The time is about 1988. The place is somewhere deep in the bowels of Chevrolet’s pickup division north of Detroit. The event is a meeting of various people working within the truck division.
They are there to discuss how to inject a little pizzazz into their current lineup, hoping to create enough buzz to increase overall sales. The ideas are many and varied; the discussion likely went something like this:
“Okay, guys and gals, Ford continues to kick our butt in the annual pickup sales race. Nobody ever stops to consider that we, General Motors, also make GMC trucks; hell, there’s only about $4.35 worth of difference in badging, but does anyone ever stop to think that GM usually outproduces Ford in pickups? Of course not. So we at Chevrolet are terminally in second place. Chevrolet being in second place to Ford is just wrong, and it is counter to the natural order of the universe.
“We just introduced our new C/K line for this current 1988 model year. What does Ford do for 1988? They put a tether on the fuel cap of a pickup that’s older than dirt – they introduced it in, what, 1980? That’s a long time ago…”
“Uh, sir? Didn’t we just replace a pickup that was introduced in, like, 1973?”
“Conners, was that you? Must you always inject yourself? Besides, I’m not talking about us, I’m talking about Ford. Damn, those folks do nothing for eons and they still wipe the floor with us. We need to find a way to increase our fleet sales….
“Anyway, despite our new pickup line that cost a boat-load, we need to find a way to rev up the customer base and generate some excitement. We need a way to further invigorate our sales and create that little something different; to ‘brougham-it-up’ as they say at the glass house. Thoughts?”
Conners spoke up.
“Uh, sir? A lot of our customer base appreciates performance. What about a performance option?”
“Conners, what do you mean by performance? Hell, if a half-ton doesn’t perform for what they need, they can buy a three-quarter or one-ton pickup. A one-ton with a 454 could pull the earth off its rotational axis if geared right. What do you mean performance?”
Conners was a smart, articulate, and gung-ho individual although nobody quite knew his vocation. It was widely assumed he was the ergonomics guy as the financial people poo-pooed all ideas, the attorneys wanted a disclaimer on everything, and the engineers weren’t quite so articulate.
“Uh, sir? Well, since we dropped the rear drive Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Regal, and Cutlass coupes, a lot of people think that GM has abandoned them. And most of the baby-boomers who bought Chevelle’s and Camaro’s back in the ’60’s and ’70’s have matured. They want a mixture of comfort and performance that doesn’t exist with a Beretta. Several focus groups indicate pickups are the future hot commodity in the coming decade.”
Conners was not met with much agreement from his superior.
“Conners, please. This is GM; people will buy whatever we throw them. If they want comfort and performance, then get the F-41 suspension on a Caprice. And let me tell you, I just saw the initial designs for the new Caprice for ’91; that thing will be more popular than ice-water in Hades. That is the hot commodity in the coming decade.”
Conners was a paradox of sorts. His talent for boiling down events to such a painful truth, much to the chagrin of the idealistic ninnies surrounding him, did give him an engineer flavor. His ability for an impassioned argument over anything also painted him in a hue of jurisprudence.
“Uh, sir? GM has always been unparalleled in providing a wide variety to the customer. I’m not certain how a new Caprice is going to provide variety when we canned the rear-drive Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick versions several years ago. Hasn’t GM always been one to be bold and in-your-face with new, innovative, and daring products, such as the original Toronado or the Corvair? Where has that spark gone? Couldn’t this be our opportunity to prove that we aren’t whipped, but just getting ready to spring back into a new vitality, a vitality that shows we are a formidable entity who never shies away from engineering prowess and, dare I say it, overkill in variety? Have we lost that spark that made us the largest corporation in the world? I suppose my question is whether we want to lead as we have historically or be an also-ran, striving to achieve bland mediocrity? What do we want to be?”
As Conners finished his statement, several people wiped tears of pride from their eyes. They saw a young man who was brimming with life, was a GM loyalist to the core, and who wasn’t afraid to shake the status quo. Even Conners’ superior was moved.
“Okay, Connors, get to work – but you have to stay within the parts bin.”
What was the result from this fictitious conversation? It was the 454 SS, perhaps one of the most delightful examples of stuffing a huge engine in a small body since perhaps the early 1970’s. Some might even call it overkill.
Webster defines overkill as: an excess of something (as a quantity or an action) beyond what is required or suitable for a particular purpose.
Overkill has such a negative connotation, which is unfortunate. Overkill should be viewed as being a focused determination, a strong desire to accomplish a goal.
One could easily argue that starting a barbecue with a half-liter of gasoline is overkill. It could also be argued that killing wasps with a shotgun is overkill. But don’t both methods accomplish the intended goal?
Stuffing a 7.4 liter V8 from your heavier duty pickups into the smallest pickup available is focused and determined, both of which accomplished the goal of straight-line performance. So what’s wrong with that?
Chevrolet had a goal in making the 454 SS – they sought a performance pickup. For several years in the early 1990’s GM was doing just that; after the 454 SS in 1990, the turbo charged 4.3 liter GMC S-15 based Syclone arrived for 1991, and the mechanically identical GMC Typhoon SUV sprang forth in 1992. The 454 SS was just their opening salvo in a skirmish that Ford would answer with their Lightning pickup.
Overkill is also a relative term. Upon its introduction in 1990, the 454 SS was rated at 230 horsepower. If you compare that to the base V6 engines with in excess of 300 horsepower currently available in pickups, that rating is laughable. Yet for the time, it was glorious overkill that allowed the 454 SS to accelerate nearly as briskly as a contemporary Mustang GT. Just don’t compare their fuel economy as the 454 SS had an EPA rating of 10 mpg city and 11 mpg highway. Of course, pickups do tend to get worse fuel mileage.
The 1990 models had a three speed automatic with 3.73 gears out back; the 1991 and later models would get a fourth gear and 4.10 gears. 1990 would also be the peak year of sales at 13,478 with only another 3,500 being sold in the following three years combined.
I found this particular 454 SS alongside the road, for sale (shocking, I know, as it seems like half my CC specimens are for sale). Talking with the owner confirmed that it does indeed accelerate like there is no tomorrow and, even better, he can get up to 12 mpg with it if he stays below 55 mph.
I just wonder if Chevrolet ever considered the 3.8 liter turbo engine from the Buick Grand National?
Don’t forget one of the advertising taglines: “Young girls avert their eyes, weak men tremble, Ford dealers faint.”
It also caused Ford to create the Lightning…
Oh and 454 fuel economy? I grew up with a significant number of farmers who had big block 3/4 and one ton gas pickups back before diesel became the dominant force in HD truck sales. One guy swore the his 454 3/4 ton got exactly the same fuel economy whether he was unloaded, bed fully loaded, or pulling a couple of grain wagons.
I’ve heard the same thing also with Ford’s 460 in that size pickup. If it’s geared right, there probably wouldn’t be a lot of difference when loaded. At one point I had a 3/4 ton Dodge with a 360 and that was generally the case with it.
It seems that carried over to the 6.8L V10. 9 MPG, all day err’day. Of course, that could also be because we just got done with harvest, and using an F-350 V10 six-speed with 4.30 gears is still technically overloaded (400+ bushels of grain + weight of trailer = somewhere in the 24K lb. range). Plus we never seem to drive it on the interstate long enough to get the mileage up.
It’s worth noting, I think, how much the farm truck gets taken out on the open road. Our first one, a puke-green F-250 Custom bought brand-new in ’74 with no options other than the 360 and an AM radio, was never on the interstate and very rarely on the highway, either under my grandpa’s ownership or my dad’s. Its successor, a blue two-tone ’79 F-250 with a rebuilt 351, was very much the same.
Going from that to a ’96 Dodge Ram 2500 was like entering the English world after living with the Amish for years. It was no Continental, to be sure, but to have a farm truck with a CD player…! And it rode down the interstate just fine; sometimes we’d take it to Sioux Falls just to get the avg mileage up a bit. And I have to say, feeling the rumble of the 12V Cummins and hearing, on the edge of the human threshold, the near-ultrasonic whistle of the turbo spooling made this young man a minor diesel-head.
The ’08 F-350? We drove that home 3-1/2 hours up I-29 no problem. Only thing was, with 4.30 gears out back, it’d be nice to have a second overdrive (or maybe a split rear axle) just to get the RPMs down at 75 mph. But it’s only ever taken the interstate a handful of times since then.
It’s a testament to real workmanship, I think, if you can take what’s essentially a tank down the road at 75 mph and have about as much wind noise as a 20-year-old Caprice.
Yes. I have a 1/2 ton ’78 GMC with 454 and it got around 13 miles per gallon empty and around 13 miles per gallon towing a full-sized car. It just did not care.
Call me silly, but gas is cheap. It is cheap compare to the cost of doing turbos/injectors/lift-fuel pumps and the associated downtime. The extra cost of the diesel, often upwards of $7000, can but a heck of a lot of gasoline.
Five ton or over: diesel.
Less than five ton: gas.
You aren’t silly and there is also a convenience cost.
When gas first hit $2.50 / gallon, I drove my 12 mpg 5.8 liter Crown Vic the three and half-hours across the state for an appointment. When questioned about that by a co-worker who was amazed I would do something so silly, I countered that the car did not depreciate any, taking a bus would have cost just as much, and flying would still not have taken me to my destination. While I broke through, the logic I used was still an overdose for the poor person.
David said he has a Cummins 12-valve, which is cheap to operate because it almost never breaks, and when it does need parts they’re relatively inexpensive and easy for the DIYer. When I’m beside a fullsize pickup with a gas engine, I feel sorry for them.
Install an exhaust temp gauge so you know if the turbo has cooled off before you shut down and you won’t cook the bearings in the turbo either.
That makes me slightly depressed, for a second, as I consider my Dakota gets about 11-12 in town, and close to 20 highway.
Granted said Dakota has slightly more rated HP, but definitely less torque.
Still.. depressing. Someone have an EcoBoost for me?
I had the same results, I had a1979 crew cab Silverado 454, dually, four speed muncie, the best mileage I ever saw was 8 miles a gallon. It did have dual fuel tanks. Never had to use first unless I had to pull a stalled tractor trailer off the street. With red velvet seats, A/C, custom power windows in the front doors and the 8 foot bed.
It did not matter, a/c on or off, pulling a 28 foot Coachman with a Honda in the bed
fuel stayed at 5 to 8 miles per gallon. When this huge, heavy truck was unloaded
it would keep up with my brothers 1980 280Z, then start to pull ahead. In four years only failure was a a/c hose leak, repaired under warranty. When crossing the Canadian border I was told that the truck weighed 7,000 pounds and the Coachman was over 5,000 pounds. Amazing vehicle.
I had a serious jones for one of these when they first came out.
Me too. It was on my wall!
It would appear that history repeats itself. The Chevrolet Cheyenne will début at SEMA this year (as a concept). It’s a short box regular cab truck with the 6.2L V8 from the Silverado Heavy Duty in it. It’s their answer to the Ford F150 Tremor.
While I’m sure it’s much more efficient and powerful than the truck pictured above, its fuel economy (when viewed in the context of 2013), is probably about the same.
As Halo trucks (if there is such a thing) the Cheyenne and Tremor both are great, though.
Dodge showed off a new Rumble Bee concept recently too.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1086337_ram-reveals-1500-rumble-bee-concept
They’re supposedly considering it for production, but somehow I can’t see the electrically activated exhaust dumps making it to the production version.
Neither can I. despite 40 years of materials advances.
There were very few of these GTO ones made, because. as expected, the severely corrosive environment of an exhaust rendered them useless in short order.
Whether the muffler flaps were electrically actuated or by vacuum, I figure the above described corrosion issues would play havoc with them in the same way unless super-premium quality materials were used.
Unleaded gas and stainless steel exhaust components would probably be a fairly reliable system.
Porsche and the Corvette have been using variable exhausts for several years now with no issues.
A short bed, standard cab pickup with a 454, huh? Well, at least that engine filed up HALF of the engine bay! My old 1976 Chevy C-20 with the 292 six had so much room under the hood, that I used a step stool and crawled INTO the engine bay and sat on the inside front fender when doing some maintenance back in the day, mainly because the truck sat higher off the ground and at only 5’10”, I couldn’t reach that far.
FWIW, I couldn’t keep the back wheels of my old 1996 Ranger 4 cylinder on the road without spinning half the time! I can only imagine what driving this is like… but I’d like to try before Principal Dan steals the engine and drops it into an old Celebrity!
Everything about me says I should like these, but I don’t. Maybe it’s because GM didn’t bother to even offer a tach, floor shift, manual transmission, or color variation on these. Output is even less than the carbed HD-emission 454s of the late 70’s. Plus, Ford’s Lightning outperformed it with a “little” 351 engine.
For a short period of time, I had a junker ’74 Chevy Shortbed truck ordered with 454, THM400, tach cluster, rally wheels, and 3.73 posi rear end. Trucks back then had real dual exhaust too and bucket seats were on the option list. They were offered however the customer wanted and did not have oversized ‘SS’ stickers on the bed.
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t mind having one to tow stuff around with….but it’s just not that special to my eyes.
I believe these were also offered in white and red, at least after the first model year.
Thanks, I didn’t realize that.
The power rating went up to 255hp in 1991 for these 454 SS trucks after the initial 230 hp rating. The 255 hp engine is more than any late 70’s carbed 454 was rated (they were typically around 240-245 hp). The initial engine was literally the 3/4 ton-one ton engine that was swap in with zero changes. The 255 hp engine was massaged lightly to get some extra power. In either case, GM’s TBI V8’s were low end torque monsters, while the Ford Lightening actually used a Hi-po engine actually designed for high performance use. GM TBI engine really run out of steam at high RPM, while the 351 in the Lightening actually had some top end performance. I used to have the old Car and Driver article and the Lightening wasn’t much faster, they were pretty on par. I am sure the torque of the 454SS would make it “feel” much stronger when cruising around.
I like these trucks, but I’d probably never own one. I really like the clean styling and simplicity of the truck. They hold a significant place in history for opening the door to the hi-po truck market.
I so wanted one of these when I was in 9th grade.
Yep. That’s the appeal of the muscle truck.
I’m not sure if “stuffing” is really the right word, since the engine bay was exactly the same size from the smallest half-ton all the way up to the biggest one-ton dually. Remember, it wasn’t until Ford split off their F-150’s in 1997 that half-tons were physically smaller than HDs. And Chevy didn’t really split them off until 2007 or so.
Whoop. Eeeee.
So it’ll burn rubber at a traffic light and scream down the road in a straight line.
It’ll also panic on the brakes at the first curve in the road, knowing damned well it couldn’t get around it to save its life.
Sorry, I’ve never understood muscle trucks. No more positives than a muscle car, and a combination of all the muscle cars negatives added to a trucks negatives – plus, the bed seldom ever gets dirty.
+1. Toys for boys, that’s all these are.
23 years later most pickups still are…
“Sorry, I’ve never understood muscle trucks. No more positives than a muscle car, and a combination of all the muscle cars negatives added to a trucks negatives – plus, the bed seldom ever gets dirty.”
You know what I’ve never understood? Why people always have to post stuff like this any time the topic is muscle cars or trucks. You may not be interested in vehicles like these, but we’re even less interested in your opinion about them.
Yeah well, I never understood motorcycles. They’re about as practical and attractive as a bicycle, but with ludicrously loud engines(louder than any muscle car with mufflers) and haphazardly used on roadways with real motorists who can’t see them.
Maybe you’re just driving in the wrong countries.
it might not be practical, but boy that’s a sexy beast. Not one feminine curve on the that truck. The only thing I don’t like about the truck are the graphics.
I have trouble deciding what to think about this. Part of me agrees with Syke. Part of me wishes that we could have this kind of variety in cars (thanks, CAFE) so that the few who are interested in mega-cubic-inch cars could indulge. Part of me thinks that it is a good looking truck, but it would look better with a stepside bed. Part of me still has trouble getting excited over a Chevy pickup when there are lots of Fords and Dodges around.
Still, I didn’t really follow these and did not know how rare they were. You wrote a much better piece about it than I would have, I am sure.
You aren’t alone in deciding what to think about this, and so many people so far have had very good points.
The fact that GM was so blatant about their intention is commendable, which is why I went with the overkill angle based upon some phony conversation. Syke is right, it’s likely a handful to drive in less than optimum weather and most of these have been babied. That engine is capable of a lot and perhaps is better suited for the other uses people have been identifying. GM trumped the horsepower ratings of these in, what, 1996 with the introduction of the Vortec, so a 350 now had more horsepower than the old 454.
I have been sitting on these pictures for a while as I was never sure how to present it. If I found a newer one in white this afternoon its presentation could be a whole lot different as I just don’t fully know what to think about it.
The appeal is there, but it’s also like admiring the neighbors swimming pool – it’s nice, but I really don’t want to pay for owning and maintaining it.
I have trouble knowing what to think about any V8 truck. The old ones that I had got 8-10mpg and I don’t care what gas costs that bothers me. I have spent some time with 4.3 engines over the past few years and they seem to do just about everything adequately.
Having said that I have a friend that did something along this line that was really different and that I really admire. He had a broken 83 king cab S10. That was pre-smog for the purpose of Texas law. He had a Ford302 and C6. Yup, that’s right, he put them together and IMHO it’s a winner that can work with the best of them and has for over 60 kmiles. Looks (to me anyway) like Chevy made it that way.
If I wanted to go really fast it would be on a bike. Having said that I like this truck. Guess I am conflicted and impulsive like probably half of you.
That S10 w/Ford drivetrain sounds very very cool! When I worked at the scrapyard, some guy hauled scrap in a late 70’s Chevrolet pickup with Ford running gear. He did a pretty good job — There’s nothing weirder than hearing the distinctive sound of a Ford V8 cranking up when they only vehicle within earshot is a C10 Chevy.
Back in my teenage corn-detassling days we used to use my Uncle’s farm truck to get to work.
It was a 1974-ish Chevy SWB dually flatbed with a 454 and 3speed+low manual transmission.
It didn’t accelerate like there was no tomorrow, but it really could pull the earth off it’s rotational axis.
What a great vehicle for a 16 year old to drive (without having to feed it).
Approved!
“but it really could pull the earth off it’s rotational axis” — LOLOL!
I remember more than a few of these when I was living back in ‘Ol Virginny, usually piloted by boat-golfers wearing a Village People mustache, Atlanta Braves cap, and top-drawer Oakleys fitted with the prerequisite jockstap.
(shudders)
like
this guy.
If Dale Sr drove a pickup, I imagine this is the one he would drive.
I believe this was the era that the S10 Baja was in the showrooms. GM had the SS to counter the Ford F150 Lightning and the S10 Baja to take on the Ranger STX 4×4. The turbocharged Syclone and Typhoon by GMC upped the ante quite a bit.
The extra premium charged for these just didn’t seem worth it, Billy Bob could have done the same thing under his li’l old shade tree,with
Mary Lou’s fancy new pickem-up, . At least the Ford SVT trucks offered chassis upgrades as well, a much more integrated package, plus I’ll take the lightness of a Windsor over a big lump o’ Rat 🙂
A kid I went to high school with had one of these, already rode hard/put up wet by the time he got it. Smokey burnouts were pretty much the order of the day any day that truck was out and about. It lasted all of two weeks before some calamity took it off the road for good. Never heard what became of it after that.
Strangely, me with my cushy Olds V8-powered Buick, I never took much interest in the truck. Sure, even then I knew it was odd, possibly rare, but other than that it was just another truck with a big block. I could build one of those myself, I figured, were I so inclined.
My feelings about them today are pretty much the same. They’re neat, and I’d still like to own a set (or two, or three) of those wheels. But if I want a go-fast truck, I’d be more inclined to pick up a nicely kept example with a shot tranny (since so many go that way) and drop in what I wanted. It might have zero resale value when finished, having never received the factory’s stamp, but it would do everything the same at a fraction of the price. And you’d know it hadn’t been hooned all day, every day, like anything with “SS” in its name likely was.
Cool truck, but I’ll leave them for those with deeper pockets and/or deeper sticker love than I.
The local craigslist shows three rusty and well-used examples ranging from $5,000-10,000. Meanwhile, clean and straight V6 trucks are bringing $2500 tops, and a junkyard drivetrain would run no more than $1000. If only I wasn’t already up to my ears in projects…
My dad worked at a Chevy dealer back then. He once brought home a brand new 1991 model. Preferring cars over pickups, I still thought it was pretty cool. I seem to remember it having much more attractive wheels than this one.
The bug deflector does it no favors.
So let me get this straight, GM dumped one of the most potent engines in their lineup into this truck and did not include a option for a stick? Why not? it is not like most 454 owners were using their super expensive super fast pickup for hauling duties.
Of course I am still wondering why no manual trans was offered in the 4 door muscle car 94-96 Impala SS
“Of course I am still wondering why no manual trans was offered in the 4 door muscle car 94-96 Impala SS”
because you can’t just decide drop a manual trans in a car and ship it to dealers. Not only do you have to pay for the development costs of designing in the transmission (that generation of B-body didn’t have a manual trans anywhere) you have to shoulder all of the costs of certifying that combination for sale in North America. You need to re-do fuel economy cert, emissions, crash, etc. It would have been stupid of GM to spend millions of dollars doing that on a car they might have sold a couple thousand of.
….and yet GM spent millions of dollars on developing the SSR which nobody bought and killed it off in only 3 years. Just developing a working retractable hardtop on the SSR cost more then designing an Impala SS with a stick.
From 2003-2006 Total SSR production was slightly under 25,000
By contrasts the 1994-1996 Impala SS had a production total of 69,678 and oddly enough the last year the Impala SS was made(1996) 41,941 were produced which was almost double the 1995 production(21,434) so it went out a winner. I still think it was stupid of GM not to offer a stick in the 94-96 Impala SS. It really would not have taken that much money to do so on the grand scheme of it as they could have gone parts bin for the transmission(ether a pickup trans or a Corvette trans) and such. The Impala was billed as a 4 door Vette and most Vettes are sold with a stick. A manual trans Impala would have allowed some Corvette like performance(stick, engine etc) while taking the family out.
Which is just another reason why, in my opinion, the SSR deserves a Deadly Sin column.
We rented a Class C motorhome 10 years ago, and it had the 8.1 Vortec, the final production version of the big block. Man, that thing hammered deliciously up the mountains; I could keep pretty much any speed I wanted (or dared) on long and steep grades. Of course, there was the gas bill….6-8 mpg, depending on how much hammering I was indulging in.
There is a guy I know who has about an ’01 or ’02 K3500 with the 8.1 liter engine. I always tease him about his King Kong engine; he said it gets about 10 empty and maybe 9 loaded. But he also makes sure to let me know it will quite expertly pull a full cattle trailer up steep hills with the greatest of ease.
I think we have found the reason U-Haul liked these engines.
Chevrolet/Holden still make the fastest ute/pickemup in the world but how much use as a hauler is it really 170+mph looks fine on the salt flats but with a round bale in back not so much.
Everyone laughs until they ask you to help them move.
Wait, that conversation was fictitious??? Booooo!!! Haha,
I never cared for the execution of the SS454 but I liked what it represented. These seemed like a giant middle finger to CAFE, safety regs and those who supported them. These were the last true muscle cars(err trucks) in the original, non-European tainted, paradigm and I commend Connors(or whoever really came up with it) for having the guts to get around the rules.
Having said that, I don’t particularly care for the SS454 as a product. I have a hard time finding trucks with separate beds attractive in any way but a utilitarian sense, and the execution of it is basically a (cheesy)sticker job. Ford’s answer with the Lightning was a much better followup as it had a much improved interior, much more extensive styling enhancements and better styling to my eye.
I agree. Having test-driven a new 1993 Lightning I can attest that not only would it haul ass, but for a pickup it would handle too. I wished I could afford one.
Perhaps the way to think about trucks like the SS-454, Lightning, and Dodge’s 1978-79 Little Red Wagon is that they are factory versions of all the mid-1950’s Fords and Chevies that had Olds, Caddy, or Chrysler engines swapped into them; and most of the old boys that could afford the factory versions had probably either owned or at least lusted after a pickup with a big V8 engine.
I’d be cool with a F41 Caprice.
Would these drive any better than a 1970 equivalent? I’d imagine there is a certain collectability here in the SS badge, but the lack of effort for the first year is a disappointment because that is normally the one you want. Even the torque from the 454 is not very impressive – only factory hi-po small block level. They are about a high 15 sec quarter mile from what I can find – not bad for 1990 I guess but not worth getting excited about either.
I was told about a 1970’s C30 dually that the guy had a local drag racer build an engine for him so he could tow a giant 5th wheeler around running straight LPG. When he first took it out it was burning the tires everywhere and chewing through fuel. The re-tuned it, basically backing off the fuel until it ended up getting double the initial mileage and still had bags of grunt.
At the time these came out I really wasn’t interested in them so I never did any research. Fast forward 20 years and now I have a muscle truck, 2002 Ford F150 Harley Davidson – a crew cab version of the Lightning). It’s a somewhat practical toy that will never be used to haul anything. Now I lust for a 2005-2006 Dodge Ram SRT10 regular cab with manual tranny.
My ’94 Ford Ranger (4cyl 5spd) and my ’98 GMC Safari are my vehicles of choice when it comes to hauling stuff.
Thanks for a great write up.
A friend of mine had one, pretty much the same as the one in the article, it had the 4 speed auto, so I guess it was a 90 ot 91. It got about 11MPG when he bought it, but after some engine and exhaust work, it got almost 13 around town, IF you stayed out of it. He had it until 2010, when the transmission failed at about 250,000 miles. He sold it as is to some kid who had it back on the road in a week.
I always liked driving it, especially after the engine work. Power was very good, it was pretty strong.
The horsepower rating on these trucks always bothered me. For what you paid, you could ‘ve got about the same out of the F Bodies or a Mustang with better handling and MPG for less out of pocket.
And this is coming from someone who actually likes these.
I was living in Kentucky when these came out and I really wanted one, they sounded mean, looked mean and had great seats… The perfect truck for a redneck wanna be! Everyone remarking on the “low” hp numbers needs to remember that in 1990 these were good numbers, and don’t forget the real appeal was the torque. The Lightning might have been faster but it looked dated and the tacked on aero stuff didn’t work with the old styling. These trucks were revolutionary for the time. IMO this is still the best looking truck design by far.
They were good numbers for 1990. No doubt about it. But when you compare it to the 5.7L used in the F Bodies, it doesn’t look like the premium was worth it.
The 5.7L for 1990 was rated 225hp and torque of 345. The 454 SS was 235 hp and 385 feet of torque.
The increase of just over 100 cubes didn’t bring that much IMO. Now take in to account the 454 SS higher with the high likelihood of negotiating a better deal on an F Body at the time. The luster begins to fade pretty quick on the 454SS.
Agreed, but I think part of the appeal was in how those numbers were delivered with the big block vs small block. Admittedly I am no expert in 90s engine design but I think all of the engines were choked down quite a bit. I had friends into drag racing F-bodies and they were able to increase HP quite a bit. The truck engine was, well a truck engine, so it was tuned differently than the 5.7. I think it could have seen pretty good gains too. What was the HP/TQ ratings of the 5.7L truck engine?
But above all that, I really don’t think the 454SS was cross-shopped with the Camaro. Much like today, a lot of guys wanted a truck, and wanted the baddest truck around. They were never going to drive a Z28 instead. They were more a compliment to each other than competition.
Not sure on torque but the truck 5.7L was good for 190 hp.
try the 67-72chevytrucks.com website for more info on this truck
I realize there haven’t been any comments on this for years, but thought I’d add that my dad was the chief designer (exterior) for this truck. He spent his entire design career at GM and the only vehicle he ever bought to keep was this truck. He pretty much bought a new car every year from 1959 to when he retired in the early 2000s. He had his lowered shortly after he bought it and he still has it. I think it has about 17,000 miles on it. You can’t miss the power when it’s on the road.
Thanks Cathy. Might you be able to persuade your dad to write about his GM experience for CC? Plenty of truck fans here.
Not totally practical maybe, but I just LOVE that some bod at GM had the guts and the desire to build what was in essence a factory hotrod. Well why wouldn’t you? A company that makes a small pickup also makes a mahoosive V8, with typical man-logic it was only a matter of time. Similar deal with the latter day Mercedes 300 sel 6.3 which itself was very much a skunk works project – ” I wonder what would happen if we put the big V8 limo engine into our small mass market sedan?” until management gave it the green light. Gotta love it.
My 90 454 head were built for tq not Hp had peanut ports. Heads started running out power at 3500rpm n done at 4500rpm. Got 10/11 mpg @ 28.5 rpm @ 60mph. .I put intake cam n headers had 3in pipe out headers into flowmaster 2.5in tailpipes behind wheels. Sound good but wasn’t satisfied. So I got another flowmaster. So I have true duels with 4 2.5 tailpipes tailpipe from each mufflers out each side. Sounds badd ass but very loud. Louder than open headers. Can hear it over race cars at track they open headers. I’m threw mufflers. I got 10/11 mpg 373 rearend. I changed trans from trubo 400 to 700r 2800 stall 10/11 @18.5 60 mph. Put trubo 3500 stall turn 28.5rpm. Fuel injection 670 tbi 750 Holley. Nothing I done changed gas mileage. Run 158 mph @48.5 rpm not to floor cause 700r fall out od back to drive. Not good lol. Bottom end motor wouldn’t hold up. After breaking crankshaft I destroke to 427 aluminum heads n trying 200r trans. Going see if that holes. Got 88 ext.cab 1ton single wheel 454 4:11 gears trubo 400 trans.stock beside headers single exh no cat no muffler stock tailpipe split to duly pipe right before it comes out behind wheel ??? Don’t know what they done that for. It’s not load at all. But will pull. I’ve pulled 4 different 14×70 mobile homes in 1 afternoon. I’ve got 26.000 tags n 2 $600 each ticket for 15.000 over weight. Get 10/11 mpg loaded or not I got 98 ram dullie with Cummings I be scared to try pulling that much. I get 28 mpg with Cummings
Bought one in mint condition in 2001 or 2002 so I could see what all the craze for muscle trucks was about. It did go like there was no tomorrow, and it DID spin the tires every time you left the stoplight. But that 454 was criminally underpowered. A Chevelle from the early 1970s would laugh at it.