(first posted 2/13/2018) The pickup truck is North America’s best-selling body style and is without a doubt an icon of North American society. Although it had humble beginnings as purely a utilitarian vehicle, it has now evolved into something that offers ample passenger comfort and space, all the luxuries you can ask for, and more power and performance than most people need. How did pickup trucks go from being no frills work-a-day vehicles to what they have become today? It all had to start somewhere, and this 1961 Chevrolet pickup I spotted at a Chevrolet-Cadillac dealer represents the beginning of the evolution.
The early 1960s was a time of innovation for General Motors. It had the air-cooled rear engine Corvair, the Tempest with the rope drive and rear transaxle, the aluminum V8s and turbocharged engines. Although not as apparent, GM’s trucks of this era were just as innovative. I’d argue that the 1960 Chevrolet truck was not only the most advanced of its time, but it was the first modern pickup truck.
Prior to 1960, Chevrolet’s last introduced an all-new truck partway through the 1955 model year. These second series 1955 trucks were called “Task Masters,” and they pushed the styling envelope to new levels. Without a doubt they had the most car-like styling of any truck to date. They were the first of the mainstream trucks to eliminated external running boards (Studebaker being the first), had car-like front fenders, wrap around windshields, and a grille that was similar to the iconic ’55 Chevy cars. The Task Master Chevrolet styling brought truck styling to a new level, and the competition was quick to follow its lead.
Chevrolet also introduced a high-priced Cameo Carrier, with flush box sides for the first time on a pickup, in 1955. This was achieved by using fiberglass panels that fit over top the conventional steel box sides. The Cameo Carrier was designed to be a more upscale truck to appeal to non-traditional truck buyers, with a nicer interior and a very stylish exterior. Clearly, Chevrolet attempted to civilize the new 1955 trucks, at least on the surface. Nonetheless, beneath the modern looking skin was a pretty conventional chassis design. An old-fashioned ladder frame, solid front axle and stiff riding leaf springs front and rear.
Ford Truck Line — 1957
The Cameo Carrier was not a sales success, but it was a beginning of a concept to make trucks stylish. It also introduced flush box sides, which Ford took to the next level with its all steel “styleside” boxes introduced in 1957, which eventually became mainstream for pickups. Chevrolet was on the right track with the Cameo Carrier, foreseeing that the pickup market could expand beyond its traditional market. However to accomplish this, it required trucks that not only looked good but they had to be more comfortable, and easier to drive and live with on a daily basis.
Ed Cole had been successful in helping transform Chevrolet from a stodgy economy car to something that was more along the lines of a baby Cadillac. The 1955 Chevrolet was exciting; with its revolutionary V8, great performance, and stylish exterior, it was one of GM’s greatest hits.
By 1958, the Chevrolet sedans had abandoned the old fashion ladder frame for a cruciform frame and all coil suspension. While there is no doubt that a multilink rear coil spring suspension is generally a superior suspension setup to a simple parallel leaf spring suspension, Chevrolet wasn’t seeking to carve corners with the 1958 Chevy. The cruciform chassis was all about hunkering those Chevrolets low to the ground, while the coil springs offered that jet-smooth ride. Chevrolet engineers were well aware that friction free coil springs were far easier to tune for a smooth ride than old fashioned leafs. While the 1958-64 Chevrolets may have never been lauded for their handling, there is no doubt when it came to smooth, soft ride, they were the leaders of the low-priced pack. That jet-smooth ride sure sold a lot of cars to Joe Citizen.
To make the 1960 Chevrolet truck more appealing to those outside the traditional pickup market, Chevrolet simply followed the same formula it used for its cars. The new trucks needed a smoother, more comfortable ride. These trucks had to appeal more than to just “real men,” like this old Ford that Heath wrote about. Just as Chevrolet had been the first low-priced car to offer front independent suspension, it was also the first to do so on the pickups as well.
Ed Cole proposed a torsion bar independent front suspension, using a typical short/long control arm setup. Although there were initial concerns by GM’s engineers about the fragility of an independent setup, they were able to come up with a design that worked well. This suspension not only created a far smoother ride, but also allowed the truck to sit much lower to the ground. The torsion bar front suspension was used across the truck line-up, except for 4WD models, including the medium and heavy-duty models, as Paul wrote about here.
To get the ultimate smooth ride, engineers knew that the rough riding leaf springs in the rear wouldn’t cut it. So to complement the front suspension, Chevrolet engineered a rear coil spring suspension for its ½ ton and ¾ ton models. This suspension consisted of two very long I-beam cross-section trailering arms that bolted to the rear axle assembly with u-bolts. The coil springs sat on seats on the top of these trailering arms. To locate the axle laterally, a Panhard bar is affixed. While this suspension was relatively simple, it proved to be rugged enough for truck use and it also found its place in Motorsports. Junior Johnson adapted this suspension to one of his stock cars in the mid 1960s, and since then it has become the exclusive suspension for NASCAR, still in use to this day.
To complement this new, smooth riding suspension Chevrolet also engineered a new chassis to help the 1960 Chevrolet trucks be the lowest riding trucks yet. Unlike previous designs, which were essentially arrow straight ladder frames, the new 1960 chassis was more car-like then ever. The chassis center section dipped down to allow for the body to sit lower to the ground, easing entry and exit while also lowering the center of gravity. It also included a big “X” brace, which help make the 1960 chassis more than 10 times more rigid than the 1959 chassis. This advanced new chassis was limited to ½ ton and ¾ ton 2WD models. One-ton and 4WD models stuck to a new but more conventional ladder frame. The 4WD trucks also continued to used solid axles with leaf springs front and rear. However, the vast majority of the pickups Chevrolet produced would have been ½ ton and ¾ ton 2WD trucks.
1960 Chevrolet vs 1959 Chevrolet
Keeping with the longer, lower, wider mantra of the era, the 1960 Chevrolet trucks were longer, while the new chassis and suspension allowed them to sit an astonishing 7 inches lower, with a cab that was a significant 5 inches wider. The wide cab increased all of the interior dimensions, but the largest increase was 6 inches of additional hip room. Arguably, these were the first trucks to actually seat three in the front in comfort. The windshield area increased in size with 26 percent more glass area, while the brake and clutch pedals were now suspended rather than coming through the floor.
The 4×4 Chassis was more conventional and these trucks sat much higher than the 2WD versions
Although 4x4s didn’t feature the modern, smooth riding chassis of the 2WD trucks, 1960 marked the first year that a 4×4 Chevrolet truck used all-GM designed components. Previously, most of the components were engineered by an outside supplier called NAPCO. 1960 also was the first year that Chevrolet started to use the “C” designations for 2WD, while 4×4’s used the “K” designation. The 4×4 line-up was more limited, only being available as a ½ ton or ¾ ton (K10 or K20).
The Chevrolet trucks came in three wheelbase lengths, 115”, 127”, and 133”. The engine line-up consisted of the 235 “Thriftmaster” six rated at 135 hp, the “Trademaster” 283 V8 rated at 160 hp. Transmissions options were more plentiful, with a 3-speed, HD 3-speed, 4-speed and Powerglide on the option list. The availability of each is listed on this chart:
| Wheelbase | Engines | Transmission (Std) | Transmission (Opt) | |
| C10 | 115″, 127″ | 235 six, 283 V8 | 3-speed | 4-speed, 3-speed HD, Powerglide |
| C20 | 127″ | 235 six, 283 V8 | 3-speed | 4-speed, 3-speed HD, Powerglide |
| C30 | 133″ | 235 six, 283 V8 | 4-speed | 3-speed HD |
| K10 | 115″ | 235 six, 283 V8 | 4-speed | none |
| K20 | 127″ | 235 six, 283 V8 | 4-speed | none |
Chevrolet trucks faced the old trucks from its main two competitors, Ford and Dodge, and came out as the sales leader. Production totaled 326,195 units, which was a 5.5 percent increase in sales from 1959.
However, the competition heated up in 1961, when Ford and Dodge introduced new trucks. Ford in particular was following GM’s lead to make their trucks lower and more car-like, with its “uni-body” trucks that featured an integral cab and box.
1961 Chevrolet Fleetside
Chevrolet trucks, on the other hand, saw relatively few changes for 1961. Minor revision to the grille work was the biggest styling change. There were eight new paint choices added to the option list and the two tone paint job was revised. The transmission tunnel was reduced in size to increase the passenger space in the already roomy cab. The model lineup grew a bit with the addition a long wheelbase K10 pickup to supplement the short wheelbase model. The market for 1961 was depressed and so total production decreased to 306,175 trucks, which was still enough for Chevrolet to remain the sales leader.
1962 Chevrolet Stepside
Without a doubt the 1960-61 Chevrolet trucks styling harkened back to the 1950’s when Harley Earl was still in charge. Features such as the hood pods on the leading edge of the hood were definitely dating the looks of this truck. However, with Bill Mitchell at the helm of GM styling, by 1962 his influence became apparent in the Chevrolet trucks. A new hood with a cleaner beveled leading edge eliminated the pods from the hood. The new hood not only improved looks, but it also increased the forward visibility by allowing a driver to see up to 10 feet more of road in front of the truck. The trucks also reverted to using dual headlights with rather large oval bezels.
1962 Chevrolet Fleetside
1962 also saw some expansion of the engine line-up. In addition to the 235 six and the 283, the 261 Chevrolet six was now available. The 261 was rated between the two engines at 150 hp gross and 235 ft-lbs, and was the same engine used in Canadian Pontiacs.
1963 Chevrolet Fleetside
Styling revisions for 1963 included a new egg-crate style grille and smaller round headlight bezels. These minor changes help to bring the trucks more in line with 1960’s styling trends. It appeared as though the 1963s just had a minor face lift, but there were actually significant changes under the skin. The much lauded all-new chassis with torsion bar suspension introduced in 1960 was abandoned. For 1963, Chevrolet switched to coil springs on the front of its light trucks, while medium and heavy duty trucks switched back to conventional beam axles with leaf springs. Chevrolet touted the new coil spring suspension as offering increased durability, simplicity, and a more compact design for increased ground clearance. The new coil springs required less maintenance, since they did not require periodic adjustments like torsion bars, and the lower control arms construction was simplified.
1963 Chevrolet C10 chassis
While the new chassis was similar to the 1960-62 design in that it dipped in the center section to allow for a lower cab height, it no longer featured the big x-brace that added so much to the torsional rigidity. The new chassis featured additional cross-members for bracing, and heavier gauge steel was used to increase the overall frame strength. Nevertheless, GM wasn’t touting any increases in torsional rigidity, which was undoubtedly less than the previous design.
1963 Chevrolet C10 front and rear suspension
The rear coil spring suspension remained; however, Chevrolet added dual stage coil springs. These springs had a softer spring rate at the beginning of their travel and progressed to a stiffer rate as they compressed. The soft riding Chevrolet suspension did come at a price. Payloads of Chevrolet trucks from this era were not particularly high. To remedy this, auxiliary cantilever leaf springs for C10 and C20 trucks were added to the option list. These auxiliary springs increased the carrying capacity by 500 lbs per side.
By 1963 much of GM’s experimentation from the early 1960’s seemed to have been dying off and the trucks were no exception. Reading beyond the ad copy that Chevrolet released, I am sure much of the decision to alter the suspension and chassis design had to do with the cost savings. No doubt the new frame and suspension were cheaper to manufacture without offering any major drawbacks over the previous design. In any case, the new suspension and chassis design was decent and remained in production until 1972, surviving two different body styles. Even the next generation truck, introduced in 1973, used a very similar front suspension.
Chevrolet’s Comparision Chart to Fords pickups
Like Chevrolet passenger cars, a replacement for the venerable Stovebolt six was introduced to the truck line-up for 1963. New thin-wall casting 230 and 292 sixes replaced the 235 and 261. The 230 was rated at 140 hp and 220 ft-lbs of torque, while the 292 was rated at 165 hp and 280-ft-lbs of torque. The 283 wasn’t neglected either, seeing an increase in power from 160 hp to 175 hp and 275 ft-lbs of torque. Of note, early production 4×4 trucks continued to use the old 235 six and 261 six.
1964 Chevrolet Fleetside
Chevrolet had done an excellent job at keeping the styling on its trucks up to date, but the old wrap around windshield certainly dated the design. So Chevrolet invested in a new cowl for 1964 that eliminated the dog leg and added sloping windshield pillars with an up-to date windshield.
1964 Chevrolet interiors, note the new dash and windsheild
Chevrolet updated the dash, going from the dual pod design to a more flat top design more in style for the times. Chevrolet also went to a rectangular headlight bezel, which in my eyes improved its looks.
1965 Chevrolet Fleetside
1965 saw further minor revisions and refinements. Changes beyond trim and grille included factory installed air-conditioning added to the option list, while the engine line-up grew with the addition of the 327 V8. The 327 had a healthy 220 hp with 320 ft-lbs of torque. This engine was introduced mid-year but was limited to the C20 and C30 pickups.
1966 Chevrolet Fleetside with stakebed in background
By the time 1966 rolled around, Chevrolet trucks were in their seventh and final year for this body style. Chevrolet did an excellent job of updating the styling throughout this generation, which of course was critically important to selling beyond the traditional truck market. In my eyes, the 1966 was the best looking of this generation. Minor changes for 1966 saw the 250 six replacing the 230, bumping the base horsepower up to 155, and the 327 became optional on the C10 models.
1966 Chevrolet C20
These new, more powerful engine options were becoming important as pickups were being used more and more as recreational vehicles that carried or towed campers. Chevrolet actually introduced its first camper option package. It was available on C20 trucks and included auxiliary rear springs, a front stabilizer bar, heavy-duty shocks, bigger tires, deluxe heater/defroster, tinted windshield, radio, and the “West Coast” style mirrors. Also included were the Custom Comfort Appearance and Chrome Groups option packages. After all, if you’re camping your truck needs to look as good as it functions.
That brings me back to the 1961 C20 I spotted back at a Chevrolet-Cadillac dealer alongside this 1958 Cadillac. This fine example appeared to be mostly original, and was far from a pristine show stopper like its companion Cadillac. Other than the rather unattractive aftermarket wheels, I probably wouldn’t change a thing on it. It was a just a honest, solid old truck.
I don’t think too many people realized the significance of that ’61 Chevy sitting out front to the rows and rows of Silverados laden with creature comforts and soft rides.
These early ’60s Chevrolet trucks were the first to bring real comfort to a pickup and make a valiant effort at making them livable for everyday life. The rear coil spring suspension, while archaic by modern standards, was well ahead of its time. Today’s Ram trucks have used a multilink coil spring suspension for some time, and for the same reason as Chevrolet did in the 1960s, for that smooth ride at the slight expense of utility.
Modern pickups are obviously quite a bit different from these old Chevys and they certain haven’t adopted the low ride height of these early ’60s trucks. However, it was the change in concept from being pickups being purely utilitarian to becoming passenger-friendly that first led to the trucks we have today. Without a doubt, the 1960 Chevrolet was the first modern pickup.
The “pods” always reminded me of a contemporary diesel locomotive from GM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_LWT12
Re the LWT12, it makes me wonder if Harley Earl consulted for EMD. I wonder if its elliptical “face” was inspired by the F-100 Super Sabre’s inlet?
Speaking of which, apparently there have actually been a few experimental jet powered trains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbojet_train
All these posts about GM trains made me take a quick jump into reading up on GM’s locomotive business. I’d long assumed they sold it off sometime in the 1960s or something; I was surprised to read they held on to their locomotive division until 2005.
GM Styling designed the LWT 12. The passenger cars used components from contemporary GM buses.
I always though the pods on the trucks were inspired by the ’59 Chevrolet cars.
That’s what I immediately saw. Except that the pods on the truck look even more hideous. I have no idea what the stylists were thinking.
(4th time trying to post)
The front view pic really emphasizes the hood pods and makes one wonder if these were cribbed from Zchuck Jordan’s GM Aerotrain styling.
Ever since I found out about that short-lived 1960-62 torsion bar suspension design I have always wondered if there was something other than cost involved in making the change. A near-complete redesign would have necessarily started fairly soon after these hit the market so I wonder if there were some service issues vis a vis Ford. Also the newer 63+ design seems to be everywhere while the older ones are seldom seen.
This was probably the generation that gave rise to the conventional wisdom as I picked it up from my farming brother in law – Chevy trucks are for driving, Ford trucks are for working.
And FWIW, I believe that it was the 49 Studebaker 2R (very possibly a Virgil Exner design) that first eliminated the external running board. Of course, it carried none of the other features of these more modern Chevy/GMC vehicles.
I have a similar saying-A Ford truck of this period is not a vehicle, it’s an implement.
There’s no doubt that what you say applies to the medium and large trucks, even the semi tractors, that got the IFS at this time. They were more complicated and required more maintenance. Big trucks still mostly have rigid axles.
But I’m not aware of any wide-spread issues with the torsion bar IFS on the pickups, although undoubtedly more maintenance was likely, to one extent or another. But there’s little doubt in my mind that GM re-thought their whole approach to truck IFS very quickly after they came out. And the modified frame and new coil spring IFS was clearly cheaper to build. It was in tune with all the other moves towards pragmatic solutions after the creative 1959-1961 blitz.
And it wouldn’t have taken long to re-engineer these changes. There’s a myth about how long it took to make changes. If the Valiant could be completely designed, tooled and built in 18 months from nothing, than it might have taken 6 months to redesign ad tool these fairly minor changes.
Bob Bourke of the Studebaker Loewy studio is generally acknowledged for the ’49 Studebaker truck body design. I’ve never heard anyone give Virgil Exner any credit for it. (Bob also designed the front-ends of the ’50 & ’51 cars, and most famously for the ’53 Coupe models).
That period between when Loewy fired Exner and Exner set up an in-house styling operation and the time when Exner left for Chrysler in 1949 was a real rivalry between those two studios who were in competition for every design, at least according to the Exner biography Visioneer. I suspect the history may be more muddled.
Having just re-read Langworth’s “Studebaker 1946-1966″ I think Ed is on quite solid ground. Here”s the short version: the cars were to have a major re-style for 1949. Loewy’s proposal was accepted, and Exner was channeled off into the ill-fated Cole-Vail project, an off-site project to develop a 100″ wb compact car, and given as a make-work project to Roy Cole and Ralph Vail, who were forced to retire, but weren’t really ready to. So Vance came up with the idea to let them do this, out in the Proving Grounds clubhouse and garages. Exner was given to them, to get him out of the studios, which were now firmly back in Loewy control. Bob Bourke was the on-site director of the studio.
So the trucks would also have been done during this same time. The cars ended up being delayed a year, but both were initially intended for 1949. Exner had no real influence on Studebaker styling except for the front end of the ’46. Which I happen to think is rather modest.mediocre, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t take anything in “Visioneer” as the gospel truth, because the writer is not a hard core historian, and he basically relied on Virgil Jr. to feed him. I actually wonder if this book was more by him than the stated author.
That’s not to say it isn’t a good read, but Virgil has taken liberties with the truth a number of times there and elsewhere. He’s out to maximize his dad’s reputation, naturally.
The simple reality is that all designer want to be credited with more than what they really did, as long as it was a successful design. I’ve run into way too many cars that have been credited to multiple designers.
That era of dualing studios is indeed fascinating and there are different versions given by different people. Langworth’s book is an old one, which makes me wonder if it was based more on interviews than on archival material (which may not have been as available back then as it is now).
I would love to spend time in the corporate archives to search for clues that would give a more unbiased account of that period.
Whoever did most of the styling, there is an uncanny similarity in the grille treatment of the 49 truck line and that of the 47 Commander.
Agree with your comments on Visioneer – it’s more of a memoir via Jr. than a history, and has important gaps, such as who designed what in the brief Bill Schmidt era.
Langworth’s series of postwar histories are great sources, although his K-F book suffers from a Frazer-Darrin bias.
Thanks JP, i fixed the text. I had totally forgot about the Studebaker trucks.
I agree with Paul on the torsion bar suspension not being problematic on pickups. I did some digging in the 60-66 GM truck community for this article, and there was no reports of it being problematic. Owners of these trucks claimed they rode better than the coil spring trucks but that is anecdotal at best.
One thing that helped the longevity of the coil spring trucks is cheap and easy to find parts, since it was used from 1963-72. Parts for the torsion bar trucks are hard to find and more expensive. I know for example that the ball joints for the torsion bar trucks are very expensive and hard to find.
with a bit of work, the 73-90 C/K squarebody front end is dang near identical and will bolt into the the 63-72 trucks just fine, and with rubber control arm bushings, gives a very nice ride.
I made mention of that in the article, saying the same basic front suspension was used on the 1973 generation trucks. I have seen a number of people swapping the newer suspension onto the older trucks, but I know there are some minor differences. It was a pretty rugged design overall and definitely stood the test of time.
This was probably the generation that gave rise to the conventional wisdom as I picked it up from my farming brother in law – Chevy trucks are for driving, Ford trucks are for working.
As a Ford pickup owner, I can’t support that sentiment, and that is just what it is. Folks were either Ford or Chevy men, and it’s obvious what he was,.
Seriously, I have no bias in this issue, but everything I’ve picked up and experienced over the decades tells me that Ford pickups did not have anything over the Chevys. They all had their weak points, but frankly there were very few in these trucks,which were both simple, rugged, and well-proven. Anyone who says one was better than the other is simply biased, which is ok too.
One thing is clear: the Chevy trucks rode a lot better thanks to their IFS, which was not weak or problematic. As Vince pointed out, the coil spring version was used into the 80s and beyond. Ford pickups (as you well know, Jim) wit the solid front axle were choppier, and the steering kicked back more. I would take a pre-65 Chevy over a pre-’65 Ford any day.
I did prefer a steel bed, and that was the biggest single thing that swayed me to the Ford, but one with the Twin I Beam front suspension.
Thank you Paul for calling a spade a spade! I have heard this same sentiment about Chevy vs Ford trucks for years and it always comes from people who are brand loyal to a fault. I agree with you wholeheartedly on your assessment of the Ford and Chevy trucks.
Mr. VincenC, great article .. the chassis of the 1966 chevy c10 is similar or the same as the 1967 chevy c10? … I can use the 1966 chassis in a body of a 1967 c10 , thanks .
Mr. VincenC, great article .. the chassis of the 1966 chevy c10 is similar or the same as the 1967 chevy c10? … I can use the 1966 chassis in a body of a 1967 c10 , thanks
I missed this post first time around, but with the re-run now, it’s prompted me to mention something I’ve noticed recently. Where I live, all of the big three late model trucks seem equally represented in certain kinds of on-pavement commercial duty: contractors, repair services, delivery etc, with perhaps Ford being the most popular. But in the heavily agricultural areas of central California, especially the coastal “salad” and berry farming areas, the ubiquity of mud splattered late model GM trucks suggests that they’re very popular on the large “agribusiness” farms, more than Ford or Ram. Totally unscientific observation, FWIW.
Great article. I never know about the torsion bar story. The hood pods on the ’60-’61 Chevy trucks might have looked odd, but GM had no exclusivity on weird styling, as this 1961 Dodge attests.
Fortunately Dodge improved the styling of the front end like this 1970 model. https://www.flickr.com/photos/carphotosbyrichard/4943572776
True, that ’70 looks pretty nice, but it took a few facelifts to get there. Along the way Dodge played with things like huge, pie-plate headlight housings.
I’ve always liked Dodge’s “startled” headlights 😀 , especially on their A100 vans. They kinda look like the just got goosed 😀 !
check out the award winning ad for the 1963 chevy truck using eggs to demonstrate the better ride.
That really is a terrific ad that makes its point in a way everyone can understand.
I’m reminded of how part of the design brief for the Citroen 2CV was that it should be able to cross a plowed field, French wire basket of eggs on board, without breaking any eggs.
Vince, this is great. I was going to do the same basic story, as I’ve shot Chevy pickups of almost all these years, and the front suspension and it’s second generation is not a well-known story. Very well done.
One additional detail: the new ’61 Ford still had a solid front axle, and rode pretty harshly. Ford completely re-engineered their pickup chassis and front suspension for 1965, coming up with the Twin-I-Beam front suspension, which was very rugged but rode and handled much better than the solid axle.
Thanks Paul. I plan to do a short follow-up to this article in the next week that compares the ’65 Chev to Ford and Dodge, I picked that year specficially because of it being Ford’s first year with the independent Twin-I-beam.
Fords split beam front end seemed to work well to me on Aussie outback roads but the parts required to keep one in inspection condition wasnt cheap the whole track assembly is one piece not separate items and expensive in OZ Wide front wheels exacerbate the problem as the steering assembly is too light, mate of mine always ran F series utes tough old things but….
Meanwhile you had “The Other Pickup” from International which gave buyers a choice in their 1/2 tons, starting in ’61, of a low smooth riding torsion bar IFS or a higher riding, rugged I beam front axle and completely different frames and rear suspension details to suit the individual buyers particular needs and desires.
I actually was going to use a picture of the International suspension that you posted here years ago. But the article was getting long and I decided to keep it focused on the subject trucks. In any case, International certainly used the Torsion bar setup much longer than GM. Although GM did revisit in 1988 with the K series trucks.
Yes, my 2000 K2500 has torsion bar IFS and I love the overall ride and handling. I’m surprised it took GM so long to come up with an IFS 4×4, given the torsion bar layout existed since 1960.
It is not that surprising. The fact is 2wd trucks used to be the most common and that was what casual buyers usually chose. So with limited sales it would have been cost prohibitive to develop an IFS driven front axle vs just strapping your brake system on a Dana 44 at the lower volumes. Also the type of people who did buy 4×4’s would have balked at the more complicated IFS that was seen as less strong and no able to be lifted.
Once the casual buyers started buying 4x4s then it was both viable and somewhat necessary to combine that driven front axle with an IFS.
As the old saying goes, everything old is new again. Torsion bars were “in” in the early 60’s and faded away until the late 80’s when it became an easier way to package a driven front axle in a truck and suddenly they were even more popular than before.
Torsion bars were ‘IN’ when the Volkswagen Beetle and Morris Minor were designed the 30s and 40s, it was a very old idea by the time Chrysler invented it. My 55 Morris Isis gave an awesome ride on appalling forestry tracks at 90+ mph speeds my mates Escort rally car could not stay with 15 inch rims and torsion bars beat a full coil over rally set up 6 inch wide rain trenches and 13 inch tyres were not up to it.
A well-researched and insightful article. Well done, Vince!
The related rise in recreational campers and non-commercial pickup sales has always been a chicken-and-egg question in my mind.
Either:
[a] Pickup sales rose because they became more comfortable, allowing the possibility that dad could slide out the camper on Sunday night and use the truck to commute during the week.
or
[b] The increased use/sales of slide-in and towable campers made those owners demand more comfortably riding trucks from manufacturers.
Of note: In “Travels with Charley”, Steinbeck’s steed of choice was a 1960 GMC with a slide-in camper. I wonder if the popularity of the book had something to do with the rise of truck-based recreational camping?
It’s not one or the other or just those two. Once the initial post-war buyer’s boom was over, everyone started spreading out with new variations or options in the automotive sector. Americans after the war were quite different than in the 20s and 30s; they were much more into a casual and outdoorsy lifestyle, and embraced recreational opportunities. So they got away from just buying the typical big Detroit sedan. Imports boomed, sports cars boomed, Jeeping became a new activity, so did camping and boating and various hobbies. Most folks bought new houses in the suburbs and even out past the edge of town, on large parcels of land.
Pickups just naturally found an increasing acceptance in this new lifestyle. In the 20s, you would be seen as a rube in a pickup; in the later 50s and 60s, it was already cool. Take my word for it; I saw a number of former neighbors in Iowa City in the 1960-1965 era sell their older houses and buy land past the edge of town, build a house and buy a pickup. Our next door neighbors did that in ’64, and bought a new C10 to go along with mom’s wagon. He drove the pickup. No negative stigma. It was the new and cool thing to do.
And that’s how it started, not long after the war.
Excellent write-up, Vince!
While a Chevy man at heart, it took me a long time to warm up to the styling of the featured series of truck. One turning point was Philo Beddoe’s Chevy in “Any Which way You Can.”
“Right turn, Clyde!” 🙂
I really appreciated the year by year info and sequential pictures; it made it much easier to scroll back and forth in order to refurbish my faded memory of what each year looked like! 🙂
Great article! I didn`t know much about trucks. There not common here, but the market is rising. Well, primarily for japanese brands, but now and then you can see a RAM, too. What surprised me most is the usage of coil springs, especilally at the rear axle. I always thought they used leaf springs. Was it Chevy only?
Another surprise is how common sixes and manual transmissions were back then.
Btw: I like the styling of the 60-61 models with these hood pods and wrap around windshields.
Pickups being offered here right now, through dealerships:
Volkswagen Amarok, Toyota HiLux, Nissan Navara, Mitsubishi L200, Fiat Fullback, Isuzu D-Max, Ford Ranger, Renault Alaskan and Mercedes-Benz X-Class.
All roughly the same size, and rather compact next to US pickups. Plenty of them on our roads too, especially RAM and Toyota Tundra (as below). All of them are grey imports.
Did Ford ever market the Louisville Ranger in Europe? It strikes me as ironic that its small size was Europe-friendly (and increasingly a turn-off for Super-Sized Americans), yet it’s the mid-sized Aussie T6 which is a hit now.
Europe would have had the Mazda-based pickup that was still called Courier for most of its life, then Ranger from 1998. Pickups are not very popular in Europe compared to vans, even now I don’t think they sell a very large portion of the market.
Panel vans are still the preferred choice, and after them the chassis-cab (single or double) versions with a flatbed and dropsides. No matter how you look at it, as a pure work truck these are simply more usable than something like the black Tundra above.
The VW Amarok has become quite common in the past years. Others, like the Isuzu D-Max and the Ford Ranger: a very rare sight on our roads.
The rear coil spring setup back then was Chevy only, at least on the later model years. GMC, while it looked similar, had some real differences, such as engines, not just emblems and number of headlights.
When I had my ’71 C10, it was the most basic configuration at the time, 250ci I-6, three speed manual and coil spring rear suspension. The longer travel of that suspension really made it handle well off road.
Could someone explain the left-side only door lock? Does this mean the other door actually has no lock of any kind on it? Why would someone want only one door to lock and not the other?
I don’t know if it was the case for this particular truck, but my dad had some old trucks when I was a kid, and, if I remember correctly, the lock was controlled by the same handle that opened the door. Move it in one direction to lock the door, the other to unlock and open the door.
Back in the day the lock on the outside did not lock the latch it locked the handle from turning. You could only lock the latch from the inside. Push down on the handle to lock the latch and pull up to release the latch. For many years the sole outside lock on many vehicles was only on the passenger side door. The thought was that parked along side a busy city street (the only place one would actually “want” to lock their vehicle) was “unsafe” to exit on the driver’s side. So it was considered “normal” to enter the vehicle from the passenger side and slide across the seat to the driver’s position. You’ll occasionally see this illustrated in period movies and TV shows. Of course bucket seats, floor shifters, tall transmission tunnels and shopping malls put an end to that practice.
Of course with the advent of remote entry fobs has rendered the door lock cyl almost obsolete and did so may years ago. For example my 2003 Mercury Mountaineer has only a single lock cyl, of course on the driver’s door and many modern cars have no visible exterior lock. For example on my MIL’s 2017 Mustang there is a slot on the bottom of the door handle were you insert the key to release a cover over the actual lock cylinder.
Another case of “what’s old is new again” 😀 , seeing as pretty much every vehicle built in the last 10 or so years seems to lack a right side door lock cylinder.
Both my mates old Citroen C4 and the turbo petrol loaner I drove only have a lock on the left door in our RHD market drivers door where they are made passenger side here and with a dead remote like my mates car a royal PITA the whole damn car is in the way inside to unlock the drivers side
I’ve always thought of trucks of this vintage to be more of a transitional design than a modern one. The featured truck sort of bridges the gap between the late 50s and the much more modern 67’s, which set the mold for pickups or the rest of the century. All in the eye of the beholder I guess. Nicely done article on a mostly forgotten, once common truck.
The article was more addressing the fact that these were the first trucks to really be aimed at something other than the utilitarian market and successfully hit that target. It was the first truck that really made passenger comfort the top priority. Although the design of the ’67-72 trucks was more modern, the underpinnings were complete carry over from the previous generation.
Some of these trucks are still hard at work even today
Last month I encountered a Apache 10 that was still working for a living assisting contractors remodeling a home in Silver Spring MD
You mean GM once thought having a truck bed low enough to load and reach into was a feature? Only basketball players can rest their elbows on the sides of trucks now days. Heck we can barely hang our elbows out the windows anymore.
The landscapers who maintain my nextdoor neighbor’s lawn use a lowrider Silverado as their work truck. I used to think making a pickup into a lowrider was kind of silly, but the more I thought about it I started to realize that for their purpose making the truck a lowrider actually improves its usability as the bed is now low enough for them to easily load and unload their equipment. Maybe it diminishes the truck’s maximum load a bit, but I’m sure it’s still adequate for carrying a couple of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and trimmers. And it’s no sillier than using a truck to pull around a trailer with all your equipment on it while the bed is completely empty, which is what most landscapers around here seem to do.
Do the two inches-worth of metal above the median line of the hood of those awful pods of 1960 really translate into 10-feet of hidden roadway in front of the truck?
Another point of evidence in how styling choices through the ’50s really could add up to untold accidents, injuries and lost consumer dollars. The five or six inches of that hood must have caused numerous job-site accidents that no one ever bothered to add up over the years.
Odd that they didn’t just lower the whole hood with that cowl redesign in ’63. Would’ve brought that truck right up to date…. that hood is just such an add on to the top of the front-clip.
(I know the answer already, they needed to match the door line, which also matched the bed, so why change anything, ’cause they didn’t get the funds to change the whole truck! Just wait ’til 1967! See that 1st paragraph above. Enter Ralph Nader.)
This story is great, my first Chevy truck was a ’65 C10 longbed. Bought it from Dad in late ’73 after he bought his new ’74 Duster stripper to replace it. He had bought the Chevy used in ’71, it had a Earl Schieb puke green paint job and a miss (just needs a tune up) that turned out to be a burned valve on it’s 283 V8. He had a valve job done and also had an aftermarket heater installed which only dumped heat on the floor, no defroster. The shop installed this when he asked them to repair the heater, told him this was the way to go for whatever reason.
It was a stripper longbed with 3 on tree and armstrong steering, made much worse with it’s aftermarket smaller diameter steering wheel and wide 8X15 steel wheels and L60 X 15 tires I installed. It also had a wood plank bed that was pretty rotten, I bolted down a 3/4 4X8 sheet of plywood between the wheelwells so I could carry dirt bikes and such. I also sprayed it dark primer grey to get rid of the puke green paint job.
I can attest to the strength and durability of both the frame and suspension of this design. Being 17 and invincible, I would drive at crazy speed down from the top of Mt. Lukens in Socal (fire road), hitting the whoops at 60 or 70 MPH, launching the truck into the air, all 4 wheels off the ground, so high that the landing would bounce back up a second time, truck zig zagging wildly as I spun the wheel to keep it going straight. I dis this 7 mile run down the hill many times, once tossed the battery into the radiator but after securing it well the truck took the abuse, but the bottom of the front lower control arms would be smashed flat and would have to be replaced after each weekend of abuse. I stocked up on u-pull A arms and good real quick replacing them in auto shop during the week. Once the steering wheel adaptor center nut came loose, shearing the 3 bolts that held the wheel to the adapter and disconnecting the steering, luckey for me the wheels kicked over to the left and into the side of the mountains instead of the right to a thousand foot drop off!
I had installed a bench seat from a ’69 LTD, along with lap and shoulder belts, the one person who refused to put the on before I took him down Mt. Lukens regretted this as he slammed into the roof and onto the floor as he bounced around the cab.
Other weakness was the non syncro 1st 3 speed trans, it didn’t stand up to burnouts very well, rebuilt it 2 or 3 times in auto shop, easy and cheap to do after the first time. Also converted it to a floor shifter.
The chassis and suspension and brakes were the same as my ’70 C10, one time while replacing brakes and wheel cylinders on the ’70 the jackstands collapsed while the wheels were off, resulting in 4 now L shaped backing plates. The plates off a ’62 from U pull were identical, and everything else under the truck looked the same as well.
I sold it after 2 years of this abuse, it held up to Dukes of Hazzard idiotic teenage driving well, so if GM cheaped out on frame and suspension during the later years it still was plenty strong and then some!
Enjoyed this great write up.
Great read Vince, and full of juicy images. Has to to be the 55 Cameo Carrier for me. I’m a styleside kind of guy and even though it’s a more primitive unit, that cab/front clip shape is one of the US’ best. Didn’t know those first bed sidepanels were fibreglass.
Great article! As radical as the ’60 Chevy light duty trucks were, the equivalent GMC’s were even a bit more so. GMC adopted the Chevy body, chassis, and suspension for 1960, but also included their own new 60 degree 305 cubic inch V-6 for a truck that was just about completely all new. GMC also went to coil spring front suspension in 1963, but also reverted back to leaf spring rear suspension at the same time. In later years, leafs became an option on Chevy’s and coils an option on GMC’s.
The basic 1963 coil spring front suspension continued with very little change through the 1987 models year. After that, certain crew cab, chassis cab, and stripped chassis continued to use the design for many more years. I believe Workhorse Chassis still uses it on some stripped chassis to this day.
I’m not a truck guy, but I do like the featured truck quite a bit. Understated and no-nonsense. Well-preserved but not so nice you’d be hesitant to use it as a truck. I even think the aftermarket wheels suit it fairly well, which is another thing I rarely find to be true.
Thanks for this article. These Chevy trucks were so much a part of my growing up that I love every one I see. The first four wheel motor vehicle I ever drove was our turkey-poop brown 1964 C-10. Bought in 1969 for $495 from the local Chevy dealer as a farm truck, it came complete with a cracked 230 engine block (not uncommon back in the day — haven’t even heard of one in years). Dad’s favorite cheap mechanic quickly swapped it for a 235 (out of who-knows-what) that soldiered on through the mid-70’s through muddy Ozark fields, lots of hay-hauling (35 rectangular bales per load), and cleaning out early factory-style chicken houses with snow-shovels, between using the full manure spreader. Needless to say, the truck’s load capacity was often exceeded. That 235 could sure lay down a blue cloud.
My father thought the only way to make money farming was not to buy new equipment, so we had the Chevy and a ’66 Ford LWB F100 352 that was bought for around $300 with about 285,000 miles. The Chevrolet was better. The Ford wandered all over the road. You could at least keep the C-10 in one lane.
Great article- I learned a few things.
Great article on a truck that is dear to my heart. In the late ’70s these were a staple for young guys who needed cheap wheels. A decent 1/2 ton could be had for maybe 500 bucks. They were tough trucks but far from impervious to rust. I had a ’62 for a brief time and a ’65 for quite a bit longer. Don’t recall any problems with the torsion bars and I don’t recall noticing much difference in how they drove or rode either. Both were 6 cylinder, 3 speeds with no power anything which was how most of them were it seemed. Spirited driving was definitely a workout.
Like 67Conti, I had the transmission out more than once. They weren’t very durable, at least not in the hands of a teenager. I finally gave up on it when the rust got so bad that the bottoms of the front fenders began to flap like wings at 50 mph or so. Wasn’t much left of the floor or the bottom half of the doors either. But it still ran when I drove it to the wrecking yard. I think I got 25 bucks for it. It was rusty, dented and ugly but I loved it.
What a great read! Thank you!
As an aside, for about 5 years in the 70’s I owned a 1960 Chevy sedan delivery. A friend sold me some dealer/consumer literature he had for Chevrolets of that year
The sedan delivery and El Camino were NOT pictured in the salesman’s manual for cars.
They WERE pictured in the truck facts book along with everything else from pickups to heavy-duty trucks.
Great article on one of my favourite trucks. Attached is a spent unit spotted in a local junkyard a few years ago. (I was after the Eldorado parts).
Tangentially related, I saw this 100th Anniversary Edition Chevy pickup at the Chicago Auto Show today – they’ve been making pickups since 1918, apparently. The special edition gets you the vintage bowties all around and a special blue color.
I have been wondering how long it would take for the guys at Chevrolet to dust this logo off. A huge improvement in my opinion.
+1
“I’m still gonna black mine out, because black.”
(c:
Our Old Blue was the ’65 C10, with no options except heavier rear springs. It was the light blue color of the ’65 Custom in the article here. We had it for ten years and 75,000 hard miles. Dad traded it for a ’75 that no one liked as well. One of the benefits of the coil spring suspension came in the way you could drive it over any sort of surface at good speed-I don’t think I have ever driven a vehicle that could travel over plowed ground as fast as Old Blue. Something to be said for suspension travel. You couldn’t overload the box as well as you could with leaf springs, but almost all the time you had a much less punishing ride and that was a fair trade. We had tractors and wagons for the heavier stuff. I have more recently driven a ’64 model with the same drivetrain (230 Six and three-speed column mounted manual), and it was fast enough for driving in town, although the steering was very slow and the gearing was high enough that it was pretty loud on the Interstate. All these trucks really need to still be driven daily is a brake upgrade to front discs, maybe power steering if you want easier parking, and Paul’s overdrive. And seat belts. They were that good.
And, to top it off, the window ledge is just the right height for hanging your left arm out as you drive. Can’t do that in your new Camaro! Thank you, Vincec.
I’m a Ford guy, but remember the distinctive look of the “pods” from when there were plenty on the road.
Could someone make a custom car (Chevy, of course) with the “pods” turned into its taillights somehow? Anyone got a suggestion?
If I recall, the torsion bars made it into the ’63 year model along with the hydraulic clutch. I had a GMC 1/2 with that setup and it was great except the brakes were undersized. It could move most anything with the granny gear manual box, but stopping it was another story. Some differences between Chev and GMC were that GMC used coils for the rear on the 1/2 ton, 3/4 got you leaves. Engines were way different with the GMC 305 and 351 V6. The 351 was available as a diesel also but not in pickups. They also stuck with quad headlights much longer.
Chevy used coils for the rear on 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton. GMC used leaf springs.
I have 1 1965 GMC brochure that indicates leaf springs for 1/2 ton through 1 ton.
As far as engines, two V-6s were offered on the GMC: 305 and 351.
Chevys had inline 6 and V-8s.
I have a 1967 Chevy brochure shows rear coils on 2wd 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton and leaf springs on 1 ton.
Excellent post. Learned a lot. For some reason, these are not very well known outside the US, whereas the previous (’55-’59) generation, with its somewhat more glamorous style, is more popular. I rather prefer the ’60-’61 styling, with its hints of ’59 Chevrolet.
Thanks to all for the great feedback and the stories about their experiences with these trucks.
One last bit: That ’57 Ford is a nice looking truck. And then ’58 came, and everyone HAD to have quad headlights, and great big grills to match. It seems like it was the mid ’60’s before the styling-at least of Fords and Chevys-settled down again. What was that about? (And are we going through another period of My-grill’s-bigger-than-your-grill?)
As a kid growing up in eastern Canada, I can remember an awful lot of those early torsion bar equipped Chev trucks having extremely sagged or lop-sided front ends. The roads back then in the east were pretty bad and most people thrashed the hell out of their trucks. I expect that the lop-sided ones had a broken torsion bar. The combination of rough roads and tons of road salt in those long winters, causing deep corrosion pitting, were no doubt contributors to a snapped torsion bar.
My father bought a new 64 Chevy PU with no options for around $1800 (including TTL) if memory serves. It was a closeout since 65s were in, but never-the-less quite a deal in my opinion. 235 Six with 3 on the tree, but It could easily spin mud grip tires on blacktop. Don’t ask how I know that. Rode like a Cadillac and was a solid vehicle. My bother-in-law eventually ended up with it and rolled it….slight exterior sheet metal dents on the roof were the only damage, and after being righted back on its tires, it fired right up and was driven from the scene. The only weak spot on the truck was the wood floor in the cargo box.
Very well researched article. I had heard of the IFS torsion bar setup on the early Chevy pickups but didn’t know the details.
I’d agree the Chevrolet was a more “modern pickup”, i.e, more carlike and had a more carlike ride due to a more modern suspension and chassis, compared to the Ford and Dodge which still used a front solid I-Beam and leaf spring setup.
In 1968 my father was in the market for a 1/2 ton pickup to travel around the country, he test drove a Chevrolet, GMC, Ford and Dodge. International wasn’t even on the radar. His kidneys told him the Ford and Dodge rode harder than either Chevrolet and GMC. There wasn’t much difference between the Chevrolet and GMC so it all left to aesthetics: The GMC had the quad headlights and rear leaf spring suspension. For some reason he didn’t like Chevy’s coil springs in the rear. So he went with the GMC.
The brazilian… From 1963 to 1986.
the torsion bar IFS used with the 60-62 C series (similar in design 2 the Mopar Torsion Aire suspension also shared with some Dodge trucks) was later adopted by the GM E platform a few yrs later (Toronado and Eldorado after 1967) – it was later incorporated when the 4WD T-series (S10 4 x 4) commenced production and since April 1987 (88 model year commencing with the GMT400) the 4 x 4 K series had torsion bars up front)
Great essay–I happily re-read it this morning.
Auto-show cutaway of the ’61 (I believe):
Thank you George and thanks for sharing the great pic too!
Working in the woods in Western Oregon in the sixties we interchanged early to mid sixties Chevy, Ford and Dodge pickups on a daily basis. I had none of the knowledge so ably presented above. These were my observations:
Chevy. The dust infiltrated real bad. The cab was always filthy. Those big expanses of tan sheet metal on the dash were just plain ugly to look at. You felt you were inside a washer or dryer. Or a discarded piece of HVAC. The drive train whined annoyingly. My least favorite.
Ford. Much better fit and finish all around. Attractive styling. Unfortunately, the 4x4s were jacked way up and, if anything, easier to get into trouble with on those mud slick back roads than the 2wd. 4x4s have come a long way since.
Dodge. The body and interior door paneling consisted of embarrassingly cheap painted metal. It looked like a cartoon. It had a crease here and there like a Citroen 2CV to give it marginal substance. The instrument panel and switch gear looked and felt worse than a Cozy Coupe. But it was my favorite. It hunkered down. The drive train was flexible. You could ease it through any kind of difficulty that would strand the other two. The Chevy and Ford were ‘commercial’. The Dodge was comfy.
What an incredible article! Sorry I missed it the first time around. I am not much of a GM fan but I really enjoyed this. The presentation, with the photos to highlight the changes each year, makes it a CC Best regardless of the year published. Thank you the effort in researching and writing this.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I did a bit of deep dive on this article. It was just supposed to be a quick write up on the 61 Chev I found but there was too much interesting information on these trucks that iIended up doing a more in depth look.
That thing has an unmistakable mug. I found it later in an unrelated search, plus several of its kin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jojuPQXMm44
I had no idea GM was so instrumental in the genesis of the modern, civilized light pickup truck with the chassis improvements that made it a viable everyday ride. It sounds like a game changer, albeit a very subtle one that took decades to realize. If I had to pinpoint when the pickup became regular transportation, I would have said it was the appearance of the Club Cab extension on the 1973 Dodge D-100.
I might go so far as to suggest that the 1960-66 Chevy (specifically, the 1964 model) could be considered a GM Greatest Hit that’s gone on to this day.
Ah, those were the days, when it was a selling point to be able to lower the truck (giving greater loading and passenger entry ease) while maintaining the same capabilities. Nowadays, it seems like truck makers are in a rush to make their vehicles higher and higher (to be more macho-looking or what?)
This article made me think of the photo I took last fall of an early 60’s Chevy truck (attached). I really liked the looks of it. I’m guessing a ’64 with 4WD; any other thoughts?
I have a question for those of you knowledgeable about old Chevy trucks. I remember (probably 35 yeasrs ago) a 60-61 C10 Suburban (never knew wich engine it had), with a curious automatic transmission control setup. The steering column had no traces of it having ever had a lever, and the control was at a pod similar to a typical modern minivan, say a Toyota Sienna, set against the dashboard, near the driver. The pod was painted in the same color as the dashboard, which was the same probably metallic green as the rest of the truck. The lever itself looked exactly like a common steering column lever from those Chevies. Is there any chance that was an original setup? Is it more likely that something simply broke down and the owner installed this thing to avoid working on the linkage? The installation was neat, It lived a couple blocks away from my home, so I would see it several times a week.
It certainly wasn’t stock. GM never had dash-mounted transmission controls with the exception of the Corvair.
Dodge used a pod-mounted lever in its early ’60s pickups, but the Town Wagon (like a Suburban) used push buttons.
I can’t imagine why someone would do that, as it must have been a lot of trouble to fabricate. Just fixing the original linkage or an aftermarket floor shifter would have been vastly easier.
Are you sure it was for the transmission? Maybe some other control, like trailer brakes, or?
I loved how they made those oval surrounds on the turn signals up front of the 1960 pickups. I thought they were real eye catchers.
So we purchased a 1960 LWB Apache 10 We are looking forward to starting the project.
Rat Rod Or Original ????? It’s all original has all parts been sitting since 05 one piece of chrome missing on back window has some rust nothing major motor spins
I am thinking original
I thought it was “Task Force”. Tough to find out I’ve been wrong all these years.
Seven inches lower and an extra 10 feet of visibility in front. So WTH happened?
Another feature of the ’60 Chevy and GMC light trucks was the relatively flat cab floor, a feature made possible by the dropped frame under the cab. Competing Ford and Dodge trucks still had step wells under the doors and a higher floor, compromising headroom to a certain degree. The frames of the Ford and Dodge were lower under the cab, but not as much as the GM trucks. When Ford adopted ‘Twin-I-Beam’ front suspension they were able to lower the frame a bit more under the cab and eliminate the step wells on trucks so equipped, but straight axle/leaf spring 4X2’s and 4X4’s still had the step wells.
I’ve always been amazed at the light duty ratings of 60’s (and earlier) pickups. According to the spec/ad page shown, they were rated at 5,000 pounds GVW. With 6.70-15 tires rated at 1,115 pounds each for a total of 4460 tire rating. And those trucks weren’t light. I had a ’66 Jeep Gladiator with a 5,000 pound rating, 4WD, V8, and it was around 4,400 empty.
On the other hand, they did have their points. It seems dumbfounding today with the top of the bed often over shoulder level for a man, but they were promoting a low bed height for easy loading! We can only hope for a return to that instead of the semi tractor look, style and profile.
As the owner of a new 1961 Chevy truck, we never once “periodically adjusted the torsion bar” front suspension. Truck still sits just like it did when new. And I doubt that there were any owners who did “periodic adjustments” My best theory as to why they went to coils, is the cost of the complicated torsion bar system as opposed to the simpler coils.
All these old pickups have hit collector status here very very few turned up new but thousands it seems have washed up on our shores used, Not many remain stock so the suspension gets upgraded for ride not work, you talk to your certification engineer as to what he will certify and go from there recabbing Japanese or Australian chassis is popular as Aussie utes ride ok being sedan based
” it was the change in concept from being pickups being purely utilitarian to becoming passenger-friendly that first led to the trucks we have today” Passenger-friendly? Modern times are exciting….as long as you stay inside their cabs . This got out of control in the 90s with their height continuing to increase since then.
Children and pedestrians are crushed by these unjustifiably high vehicles which block view and road by their too numerous presence
because of course we all need one to get a (single) pint of milk.