues stemmed mostly out of emission requirements and systems that had to be put into place due to those requirements. These engines are used all over the world in MRAP vehicles that have been in combat for the last 5 years. Tested and proven to be a respectable option. As to all those questioning the finish or complete look (or lack there of)... release of RFQ to delivery was very quick (3 months) and the product had to be based on a tested/non development vehicle. This one stemmed for Indigen Armor's NSTT. No company could bring a clean sheet design due to time constraints and scope of work put forth by RFQ.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is Navistar's way of getting back into the light truck market. I've heard the rumors for years now, and this just may be the first step.

The comments to this entry are closed.