(first posted 6/25/2018) The ratio of old Ford to Chevy pickups from the mid-70s through the 80s here is clearly a bit lopsided. And obviously it’s not rust that’s a factor. Well, this is Ford country. And there’s just more natural appeal to an old Ford truck, for one reason or another. But that’s not to say there aren’t a decent number of these wide-side Chevys around too, still earning their keep like this one for Garden Starters. Let’s spread a little luv around for it.
Frankly, it’s not easy for me to find a lot of actual reasons why these should be considered inferior to their blue oval counterparts. The 292 six is just a hair behind the Ford 300 six in terms of the ultimate six banger torque factories. And Chevy V8s are just hunky dory, despite the prejudice some harbor against them. And if it does peter out, it’s not like just about any Chevy V8 from 1955 up won’t pop right in.
Yes, the interior shows signs of the General’s bean counters at work. But who cares if there’s a crack in the dash or the lower door side panel feels a bit cheesy? It gets the job done.
I’ve got a neighbor who does heat and ventilation duct contracting, and he’s been driving his early 80s Chevy pickup every day for work for some 20 years now, after her replaced his ’65 C10 with it in about 1998 or so. And my next door neighbor is part of a pickup pool, where three or four folks share a pickup for weekend garden work and such. They’ve got a similar vintage Chevy thta’s been doing the chores for going on 20 years now too.
Yes, these make great old work trucks. I’m not stingy with my love.
My favorite vintage Chevy truck – I always look for the vertical front marker light.
I like it. Nicely optioned with factory A/C and automatic. Body looks in teriffic shape. Always liked these better than the generation that followed, which didn’t seem as “substantial” for some reason.
Could be Saabs in the backgroud?
My dad had a ’74 C-20 and a ’79 C-10 and they both did indeed rust like it was an Olympic sport. I’m surprised even this Oregon truck doesn’t have a kink in the huge, flat, spring-loaded hood from being pushed shut against the spring loading. Ford avoided that for decades with their wrapover hoods.
Having grown up around them I didn’t understand their quirks as being quirks until much later.
Your climate avoids the two biggest problems with these – rust which will dissolve the body and sunlight which will turn much of the interior into hard, crumbly ex-plastic.
I have driven a few of this generation (Suburbans too) and my impressions were all over the map. One Suburban with a 305 (and not that old) ran terribly with bad hesitation whenever you stepped on the go pedal. Another was a good running six with some of the worst brakes I have ever experienced in a vehicle of its age. Surely both were fixable somehow or other. Then there was an older beater 350-powered pickup that ran and drove like a champ.
Aha! A bigfoot gas pedal… cool.
I grew up in my Dad’s autobody shop and remember having to do rust repair on several of these during the ’80’s. Front edge of the hood, fender bottoms, rockers, lower doors… the fun one was rear wheel openings where the chrome was still intact but the metal behind it was gone. A call to Nordan back then got you a replacement set of fenders and hood, door shells, and a tailgate for about 400-500 bucks. At least they’re supremely easy to work on. I learned to weld sheetmetal on these trucks.
This was in the Northwest, on Whidbey Island. Rust had to be absolutely awful elsewhere by compare.
I’ve driven so many of these. I love Fords, but I thought the Chevy steered better. Plus, its pretty hard to kill a 350, even with them withstanding several burnouts and other abuse a kid can dish out. I remember working at a Chevy dealership in Mount Vernon in ’88 and driving what had to be one of the last 6 cylinder 3-speed on the tree trucks made. Came in on trade.
Assuming the front grill surround is original then I believe this is a ’79. That was the year the lower turn signals were added to the bezel around the headlights.
One of my few actual skills is rapid identification of the year model of ’73 to ’87 Chevy trucks. I worked at a plumbing shop all through high school and we were a Chevy only shop with examples of each year. I went full geek on the often incredibly minor differences between each year model and for some reason still recall them a hundred years later today. Bizarre.
Anyhow, I like Chebbys of this vintage better than Ford’s. And Dodges of this era? We had nothing but contempt for them in my, admittedly limited, circles back then.
“Anyhow, I like Chebbys of this vintage better than Ford’s. And Dodges of this era? We had nothing but contempt for them in my, admittedly limited, circles back then.”
Nobody ever remembered that there remained another choice . . . 🙂
International!!? What are you, some kind of radical nutjob? Everyone knows that those are JUNK! Why next you’ll be bringing up one of those fur-inn jobs like Ti-oder or Dotsun and claiming they are better. Kids today, geesh.
Cornbinder!!! Around these parts (n.e. Ohio) Cornbinders were fairly common seeing as they were built down the road in Springfield but man, did they RUST!!! Much worse than any Big 3 pickup! There is a nice one less then a mile from my work, looks like that same truck but in a nice shade of red.
Yes, I saw more than a typical share of these around my hometown of Fort Wayne, too. Although they did not build them there, International had enough of a presence in the area that these were seen way more commonly than their normal market penetration. I remember seeing them probably about as commonly as I saw Dodges back then, which is to say seldom (instead of “hens’ teeth” which was the standard most other places.) 🙂
Inters were about the only US style ute/pickups we got after the early 50s, they were AL models built in OZ so avoided wasting precious $, They were really hard to kill, I had a rough AL 110 flat deck it had been rolled over at some stage of life but other than a few dents and gravel rash it was unharmed, tough old thing and really rare now here.
Found this guide in a magazine many years ago.
And also the first year of Torx screws for retaining taillight lenses and headlamp bezels.
These are still THE landscaper truck in Spokane. A few years ago the Dodges of similar age were dominant. Now the Dodges are gone and it’s all Chevys. They do rust more than earlier Chevys, but rust never gets serious here.
These are as plentiful as Fords where I am. The area is benign for rust but warm and sunny in summer so interiors and paint take a beating during part of the year. Older pickups have long lives. There are a few Dodges, too.
One aqua/white 1978 (or so) Dodge is parked at the commuter park-and-ride lot on Monday-Friday and likely as not will drop in at Lowe’s on Saturday/Sunday. The owner’s son does landscaping work on weekends.
Up here in the frozen North, a truck like that would command damned good coin and only be seen in the nicest of weather. When I was a kid we had a ’77 GMC we got from my great-uncle, and even in 1988 when we bought it we had to put sheets of plywood over the floors because the floorboards had rusted through. Bits of the body would fall off when we hit severe bumps with it.
But, it had a 350 and 4×4, and that thing just would not die. We sold it off in 1991 when dad suddenly got a thing for a (disastrous) S-15, and we saw it around town with a plow setup and very little of the body remaining for almost a decade afterward. My guess is that it finally became absolutely unfit to drive because of the rust.
As for the truck itself? I think the 1980 refresh actually did these a lot of favors. Still, it’s only as an adult I’ve come to love the Fords of that era. As a kid I thought these were the better looking of the two (because seriously, who bought the Dodge or “and the rest” later ID’d as the Professor and Maryanne?). My parents obviously loved the Chevies-Dad’s late ’70s Ford never ran right and kept stalling as they were rushing 2-year-old to the ER. Mom banned the Fords back then, and by the time Dad had enough money to buy new he much preferred the Chevy over the Ford.
I know I already shared this in the thread about the Ford pickup, but this thread is probably more appropriate.
So here’s another Chevy truck of the same generation that still hauls produce to the farmers market every weekend.
They may be full of fist sized holes all across the body but these 70s-80s square body Chevys dominated the Chicagoland market, only in the last 8 years would I say I’ve been seeing more Ford’s as old work trucks, but then the oldest ones I see are no older than ninth generation(which do out survive gmt400s). I almost never see 70s dentside F-series trucks in a work capacity, I can’t even recollect a time in my life when they would have been common, and the following 7th and 8th gens seem to have a really low survival rate. The Chevy body’s may rust bad but they seem to be indestructible as far as frame and mechanicals go, and since there’s no state safety inspections who cares if they look like Swiss cheese?
Personally, I like the look of this generation quite a bit, at least up until the front end was squared off and given stacked headlights(ugh) in the early 80s. 70s F-series trucks have almost zero appeal to me, they seem like a full generation behind the Chevys, yet not near as cool as the 60s ones.
Weren’t the 7th-Gen Fords cursed with the EEC feedback carbs? The 8th gen, I’d guess, suffered the same fate of all being flogged to death as the 9th-gens are, but with half the available examples to start with. I mean, I see 9th-gens still being flogged by builders and landscapers, although it’s pretty much only in the city itself as they’ve now largely disappeared from the suburbs here.
Hell, a few weeks ago when I was at the junkyard, I couldn’t help but notice that there were only a couple 9th-gens. A year ago, the same yards would usually have 10 on hand.
These are much more plentiful than Ford’s here in SoCal, especially as working trucks. Greater availability of replacement parts may tell part of the story. Also, Chevy simply appeals more to the primarily Hispanic community that uses older trucks to make a living.
The first year or two of this series built in California assembly plants rusted terribly even in this climate. GM was experimenting with water-based paints.
You can’t beat a Chevy for repairability. For example, I just went online and found a set of brake pads for a 1973 Chevrolet C-10 for all of C$6.93. They are in stock, too. If the cab hasn’t rusted to nothing, it can be repaired indefinitely.
Here in southwestern Indiana it is rare to see a Chevy/GMC truck of this vintage on the road as the tin worm has long since had its ugly way with them. When they were new these were ubiquitous to the point they were just part of the background. I’m not a truck guy but this body style is probably my favorite pickup of all time, it just looks right.
I gotta say when it comes to ’70s trucks I can’t easily choose between Ford and Chevy (and that’s coming from a hard-core Ford guy). Had a ’72 F100 that served me quite well, and later had a ’77 Silverado 1500 that also served me well. Guess I’ll just have to take one of each 🙂 .
I still see a lot of squarebody Chevys and GMCs working around Las Vegas. There’s no rust, of course, and nobody cares if the interior of their work truck is falling apart.
Especially prominent are C30s with specialty beds. Stake beds, mobile welding rigs, and bucket trucks come to mind.
This series of Chevy/GMC is perhaps the ultimate rebuildable vehicle. I ‘m pretty sure if you have a frame and the shell of a cab, you could build the entire rest of the truck from the LMC Truck catalog.
I would agree the ’73-’80 GM pickups are far more common than like year Fords in Southern California. Of course a lot more GM pickups were built, including GMC’s. As to which one was the longest lasting is open to debate. I would give the nod to GM overall on the subject of engines the ubiquitous Small Block Chevy that powered the majority of their trucks is a legend, and a cheap and plentiful one at that. Ford had good truck engines in the 360 and 390, but they were dropped after the ’76 model year and replaced by the 351M and 400, engines which I felt were neither efficient or durable even for the time. The 302 Windsor and 460 Lima were good, but the 302 was only available in F-100/150’s and the 460 was only available in 4X2’s with automatic transmissions. No question restoration parts are less expensive and far more readily available for GM pickups of this era than for Fords.
My opinion of the 300 vs. 292 debate is this: The 300 has a better cylinder head, as the 292 has siamesed intake ports. The 292 has a taller block with longer rods and a much better connecting rod ratio.
Interesting to have a look at the size of the cab in comparison to the box: this truck has a full, eight foot box. Standard drywall can but between the wheel wells and the box can be easily loaded due to the low ride height.
My dad had one just like this, and it was a very versatile vehicle. The 350 was good for about 15 mpg US.
Today’s trucks have a 4.5 foot bed which is very hard to load and they cannot handle sheets of drywall. They have big, powerful motors, but the trucks aren’t all that fast, since they are so heavy. And they get about 15 mpg.
Progress.
They are a bit smaller than today’s Chevy, but at least I could fit in my buddies garden shed in the box, and close the tailgate. Tough to do in most new trucks.
New truck looming over the old girl…
Then what good are today’s trucks? Why are people so eager to buy a design that is inferior to what was available decades ago?
Careful-this could lead to discussion! My limited take is that the older models were designed and built to be used as work trucks, with limited cab size and interior features and a large bed for carrying more and larger stuff. Current trucks are built and used as personal and family vehicles, with larger and plusher cabs for all the people and shorter beds to retain some carrying capacity. I am “altitudinally challenged,” so I do not get the increasing taller bed sides. I believe these exist to match the massively styled front ends, but I think they really lessen the utility of the vehicle. And now some models have built-in ladders, just to help you get in to the bed!
Today’s crew cabs have a 5.5′ bed and can still haul 4×8 material between the wheel wells with the tailgate down. And they can do it while carrying a family of 5 or 6. The gassers also get 22-24 MPG on the highway and do 0-60 in around 6 seconds. They tow and haul considerably more weight than their 40 year old counterparts and do it much more comfortably and with every modern amenity. And if you still want that stripped down 8′ bed with a regular cab, you can still buy it, with the base V-6s still offering close to 300 HP. You don’t see many of those in private use, because most people don’t find them as useful as something that can haul people and cargo.
So yeah, it is certainly progress, provide you know what you’re talking about.
I do agree with the tall beds, I don’t really like that trend.
Example of a comparable truck you can still buy today:
I’d say 90% of the people I know who own trucks ♦rarely♦ use them to haul anything besides people. I live in an area of GA where the population isn’t very large — but there are lots and lots of trucks on the roads. Even a smattering of pre-1980 trucks can be seen.
I hear this claim a lot, yet most trucks I see have beds or receivers that are worn. Just because you don’t see or hear of somebody using it during the week, does not mean it isn’t used. Go try to find a truck on the used lots that isn’t beat up (or with a new bed lining). Pretty hard to find, in my experience.
My father had an ’81 C10 with the standard engine, 4 on the floor (Top gear was overdrive) and dual saddle tanks. I hated it! I’m average height, even so it was hard for my foot to release the clutch all the way. Drove a similar equipped Ford at work that was much more comfortable!
I have never been a big fan of the early versions of this truck that had the round headlights. I do like the later single and double square headlamp versions.
The trouble with these trucks is that they hung on too long in production. They arrived around the same time as the 6th gen Ford F-Series and were still being sold during the first year of the 8th gen of the Ford F-Series. While it is true that the 8th gen F-Series(and the later 9th Generation) were basically 6th generation F-Series trucks with a slight bit of overall streamlining and a new front end, the 8th and 9th gen made an already good looking truck even better looking.
That is a contrast with the 1973-87 GM C/K trucks which looked like they just got a new front end slapped on the same old ass truck that came out in 1973.
Also if i recall, the 1987 GM C/K trucks and the 1987 Chevette were perhaps the last GM vehicles sold with the old style double shaft radio that was used for decades instead of the radio with the digital clock that was in every other GM vehicle.
Talking about rust and longevity, GM still seems to have this problem. The last generation trucks from 2007 have issues around the rear wheel wells. Dodges tend to have issues along the rockers. It’s almost unbelievable to me that this is still a problem as recently as 10 years ago. Fords seem to be a lot better with rust, but the 5.4 V8s are another story.
Perhaps history is repeating itself.
The ’99-’16 Ford Super Duty trucks have rust issues as well. F-150’s seem a bit better, but the Super Duty bed cross members and inner fenders go pretty quick.
https://www.facebook.com/Ford-Super-Duty-Owners-Against-Rust-114761311876338/
I suppose the newer aluminum bodied trucks will do better.
I wonder about aluminum. My ’06 F-150 has an aluminum fuel pump control module that they bolted directly to the steel frame. I had to get a new one with redesigned stand-off bolts because it corroded through due to the reaction of aluminum on steel. I was lucky to hear about it on a forum and checked it proactively…and just in time. Many owners have been left stranded by it. Combined with other obvious engineering gaffes on the truck, I’m not convinced Ford suddenly figured it all out. It’s pathetic, really, that these companies that have been building vehicles for over 100 years still make such basic mistakes.
I rebuilt an ’87. The doors were hard to fit – come to find they basically built the cab around the doors. The cabs were on the small side too. Not a lot of leg room.
See a few of this era pickup around, because they were imported by GM in the late 70’s rather than just third party. Most variants including C30/K30 manual trans had the 292 engine, only C20 & C30 autos had a 305 V8! Fuel crisis response anyone?
Of course most owners would have ‘fixed’ that by now, I knew a guy who had a 350 in his C20 and a friend of his had a C30/454.
Yep and they were re-exported to NZ mostly 6 cylinder engines but few survivors still have a 6, they rusted quite well, but apparently that happened most places that had them
Never been a fan of Ford’s twin I beam front suspension. Seemed tipsier side to side and less squared away than Chevy’s setup.
These were as common as cockroaches in Kansas, but there are few now. They rusted and their interiors self destructed. Nice looking trucks and solid mechanicals, but GM did a real dirty deal with those cheap bodies and god-awful plastic interiors.
Finally, that body style lasted far too long. By the late 1980s this was a very old look and their replacements looked incredibly cheap.
I wasn’t surprised to see Ford surge ahead in production for the next 30 years.
Tough bones on these trucks.
Not so much problems with rust on trucks in California, but ditto on the plastic interiors, though I have a friend with one of these that’s still running that he uses regularly, though with a variety of vice-grips and other things in the interior in lieu of things like levers and buttons that broke way too early.
These were and remain good working rigs .
Sadly, even in Los Angeles and other Deserts they rusted quickly .
The Scottsdale one pictured is the basic cheap or fleet spec. truck with it’s rubber mat and I highly approve .
_SHAME_ on GM for using such incredibly bad interior plastics .
Remembering to lubricate the hood hinges prevented the hood from bending .
Failing that a simple bit of angle iron added to each side did the trick .
I still miss my 1976 GMC 3/4 ton long bed with 292CID i6 engine and Muncie SM465 compound low four speed manual box.
-Nate
Those 70’s Chevies aren’t bad trucks, but they did seem to have more rust problems than Fords – I even see some of it here in MT. I suppose the styling was more contemporary than Ford’s of that era, but the 70’s high-boy Fords look tougher, and looking “older” wasn’t a bad thing once a decade or so had passed.
I’m a Ford guy, and I’ve got one of the most prized trucks – the “old body style” of the mid-90s. Definitely a home run for Ford: mostly old-school, easy to work on mechanicals, but simply and functionally laid out and styled, inside and out. The “modernizations” that came with the Super Duty (like unitized bearings) aren’t appreciated by guys like me, so you find a fair number of trucks like mine that are kept up religiously around here. It’s a similar story with Chevy and Dodge, and most of the trucks of that era look pretty good if they’ve been taken care of. Dodges are a little weird because they looked almost as old as that C10 until the Ram body came out in the 90s though.
They all have their strong points; maybe Chevy’s biggest advantage was easy parts interchange, which helped maintenance. That said, I do have to point and laugh about distributor placement: it still boggles my mind that of the big three, only Ford thought to put the distributor at the front of the motor for good in the 50s. Obviously, points were mostly gone by 77, but even so, I can’t think of an argument for stuffing it at the back – especially one that’d make sense when you’re having to address plug wires or something in the distributor at the side of the road.
Dodges had decent powerplants (especially when the Cummins came along), and like Ford, used a lot of Dana drivetrain pieces (usually pretty good). I know some farmers who swear by them, but on the other hand, you seem to see the least of them. That’s probably in part because Dodge almost always lagged in sales, but I tend to hear more complaints about body and interior issues.
Ford had some pretty unbeatable combinations: the 300-6, 460 with a C-6, and most of the intermediate motors were decent. The twin I-beam (or twin traction beam, if 4×4) gets a lot of hate, and Chevy outclassed Ford for a while I suppose. They’re not bad to drive though, nor do they eat tires unless you try to jack them up and/or screw up the alignment. I went through the front end and aligned mine (using multi-adjustable bushings) a few years back – it was really just the pivot bushings that got eaten up. Even at that, it wasn’t bad, and it’s been solid – probably ready for the next 20 years.
Ultimately, I suppose you could get into the weeds and make an argument that one or another was a little more robust or a little cheaper to operate – which would vary depending on what it was used for. The thing is, if it looks good to you and you don’t mind driving it, most of them will keep going as long as you take care of them and rust doesn’t get the best of it.
Great article. I just bought this 86 K10 and it runs well.
However, like other GM products, the plastics are simply powder. And like other square body GM trucks I’ve looked at, the factory gauges stopped working. Except for the quartz clock!
Personally I’m not too partial from one truck to another. But I have had more experience with Ford trucks and found them to run amazingly well, new and well worn.
I remember my dad having leased a 1978 F150 with a 300 and auto. He picked it up late 1977 and did a one year lease. As much as he said it was a great truck (like no issues) he traded on a new ElCamino.
For now, I’ll wear a bow tie
Three seen a few blocks from me yesterday. One between 64-66 and the other two 70-76 seen from the side. I could have driven down the street but was in the station wagon heading home.
We still had a few later model versions of these when I got promoted to Shop Foreman in ’90. In fact, it wasn’t until ’92 that the crew cabs, Suburbans and Blazers changed to the newer body. Ours all had 5.0 and 5.7 TBI engines, and running costs were about the same as the Fords and much better than the few Dodges in the fleet. Admittedly, ours were base model work trucks but they just exuded cheap in a way the Fords didn’t. Seats wore out, switch gear broke, door locks, door window linkage…. You get the idea.
They rarely quit running (except for the fuel transfer pumps in the tank), but they aged fast and I suspect this may be part of the reason they seemed to disappear faster than the same vintage Ford. Well, that and the rust.
I did prefer driving them to the twin I beam Fords, at least when they were new.
I was a carpenter/contractor in Fort Wayne, Ind., in the 70/80s. Every construction worker in town drove a squarebody Chevy: Not many Fords, fewer Dodges and I don’t recall a single IH pickup in the crowd.
The last truck I owned was a heavy-duty ’78 C20 with 4-bolt 350 and THM400. It ran for 250,000 miles of serious rusting: The rear of the cab sat (for years) on a CCA 2×4 after the steel disappeared, the driver’s-side door jamb collapsed, the bed was lacework. But it ran and ran and ran and my 6’6″ self wasn’t too cramped in that cab.
I sold it in 1993 in Iowa City after advertising it as a “good wood-hauler”, which was about what it was good for by then. I was done with construction and with the truck, but I still have a lot of respect and affection for it.
There are a lot of old Chevy squarebody trucks in NW Ohio. I think more of them than Fords from the same era. Not too many Dodges until you get into the ’94 and up, lots of them, from great to flapping body panels anytime the hulk is in motion. I see a green 1500 that looks pretty great once in a while, and another green one that looked pretty much identical at one point in it’s life, that’s now to the point it has a driver’s door from another color truck on it. The new door is in really good shape, which makes the rest of the truck look even worse than it did before. The rocker area is pretty much gone, as is the back lower end of the cab. My old ’03 Ram is some sort of a landscaping truck now, it looks awful, and kind of saddens me to see it looking so sad. My truck about 2005 or so. I miss that thing every winter.