After having an embarrassing accident involving the ’86 Ranger and my house, I was truckless again. I liked having a beater truck for odd jobs, and was on the lookout. A friend’s neighbor was getting rid of his truck, and it fit the bill.
It was an oddity, that’s for sure. The ’87 Chevy truck, I am pretty sure, held the distinction of being the last column-shift 3-speed standard truck made. The three-speed combined with the 4.3 TBI would make it a pretty uncommon truck.
It sure didn’t look like much.
While it didn’t look great, the body and frame were decent enough. It was a plain-Jane stripper, though. The only options it had was power steering and brakes. It ran well, and pulled along OK. As I had some home renovations to do, the truck would come in handy hauling stuff to the dump and what-not.
If you held the key just right, you could get all the lights to come on!
This generation of the Chevy truck must win some award for the largest warning lights ever put in a vehicle. Too cheap to buy the gauge package? How about some giant red reminders! At least there’d be no missing them if they came on. The comically big gas gauge was great for showing you just how much fuel you were using. Going around turns and hills caused it to bob and wander all over the place. Luckily the 4.3 was pretty decent on fuel.
Another restoration project. I must be soft in the head.
The truck worked well enough I figured that I’d put some time and effort into fixing it up a bit. A new set of doors and a good set of fenders were gotten, as well as a nicer grille and rad support to match. I had sold the Coronet, and figured I would fix this up as something to use for the summer. After fixing it up, and having fixed up a ’70, I found these trucks, were a step down from the ’67-72 trucks. The cabs seemed a lot smaller, and a lot more cramped. The doors didn’t fit all that well. I read somewhere that the doors were installed on the cab, and the roof and back wall installed after the doors were on. I don’t know – but I could never get the doors to shut well in it. On a positive note, I really liked the stacked headlights on these. In my opinion, it was the nicest looking vehicle to ever have stacked lights.
We tried hauling the camper with this truck as well. It would do it, but it wasn’t happy about it. Paul sums it up in this article. There was way too wide a gap between second and third, and the 4.3 couldn’t make enough power to overcome the frontal area resistance of the camper. You’d have to wind the guts out of it in second, and jam it into third, and hope you’d gotten into the power range of the engine to pull it along. Another annoyance was that the shifter would hang up between gears. The ’70 didn’t do this. I’d tried putting new bushings in it, but that didn’t help it at all.
Love the stacked headlights on these.
It wasn’t hard to sell. I wasn’t in love with it. I replaced this with another cheapish truck to haul the camper around. What can I say – It made sense at the time, though not so much now.
We had a couple of this generation C10 short-wides as MP range trucks. Ours had a 350 V8 though. Same vintage Dodges and Fords 1/2 tons had a 6, which was typical for government vehicles bought on a low bid basis. I never realized you could get these with a 6 as I assumed our Chevys were the lowest buck version offered. Truly a unicorn.
MARC writes regarding the next COAL: “It made sense at the time, though not so much now”.
So much in life can be explained by the phrase “It seemed like a good idea at the time”.
Every time I read or hear that I smile, because it reminds me of how our lives roll along regardless of how smart we think we are.
Regarding the C10, you sure have the skills to make an old truck look good.
So much in life can be explained by the phrase “It seemed like a good idea at the time”.
Truer words have never been spoken; if only we could go back in time with our current knowledge and have a do-over. Or maybe not, bad experiences are how we learn.
Thanks – I’ve fixed up stuff less and less since then. My time’s become more valuable since then, and I don’t enjoy it like I did either. That being said, Dad and I are working on a ’51 Chev truck – so the bug didn’t totally leave me!
There must have been very few American vehicles that were fuel injected AND had a column-shifted manual.
That’s a lot of warning lights, looks kind of like a Chernobyl level of warning. I can agree regarding the perceived solidity of these trucks. I thought the cab was large enough, but the doors never seemed to fit well, with resulting excessive wind noise. And either they were too loose and rattled, or they were too tight and you had to slam them twice. I finally discarded the allen wrench you were supposed to use to adjust the door posts, and went at them with the plumber’s wrench. And, despite all the press about the solid frames, they wobbled and the body shook over most bumps. Dad’s ’84 at least had the V8, so it was fast enough, but the “all-steel-body” of the ’65 always felt much more solid. I would take either, though. No substitute for a truck when you want to haul stuff.
I had the ’70, and a ’98 Yukon. Dad had a few of the GMT-400’s, too. I liked the older ones a lot more, and the GMT-400’s in my opinion was a much better truck. Much less wind noise, more comfortable cab. The 87 here compared to the 87 Ford I had – the Ford was better in every way but fuel economy.
That body and paint job came out rather nice! I wonder if that developed into a money making hobby?
I was never able to make any amount of money at it. The truck looks good in the pictures, but in the sunlight it was really patchy in places. The guy that painted it didn’t put enough paint on.
A BIL still owns an 81 in the opposite combination – the older inline six with an automatic.
These always seemed to me like Chevrolet tried to build a 72 Dodge truck. Great mechanicals and a very weak body. It is funny how long both of them lasted despite their well-known shortcomings.
That had to be frustrating – all that work and it wouldn’t pull your trailer. Not enough power and the wrong gear ratios are not a good combination.
Very frustrating, though the fact the paint didn’t turn out right didn’t help. I daresay a 250 and automatic would have pulled the camper just fine. Even the 4.3 and an automatic would have done, but i just didn’t like the truck at all.
Looks a bit nicer than my COAL C10. Did everyone have one of these? It seems possible – they were made from ’73-87 in regular cabs, and through ’93(?) in crew cab, Blazer, and Suburban. That has to be about the longest single run of any body style in Chevrolet history.
I would guess they sold 10-15 million box-body trucks during the run. I still see them fairly often in The Land That Rust Forgot™
They must have sold a pile. The ones you see around here now are the nice ones. All the beaters are long gone, other than a few one-ton work trucks.
Oh, and while we’re on the topic…
A question for the hive mind about column shifters. I get that they were useful for 3-across seating, but having worked on a C10 column shifter, I’m not clear on why they were the *cheaper* option. There’s a ton of rods and plates and bellcranks and bushings. How could a column shifter be cheaper to produce and sell than a simple bar of steel poking through the floor?
“How could a column shifter be cheaper to produce and sell than a simple bar of steel poking through the floor?”
I think the strict answer is that it is not, but this ignores some other realities. The column shift became pretty universal in the US in 1940. Cars were narrower so this helped the middle passenger and was also “modern”. Floor shifts were for trucks or backwards foreign cars that were “not as advanced” as we were in the US. It was just expected. Once automatics came along those levers were on the column too. Once you have tooled to produce a steering column with a lever, adding a few linkages at the bottom to work a 3 speed would be cheaper than a dedicated floor shift mechanism.
Some Mopars tried to buck this logic in 1960-63-ish by going to a floor shift for the manual. The market spoke and they were back to column mounted shifters (manual and automatic) not long after. I think a floor shift in 1960 was viewed the way most of us look at a column shifter today. In raw cost (and in a vacuum) it was probably cheaper. In lost sales it was surely more expensive.
By the era of this truck the mechanism had been long engineered and paid for, so making it standard could be both inexpensive and a way to charge more money for the increasingly popular floor shift. Besides truck buyers were a more conservative lot and generally preferred the column shift for the same reason car buyers did in 1940 – it was modern and cleared up room for a 3rd passenger.
“Some Mopars tried to buck this logic in 1960-63-ish by going to a floor shift for the manual.”
I seem to remember reading that in the era of the pushbutton automatic (which eliminated the column shifter) it made no sense to have a column-shifted manual. Someone here will correct me if I’m wrong 🙂
Yes, the pushbuttons eliminated the cost savings of the column mounted manual, and at least some of them (like the 60-64 Chryslers) were simply not designed with column shifters due to the miniscule take rate on the manuals. Big Plymouths and Dodges of the pushbutton era continued to offer column shifters for the 3 speeds.
Daniel Stern may have something to add, but the mystery (to me at least) is the Valiant/Lancer of the early 60s. The 3 speed would have had a decent take rate on these inexpensive compacts yet they tried a floor shift for it.
During the Mopar pushbutton era of ’57-’64, the ’60-’61 Valiant and Lancer had a floor-shifted 3-speed, as did a small number of big cars, and the new-for-’64 Valiant/Dart/Baccaruda 4-speed option had a (Hurst) floor shifter, but most manual-transmission Mopars of that era had column shifters. The extra seating position (if we can call it that) was regarded as a better selling/buying point than a floor shifter.
How could a column shifter be cheaper to produce and sell than a simple bar of steel poking through the floor?
Except that a floor shifter for a three speed wouldn’t just be a simple bar of steel. All these three speeds since the late 30s or so were side-rod shifters, which means that even a floor shifter involved a number of parts. The same applies to 4-speeds passenger car transmissions too. HD 4-spped truck transmissions are different, as the shifter rods are internal.
No matter how you cut it, the column shifter has more linkage parts than a comparable floor shifter. Been there, done that.
Agreed. My point is that it’s not “a simple bar of steel”. Right?
Yes, sir. You would be correct. Been there, done that.
My 1980 F-150 with a 3-speed manual made that painfully clear.
You wouldn’t think it would be. And once the body mounts would start giving out, it’d throw the linkage out of geometry and woulld cause all sorts of issues trying to shift the darn things. The column shifter was kind of nice when it worked well, though.
Great point about wearing/rotting body mounts taking their toll on a column shifter.
It has to be one of the longest-lived automotive ‘fads’ which would eventually succumb to the one-two punch of widespread, affordable automatic transmissions and the forced downsizing that came with the dramatic increase in gas prices. When the more economical 4-speeds started coming on-line, there just wasn’t anywhere for the poor, old, column-mounted 3-speed to go.
Had a 76 back in the late 70s and into the early 80s. A good truck. Did yeoman work to and from the farm I and friends had in the Missouri Ozarks, and al so hailed material and sipplies for the Edwardian home I was rehabbing with a friend at the time. A dependable vehicle. But for dates, and more citified driving, I had my Audis, The 74 Fox, bought new and then the ’80 4000, both 4 dr sedans, or if you will, “Saloons” Back to the truck, Only failure was the fuel pump. and that was quick, easy fix. She was known as the “Huzzah Express” Due the number of runs to the Ozark stream of the same name (even if our Farm was actually on the Cortuois, which ran roughly parallel to the Huzzah. The color was officially “Grecian Bronze” but I thought of it as :”Burnt Orange” and Laurie called it ‘Terra Cotta” Sold it in 81, and last saw it running, much worse for wear not long before we moved form St. Louis to Phoenix, in mid ’88.
That’s a handsome truck!
That’s a great looking truck. I wish they still looked like that. A $100,000 chrome wheeled extended leather equipped monster is never going to be in my future. Those square bodies are fetching real money today too. Hard to find a clean one or one that’s not just a “roller” for a cheap price. I often see an ad in Craigslist like “Drives great. Needs motor.” How does it drive great if you can’t drive it? People are goofy.
Wow… the memories of working on these things. A call to Nordan would get you new front fenders, hood, door shells, and a tailgate for $400. These rigs used to rust like crazy. I did notice the similarity with Dodge trucks as far as mediocre build quality. I had problems getting doors from another same truck to fit properly. I even had a gap around the front of the side glass that was very visible from the driver’s seat on my ’73 Dodge. Chevies weren’t much better. Better have a bucket full of shims. Used to see where people would put foam tape (double stacked, even!) trying to stop the wind noise.
I thought the column shifter ended with the inline six. Learn something every day.
Where the hell did trucks like this go? I really miss their directness and simplicity.
I owned two examples of this generation of truck. I agree on the cabs in the base models, poor fitting doors, strange layout and a poor driving position. I blamed a lack of development. This generation was kept in production far too long. The compact S10 was miles ahead in fit, finish, design and comfort, despite being smaller. It showed GM could design and build a better truck.
Still, I appreciated the simplicity and ease of repair for this generation. They could work hard, were reliable and very easy to fix.
A friend owned an ’85 (I think) base model with a 305 V8 and a 3speed on the tree. I thought the wide gear spacing was just a simple way to reduce the number of gear shifts needed when driving, but otherwise was not particularly useful.
Great write-up, Marc. When I worked at Indianapolis Cablevision, I had two trucks very similar to yours: a 1979 GMC with an inline 250 6 cylinder with a staged 2 barrel carb and the Pulsair system and a 1985 Chevy with a 4.3 v6 with a 4 barrel carb and some type of weird Electronic Spark Control system that never seemed to work right. If the engine seemed way down on power I could disconnect the 4 wire plug at the HEI distributor and short two pins together with a piece of wire and it would run much better. In regards to the shifter both trucks I had would hang up and jam occasionally when shifting from 1st to 2nd. The only fix was to stop, open the hood and pull up on one of the shift forks by the steering column and it would re-synchronize and would be OK for a while longer. On the large warning lights the 1985 had a warning light that would come on for low oil pressure or a blown choke heater fuse. I would how much money GM saved by combining two warnings into 1 light. If you had the gauge package at least the choke heater fuse had a separate amber warning light below the fuel gauge.
The Saginaw 4 speed (and Hurst floor shifter) was a direct bolt in to replace the 3 speed in my old ’70 C10, power steering and power front disc brakes would have be much appreciated in the old stripper. Its 200 HP (157 net) engine did a decent job towing once the extra gear was available. Starting off up a steep hill took full throttle and a little clutch slip to get going with the heavy trailers I would tow, though. When the truck was empty I often would skip 3rd gear and drive it like a 3 speed, really didn’t need 3rd gear around town unless accelerating up a steep hill.
I always like the looked of the ’73 up C10 better, but time has proven the ’67/’72 body and frame was stronger and a little more resistant from rust, though my truck never lived in rust country.
Been enjoying your write ups.
Every time I see one of this generation of C/K Chevrolet/GMC, I am reminded of all of the aftermarket Band-Aids to fix some of the glitches these trucks were known for. Don’t want the hood to kink if you don’t shut the hood exactly right? Trans-Dapt used to sell hood reinforcements so help shore up the hood. Fallen victim to the dreaded Crack-O-Matic ™ steering box mount? A few vendors sold the retrofit mounting reinforcements. Want to hide the road rash on the leading edge of the rear wheel well opening? (I always thought the road rash was standard-issue on these) Trans-Dapt also sold the stainless steel covers used to hide the rash.
Another great read Marc! A friend of mine had an ’87 Chevy C10 with a 4.3L V6, but it had the 4-speed with the floor shift. It seemed to drive okay with that transmission, but it was never used for pulling trailers. Most of them around here were V8 long beds though.
My brother also had an ’86 GMC 1500 Wrangler (Canadian trim packaged) with a LG4 305 and a TH350. I had a lot of wheel time in that truck. It wasn’t a great driving truck, and I found the leg room pretty cramped. My brother liked it but it just fell apart. The rust just killed that poor old truck.. Not only the body but even the frame rotted severely, with shock mounts breaking off, spring breaking and eventually the frame cracking.
As much as I like the styling on these trucks, they were terribly made vehicles. Probably one of the worst built vehicles of the era for GM. Like you mentioned the doors always seem to fit horribly bad (as well as having terrible panel fit in general), they rusted like crazy, and mechanically they were nothing special GM let it wither on the vine while Ford improved their trucks considerably, making them more civilized. Ford pulled ahead in truck sales during this generation on trucks, and having experience with both, I can see why. At least the GMT-400 trucks that came after these were such a massive improvement in pretty much every aspect, especially driving dynamics, other than their goofy dash boards early models.
Stacked headlights look they were waiting for this truck to achieve nirvana. Didn’t know it existed with this engine/trans combo. Nice job on the restoration!
And old friend of mine has an ’87 and in as good condition as any original truck from that era. The fact it is from Vancouver Island meant it is rust free. It also has the 4.3 V-6 but with the automatic. It runs along just fine with this combination.
Had one for a company truck, a 1985 C-10 short bed Fleetside with the 4 bbl. 4.3L V-6 and Turbo 700 4 speed automatic overdrive. Had a a lot more power than a similar vintage 6 cylinder Ford or Dodge, and had great drive-ability once it warmed up. In those days I thought the Dodge Ram was the best built domestic full size pickup.
I had forgotten with my earlier comment that when I was 19, I worked for a mobile home park. They had a 1986 GMC, 4X4, heavy-duty pickup with a 350/auto and plow attachment. It was a beast of a truck. It was a 3/4 ton but “heavy duty” and so stiffly sprung it often held double that in bricks or concrete supplies or whatever. With 80 psi tires and (I think) 8 lug white steel wheels it seemed to be overbuilt in every way. The managers, a rather mean (to the park residents) married couple, were away for most of the summer so I sort of used it as my personal vehicle. They were stealing from the park, the park was stealing from the city as much of the books were phony, so I was just getting my little freebie too. Not proud of it, but that is life in the big city. All that summer I drove that truck on long drives, did awesome powerbraking to entertain my girlfriend’s brother and his friends, and generally drove the hell out of it. I always gave it oil changes though. I have always been serious about that, even on a vehicle I was rough on. Once I climbed a very steep sandy hill in 4-low and even with the world’s stiffest tires it climbed it like it was nothing. I learned how to plow that winter in it too. But by then the managers were back and it was a lousy job and low pay again. Without the free truck and free gas it wasn’t nearly as much fun, and I left soon after. But I did miss that pickup truck.
Beautiful color. The tires are comically small! They used to put silly little tires on everything, my ’73 C10 wore ridiculous pizza cutters when new, skinny and small. Ford still uses tires on their lower trim trucks that look too small to my eye.
I disagree about the cab of the follow up GMT400 being better ergonomically. At least for me this generation worked best. Seating position of the 400s was awkward, made my back ache on long hauls.
The stacked headlights were a great touch.
I dunno about build quality of the squarebodies being so much worse than anything else then. No domestic car from that era that I experienced was really very well made. Malaisey.
I swear to the everloving Dog that you could watch the gas gauge slowly go down on my ’73 C10 as you drove down the highway.
Been enjoying Curbside Classics for a little while now, first time to comment.
I had an ‘83 short wide Siverado shortwide and an ‘81 long bed. Both with 305 v8 and auto. A friend of mine who is a body man told me that the way to get the doors to fit properly was to roll the window down and pull inward on the upper door frame to make a tighter seal and shut out the wind noise. Esentially slightly bending the upper door inward in relation to the lower part
of the door. They also had a tool that was like a pry bar, that latched onto the door striker, and had pin that you shut the door on, and you could pull up or down on the bar to get the door to fit just right in the opening.
My ‘81 had those factory bumper guards that were made of tightly rolled 3/16” steel capped by a thick rubber strip. These were spaced about 2’ appart on the front bumper and were like battering rams. One day I was driving about 40mph when a family in a in a 5th generation 4 door Chevy Malibu turned left right in front of me and I center punched them square right in the doors. One bumper guard per door, and I knocked the snot out of them. I was sure that the front of my truck was wiped out, but from my seat in the cab, I didn’t see the hood or fenders buckle. When I got out to survey the damage, i was amazed at how clean my truck was. The only thing I could find was the bumper guards were just slightly tilted back, that one of the fenders was moved back just enough to where the door slighty rubbed on in when opened. The plastic grill wasn’t even cracked.
I had worse luck with my ‘83. It was very reliable mechanically, but i managed to fold the drivers door around onto the drivers fender after backing up into a telephone pole with the door open, then I was hard rearended by a ‘78 Ford Bronco. The truck still drove, but was permanantly in the shape of a V. Then it was stolen.
Both trucks served me well.
5 years later…
Just picked up an ’87 Chevy with the 4.3L v6, TDI, 3 on the column. Last year for the square, last year for the 3 on the column, first year of the TDI, in a full size truck. 44,000 miles, dots of rust here and there, but solid. Had a camper shell ’87 – ’22, so the bed is like new. Pretty neat find, and is now my “daily” driver, but only sees the road on the weekend most of the time.