(first posted 2/19/2018) I recently wrote a piece on the history of the 1960-66 Chevrolet pickups and proclaimed it to be the first modern pickup. There is no doubt that Chevrolet trucks of this era were influential, and this resulted in the competition changing their trucks to follow suit. The market for pickups was evolving quite quickly during the 1960s and pickups were increasingly popular. By the end of the decade, pickups had evolved significantly. They had all become much more comfortable, feature-laden, and better suited for day-to-day transport.
1961 Ford
1961 Dodge
1961 Chevrolet
GM trucks had the advantage of the new low-slung body in 1960, but Ford and Dodge were quick to revise their designs for 1961. That said, the Chevrolet independent front suspension still offered big advantages in road manners over its solid axle competitors. Surprisingly, International was the first to answer to GM suspension, introducing a choice of an independent torsion bar suspension or a solid beam axle for its 1961 half-tons. While GM abandoned the torsion bar suspension after a few years, International stuck with it until the mid-1970s. Of course, GM would reintroduce independent torsion bar suspension on its trucks in 1988, but this time for the K series 4×4 models.
By 1965, Ford decided to answer GM head-on and introduced its “Twin-I-Beam” independent suspension. Ford touted that its design used “two axles” since each wheel had its own independent I-beam. Of course, this suspension setup was essentially a variation of a swing axle suspension, with each I-beam really just a swing axle. It also meant that there was inherently large camber changes as the suspension went through its travel. However, Ford successfully touted the toughness of its design, implying it was a tougher independent suspension. To ensure strength Ford used forged steel for the I-beam and radius rod construction.
Popular Science had noticed the increase in truck popularity and decided to test the three bestselling pickup trucks of 1965. Much like modern pickups, Popular Science lauded the trucks of 1965 for their versatility. Along with the additional refinement of the 1965 trucks, it was making these pickups more socially acceptable to find in a suburban driveway.
Unfortunately, the trucks as tested were not overly evenly matched. Ford’s entry was a ¾ ton F250 sporting its largest engine option, the 352 V8, cranking out 208 gross horsepower. Meanwhile the Chevrolet was a C10 ½ ton with a base level 230 six, making 140 hp. The Dodge was also a ½ ton, being a D-100 equipped with a 225 slant six, making the same 140 hp as the Chevy, but 5 less ft-lbs of torque. It’s too bad that they didn’t get a Ford with a six cylinder, with the new 240 six being introduced in 1965. Popular Science claimed that the six cylinder trucks seem to cruise well at 65 mph while the V8 Ford could cruise at 85 mph. I am sure their claims are truthful, but I bet cruising at 85 mph in the Ford wasn’t overly relaxed, while it likely consumed copious amounts of fuel.
Dodge updated their trucks in 1961 with its new low-slung body, but they stuck with the solid front axle until 1972. Nevertheless, Dodge did go another route to try to appeal to other buyers. The article makes mention of Dodge’s Custom Sports Special which sporty package that included the availability of the HPP option with a 365 hp 426 wedge V8 engine. These trucks really were the first real attempt at making a performance truck. Custom Sports Specials included bucket seats, carpeting, insulation, a center console, chrome grille and bumper and of course racing stripes. The HPP option group included the 426 cubic inch Street Wedge, 727 pushbutton transmission, power steering, heavy-duty instruments with a 6000 RPM Sun tachometer and dual exhaust. While the HPP package only existed in 1964-65 and wasn’t overly popular, perhaps Dodge was just thinking too far into the future. Eventually, sporty trucks would become a market niche, and in modern times there have been plenty of performance-oriented Dodge trucks built. Nowadays, it seems all trucks come with tire-shredding power, bucket seats and consoles.
When it came to ride, the Chevrolet was proclaimed to be the best riding of the three trucks, being smoothest when unloaded. That said, they complained the truck would pitch somewhat. Popular Science stated there was no practical difference between the Ford Twin-I-Beam and the Chevrolet Short/Long Control arm suspensions, but did say the F250 was rougher riding. Popular Science said both worked well and while Ford asserted the extreme ruggedness of its suspension, it noted the Chevrolet suspension was durable as well. They did note that the Twin-I-Beam was cheaper to manufacture than most other independent suspensions. Undoubtedly the F250 tested didn’t ride as smoothly as an F100 would have, but even had they tested an F100 I am fairly certain the Chevrolet with its all-coil suspension would have remained the smoothest truck.
Popular Science praised the advantages of independent front suspension on the Ford and Chevrolet, citing the improved ride, positive wheel location and no steering wheel vibrations or kickback. However, they did concede that in most normal driving the solid axle Dodge didn’t show any significant disadvantage. The magazine also said the Dodge had the most comfortable driving position, with the most room between the seat and steering wheel.
One thing that has drastically improved since 1965 is the quality and reliability of vehicles. The testers only put 250 miles on the trio of brand new trucks yet two out of three had problems. The Dodge ended up with a rattle in the tailgate and an erratic clutch. The Ford had failed windshield wipers, and a dome light switch. The Chevrolet had no reported problems, but who knows what the next 250 miles will bring?
Popular Science declared that all of the trucks tested were easy to drive and park and that they could not only be used as a secondary vehicle but as a person’s sole vehicle. They assert even a suburban wife could operate them with ease, especially with options such as power steering, brakes and automatic transmissions. It proclaimed the Chevrolet the best truck for those who run light loads on a regular basis. It also stated that the Ford, Chevrolet and Dodge trucks were good choices for private owners who used their trucks at irregular intervals. It was suggested that those who needed full-time heavy-duty operation should look at International or GMC for their additional ruggedness.
There is no doubt the trend of using pickups as everyday vehicles was well underway in 1965. Popular Science named the Chevrolet as its choice for the typical light use of private owners, what truck would you have picked?
It would be tough to go wrong with any of these three. My paternal grandfather went pickup shopping in 1965 and drove home in a new 1/2 ton Dodge with a 318 so if pressed I’d take a similarly equipped Dodge.
The big thing I noticed in this article is how much of it rings true yet today. When ones owns a pickup it is indeed easy to find an increasing number of uses for it as it is infinitely useful. The article also says it’s a wise choice for being one’s only vehicle, which knowing some who fall into that category, that observation is spot on.
The one statement in here that jumps off the page is how people are rejecting the typical passenger car. Given the F-Series has been the best selling vehicle in the US for, what, 40+ years, that was a very insightful statement.
Pickups aren’t for everybody but for those that have ever had one, they are just so useful it’s hard to give them up.
When I had a summer job for a utility company, most of the trucks were 2nd-gen D-series with /6s. Once I pushed a curve a bit faster than I should have, and the thing barely held on. There was a C/10 with 250 I drove infrequently, but it was a treat by comparison: much better road holding. No F-100s were on hand, unfortunately.
So unless I need to haul bricks or fill dirt, I’ll take the Chevy.
It is funny how the “big 3” bias gets reinforced in tests like this. Despite how different GMC was from the Chevy and how International had a very competitive truck, they get barely a mention. So with the Studebaker Champ out of the picture by 1965 it would have not been tough to add a couple more to the test.
And with the Dodge being hardly more advanced than the Stude had been (despite its fresh 1961 redesign) it seems like the GMC and International would have been far more relevant to those interested in a modern pickup.
I remain struck by how backwards the Dodge truck was, and coming from a company that had been such an engineering trailblazer in that era. That one is a puzzle.
International owners were a fiercely loyal bunch. I think most of them would have checked off none of the above.
The Dodge truck of this period is in the same boat as Imperial. Not enough potential volume to justify the cost of an all out effort. For example, both Ford and Chevy had three times as many dealers as Dodge. it’s a mediocre effort (sorry Imp fans) in the hope that Chrysler’s loyal 15 percent of the market will buy enough to make it pay. Today light trucks are enough of the total vehicle market that 15 or 20 percent is lucrative.
GMC was mostly a place holder product for heavy truck and BOP dealers who wanted to sell light trucks. GMC wasn’t targeted at the car substitute angle like Chevy; for example, GMC didn’t have factory air in 1965.
Chrysler’s customary 15 or 20 percent of the much smaller market may not have justified an all out effort. The alternative is to make a mediocre product and try to keep a decent percentage of loyal Chrysler buyers in the fold. Today 15 or 20 percent of the light truck market is a juicy plum that justifies the effort.
The GMC light trucks of the period were placeholders for heavy truck and BOP dealers who wanted to sell light trucks. For example GMC didn’t add factory air in 1965 like Chevy.
It’s also interesting that having a Ford F250 against half-tons from Chevy and Dodge, they didn’t mention slide-in campers as being the main reason in those days a private owner would go to a 3/4 ton; they really were far too much weight for a half-ton to safely carry.
Nice reprint! It really brings home the point that I’ve made a couple of times in comments recently, that by the early 60s, pickups were “In”. And that the American sedan was losing ground to all sorts of alternatives. And that this process is now coming to full fruition, where there are hardly any American sedans left, or will be soon.
Interesting tidbit about the Ford cab being roomier for a tall person than the Chevy cab; that’s been my experience too, and was one of the reasons I picked it. It does feel a few years more modern inside the Ford compared to the Chevy.
I’e spent very little time inside the cab of this vintage Dodge, but it seems the seat is a bit low. I noticed on the specs that it is several inches lower than the Chevy. Of course the Ford sit higher than the Chevy because of its 3/4 ton underpinnings, but I suspect an F100 would be a bout the same height as the Chevy.
Yes, I have read your points in the past and agree with them. I figured this was a nice supplement to my post on the Chev trucks.
The lack of room for tall people is noticeable in the dimensions too. The Chevrolet has pretty short head room in comparison to the others. The Ford has the most headroom, and the second most legroom.
I was surprised to read that there were diesel GMC pickupsthen. Did they use a Detroit 4-53? I had assumed that diesel only cam along in the ‘79’s with the 350.
Studebaker actually offered a limited selection of diesels in some of their heavier duty lines in 1962-64, with the DD 4-53 in 62 and the 3-53 in 63-64. As you can imagine, they were not big sellers (even by 1960s Studebaker truck standards, which is saying something. 🙂 )
It’s wrong. I meant to point that out sooner. The diesel version of the V6 was not offered in the light trucks/pickups, although a few folks have made that swap. My full story on the GMC V6 is here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963-gmc-pickup-the-very-model-of-a-modern-v6-truck-engine/
The only diesel offered in US market pickups was Dodge, that offered a Perkins inline six in 1962. They had been doing this for exports for some time, and decided to try selling it in the US. There were very few takers.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-the-case-of-the-very-rare-1978-dodge-diesel-pickup-and-the-non-existent-diesel-van/
The GMC diesels were a 351 cubic inch V6. The 60-? V6,V8 and V12 engines were monsters. I once drove a mid 70’s chev 1 ton after a repair that someone had stuffed a DH 478 V6 diesel in. It was brutal with a 5×2. The front end of the truck was not pleased with the weight over it. How come no mention of the Dodge or IH crewcabs? Too bad Studebaker was gone as they had some neat available features that the others didn’t. Their large rear window was standard, extra cost on the others. Want a sliding rear window? No problem. Care for a 5 speed transmission? 5th direct or over? No problem. V8 with a 3/over for super economy, no problem. Too bad they could never seem to make a vehicle door worth a darn.
The GMC V6 diesel was not actually available from the factory in the pickups/light trucks. But it’s not an uncommon swap.
I didn’t think so. One probably had to step up a few weight ratings to get a diesel option. Oh the things that could have been.
Loved the reprint! Growing up, there were only two pickups in our neighborhood. Both owners were home builders, and both pickups were Fords. Gotta go with the Ford on this one. Just for trivia’s sake, Ford’s been the largest selling pickup in the USA for the past 40 years. And the largest selling vehicle in the US for 32 out of those 40 years. 35 million units sold since 1948, which arguably makes the F-Series pickup the most successful product in the history of the automobile industry, here or anywhere else on the planet.
in Consumer Reports in 1963 they said they had problems with every single car
except for one Dodge Imagine rolling your brand new car into your mechanic
and paying for an hour’s labor finding the defects If I were to buy a 2018
car I would expect it to be perfect
Most people would go back to their dealer and use that 12 month, 12,000 mile warranty.
The lower seating position of the Dodge is something I noticed when I was salvaging an auto meter gauge pack out of a 70, it felt more car like than truck like, and it fits my frame better than the 60s F100s, and I imagine Chevy (never been in anything older than a box body). Wouldn’t be a deciding factor for me but I do like some other aspects of the D100, with it’s beam axle seems more truckish at it’s core, and to make it more car like they just put in car like seats and other superficial measures, which I like. Plus I just like the Exner lines, the body aged well through the decade other than the roofline. I like the styling of the Ford and I am more of a Ford guy in general but I just fundamentally dislike the twin I beam suspension.
The Custom Sports Special is an interesting obscurity. Most gearheads have probably heard of Lil Red Express, and any self respecting Mopar nerd knows The Dude, but the Custom Sports Special just seems to be completely off the grid, yet with the 426 wedge it’s (presumably) the hairiest of the trio.
Interesting article and a prediction of today’s market in many ways. Crew cabs have made the sentiment expressed in this article ring true even more – did any of these three come in that configuration, by the way?
Only the Dodge (and International). They were not common, though. But we did have some neighbors in Iowa City that bought a big tall, ’64 Dodge crew van 4×4 and used it to haul a big slide in camper to take to remote places. A bit ahead of their time. It seemed incredibly huge and tall at the time. Of course I was a kid, but rigs like that were very uncommon.
As to crew cabs: the typical American family of four would just squeeze into the regular cab if they all needed to ride in it. We did that in our truck when our kids were little. I added two extra sets of seat belts; they’re still there!
When I was a kid living on Air Force bases back in the 1960s, I recall seeing Ford F-250 crewcab pickups.
Chevrolet/GMC didn’t offer crewcabs but offered suburbans that neither Ford or Dodge offered.
Interesting how the truck manufacturers divided the market during the 1960s, i.e.,
Crewcabs: Ford, Dodge and International (but not Chevrolet/GMC);
Suburban/wagons: Chevrolet/GMC, International and Jeep (but not Ford and Dodge);
Dodge did offer the Town Wagon (a panel truck with windows and seats along pre-67 Suburban lines) through at least 1965, carrying over the pre-1961 design.
As other’s mentioned, for 1965 International, Dodge and Ford all had Crews. They were typically 3/4 ton or 1 ton models and had 8 foot beds. So they were quite large trucks for the time. In this area they seemed to be mostly used by construction crews. My Dad drove a ’66 Ford Crew Cab when he worked construction for my Uncle in the mid 1960’s.
Later on, we used to get by as a family with 4 kids, using my Dad’s regular cab 8 foot box ’79 Ford. It had a cap, and some of use would ride in the back (it was my dad’s main wheels when my parents split).
The first crew cab truck in the U.S. was made by International Harvester in 1957 and was later followed by Dodge in 1963, Ford in 1965, and Chevrolet in 1973.
Early on, beginning in 1961, it was the pickup truck for me. You just got a hell of a lot more bang for your buck. Low cost operation was built in because in those days most of the sales were to commercial buyers and commercial buyers, unlike the ordinary consumer, counted their pennies. Basic pickups–and most sold were basic models–were the cheapest vehicle you could buy, outside of a small import.
Today, of course, everything has flipped. A big segment of the market continues to demand the huge luxury barges made from ’55 to ’75 that downsizing killed and which the six pack luxury pickup exactly replaces. With prices to match.
As a forester working in the woods through most of the sixties, I got to drive all three of the featured trucks. I found that the Chevy leaked dust and got filthy in short order. The interiors reminded me of a generic washing machine. The drive line sang with annoying mechanical sounds like the inside of a factory. The Dodge was low and relatively comfy, like an old shoe, but the build quality was not unlike what you would find in an imported metal toy. But there was enough slack, or give, in the drive line that you could get out of tough places in 2WD better than the other two. The Ford gave a better impression of build quality and style than either the Chevy or Dodge. And they were capable rigs for sure. Ford 4x4s , however, were still quite unsophisticated and they could get you into more trouble than you could get out of without help.
Never really satisfied with a sedan I continue to be a trucker. But, for me, the van is more versatile than the pickup, including a pickup with a cap. The Euro style high roof van really beckons, although I have never owned one. For the few times you need that open rear compartment, you can pull a trailer.
Oy gevault, Jan Norbye. He could’ve got pretty close to being the quality of auto journalist he fancied himself, if only he’d been more inclined to check his facts and less inclined to fabricate stuff to object to. He seemed never to miss an opportunity to cluck his tongue and scold the Slant-6 for having only four main bearings—never mind and never mention that they were the same size as those used in Chrysler’s big-block and Hemi V8s and they supported a forged-steel crankshaft in a deep-skirt block; there was absolutely zero theoretical or practical deficiency related to the main bearings in the Slant-6. Yet he bіtсhed about this nonissue again and again and again. We see it here in this reprint, wherein he feigns astonishment that the Slant-6 is so quiet despite having (tsk!) only (tsk!) four (tsk!) main bearings (tsk!).
And in another of these PS comparison articles, Norbye claimed the Torqueflite transmission “lacks such refinements as … automatic adjustment for altitude and water cooling” — wrong on both counts. He was also given to spouting bozo opinions (“Many of today’s drivers prefer warning lights rather than gauges”) and then snappishly defending them as fact when called out in letters to the editor saying he was full of beans.
“obsolete”. Oh vey.
Yes, I share your sentiments about Jan. It happened all too often.
Also, it’s really annoying not knowing whether he pronounced it “Jann” or “Yonn”. The Google informs me he was born in Norway, which both suggests probably “Yonn” and—at least in my mind shaped by my experience—helps explain his dogged, insistent defence of whatever he said, no matter how baseless or demonstrably incorrect.
(Google also says he lived in Les Issambres, France, which might’ve been true at some point, but probably not when he was churning out these regular reviews and comparisons for the decidedly American Popular Science…unless he was phoning ’em in as fake news)
He also commented that the GMC had both leaf springs AND radius arms….
I think it was brought up in Paul’s V-6 piece, but there were dealer installations of the 351 Toro-Flow diesels in a few GMC pickups. I saw a ’67 3/4 ton so equipped. The Toro-Flow was not much heavier than the GMC gas V-6 and in a 3/4 ton I don’t think the weight was much of a factor.
Like many magazine reviews of the time, this one had some mistakes. Not only did they get the diesel info wrong, but they also messed up on the suspension. The GMC’s reverted to using leaf springs when the chassis change occurred in 1963. They switched to a progressive spring, but there was no radius arms involved. He may have been mixed up with the Chevrolet option auxiliary leaf springs, which used coil springs, the cantilever leaf springs with radius arms.
Thanks for pointing this out; I read PopSci avidly as a kid, and it never occurred to me that their writers might be spouting rubbish. The /6 was only 6 yrs old at the time, yet he calls it obsolete! Did he own Timken stock or something?
I’m not a Mopar fanatic, but I cannot fault Chrysler for their engines.
In the (just barely) middle class suburban subdivision that I lived in in 1965, NO pick up truck would had been allowed to be parked in a home’s carport or driveway.
Pick up trucks were considered second (or third) class farm vehicles or commercial tradesmen’s transportation and grossly unfit to be on display.
Only transplanted farmers, hillbillies or lower economic class men drove pick up trucks.
HOW times have changed!
This was my experience too. I can recall but a single pickup in the entire neighborhood, and that was a 63 Stude Champ that my Studebaker-loving neighbor bought around 1974 or so as a sacrificial anode for his Avanti. Bill was one of the very few in the neighborhood who could be called blue collar, as he worked at the counter of an auto parts company. The choice of neighborhood was likely because his wife’s family was well-off.
Around 1967 Sears, Roebuck & Co. sent a repairman to our suburban home, as Mother’s new fangled ice-maker was spastic in it’s cube production.
The repairman parked his Sears blue pick up truck behind Mother’s near-new “Suburban Status Symbol” Ford station wagon! Mom was besides herself; pointing to the driveway and pulling at my long suffering Father’s arm, wordlessly expressing her insulted outrage.
Dad quickly hustled down the driveway, shook hands with the repairman, and asked him if he could please park his service truck in front of the vacant lot next door.
Later on, outside of Mom’s hearing, Dad said the repairman and he had heartily laughed about it all; that the truck driver said his wife was the same way.
As recently as 1995 my dear departed Grandma refused to ride in my exceedingly nice and sporty Nissan SE-V6 King Cab. “You went to college, dear” she’d say. My fancy cousin’s Land Cruiser – oh, that was fine.
As a forester working in the woods through most of the sixties, I got to drive all three of these trucks. I found that the Chevy leaked dust and got filthy in short order. The interiors reminded me of a generic washing machine. The drive line sang with annoying mechanical sounds like the inside of a factory. The Dodge was low and relatively comfy, like an old shoe, but the build quality, fit and finish, was not much better than what you would find in an imported metal toy. But there was enough slack, or give, in the drive train that you could get out of tough places in 2WD better than the other two. The Ford gave a better impression of build quality and style than either the Chevy or Dodge. And they were capable rigs. Ford 4x4s , however, were still quite unsophisticated and they could get you into more trouble than you could get out of without help.
Beginning with my first vehicle purchase, in 1961, it was the pickup truck for me. You just got a hell of a lot more bang for your buck. Low cost of operation was built in because in those days most of the sales were to commercial buyers and commercial buyers, unlike the ordinary consumer, counted their pennies. Basic pickups–and most sold were basic models–were the cheapest vehicle you could buy, outside of a small import.
Today, of course, everything has flipped. A big segment of the market continues to demand the huge luxury barges made from ’55 to ’75 that downsizing killed and which the six pack luxury pickup exactly replaces. With prices to match.
In the late ’70s when I was in High School, a young guy with 500 bucks (or less) to spend would very often end up in this vintage of pickup. So I’m quite familiar with all of them albeit at the opposite end of their lives from this article. In those days not everyone had a pickup so you could make friends and maybe a few bucks hauling crap to the dump, rolls of turf etc. or helping people move even in an old heap like my rusted out ’65 Chevy. Seems most had 6 cylinder 3 on the tree powertrains, though a lot of Dodges/Fargos had a V-8 with that weird automatic shifter in the dash. Power steering or brakes? Hah, that’s for sissies…
Mine was a clapped out “spare vehicle” that served as a parts chaser or backup to get to work or school when whatever dubious “good car” I had at the time let me down.
Most of my gearhead buddies seemed to have one of the three, and I loved my old Chevy but if I was buying a new one in ’65 I’d have to go with the ugly duckling Dodge with the 426 wedge. If you could ever get it to hook up I’ll bet it would smoke almost anything you could buy in ’65, all while hauling that old fridge to the dump….
I might be somewhat biased as I learned to drive stick shift on a light blue twin to the Chevy in the article-right down to the West Coast mirrors, which Dad disliked as they blocked his side vision. We put 6 ply truck tires on it after the passenger car tires wore out (ribbed in front, mud and snows in the back), picked up fewer nails that way so fewer flats, and little effect on the ride. The back tires hummed on the blacktop to let you know how fast you were going, but they were back there a ways and were not too intrusive. Strapped on a cheap AM radio under the dash to listen to the markets over coffee. And did this for ten years, with only repair for a cracked intake manifold. We thought it burned oil until the mechanic thought to tighten the bolts on the valve cover.
Old Blue drove very much like the description in the article. Easy to park, at least in a small town, smooth riding, cab wide enough to carry three people, but not an abundance of head room. It did bound over big bumps, which we kids thought was an added feature. I did get a nice little round bump on the top of my head, right under the button on my cap, during one such whoop-de-doo. I wish the authors had run instrumented tests, I would have liked to have seen the brake data-the brakes were reliable and fade-free, but they took their time in working. And the pictures of those trucks heeling over to attempt the high speed lane change would have been fun. Old Blue did drive a little like a sports car, in that the back end could easily come loose. But the slow gearing of the steering (5.5 turns, lock to lock!) kept you from getting into too much trouble, except on really loose gravel, and the long wheelbase made any unwanted change in direction happen gradually. It made enough power for the flat lands and the amount of traffic it encountered, so long as you were patient with the balky shift mechanism. 65 mph did feel about right for the six, 85 was top end no matter what you did with the carburetor lid or the tailgate. Which was just as well, cab noise from wind and drive train became pretty intrusive above that speed. Just right for a two lane gravel road or highway. At that speed, with the windows down, you could still hear the songbirds.
Probably the biggest testament to Old Blue’s soundness as a vehicle came in the fact that every family member who had a license, regardless of sex or age, would just as soon jump in it for a ride to town as to take the car, which had many more comforts and amenities. It was a good truck. I’m sure people with Dodges or Fords felt the same way. These were honest vehicles, build for function over fashion.
With O/D on my ’66 F100 240 six, I can cruise at 75 or more quite comfortably. It only turns 1800rpm at 60.
In the first couple of years after I got it, (1987), I used to take it up in the winding hilly roads in the Santa Cruz mountains and push it hard; quite hard, to explore its cornering max. It was fun; and quite a contrast to my Mercedes 300E 🙂
Keeping up with the steering was a bit of a challenge.
Looking back, I find it curious that there were not more vehicles with overdrive. The big farm trucks had two-speed rear axles, so the advantages were regularly experienced. I might have thought that thrifty farmers would have liked the efficiency. Maybe it was seen as “another thing to break,” maybe if you wanted a transmission upgrade you would think of an automatic or a floor mounted 4-speed. Maybe we drove differently-short, two-lane trips to town, rather than long distances over four lane highways at higher speeds. Old Blue only ran up 75,000 miles in ten years, so maybe a little of all of it. My brother is working on restoring his ’57 Chevy truck, which does have overdrive and a non-original 283 small block, I will be interested to see how the overdrive affects the driving experience.
Well, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t want a 3/4 ton with a 352, so Ford is out this time.
I’d pick the Dodge just to be a bit different.
Why? because of the stiff ride? Or the 352?
Both. Every 3/4 ton pickup I’ve ridden in had a punishing ride. And the 352 is not my favorite motor, I’d rather have a 6 cyl / 3spd OD. I read an article once that it was a pretty versatile powertrain 🙂
I used pickups for years and kept on when I changed profession and became a teacher. The pickups from Japan weren’t ready for prime time IMO in 65 but if I had it to do again I think my choice would be an El Camino. I think if you aren’t working in the trades that would check all the boxes. Make mine with a 230 please.
I remembered reading that Popular Science article as a kid. I liked the Dodge and its angular lines and sweptline box styling. My dad liked the Chevrolet but preferred the GMC quad lights and rear leaf springs.
Thanks for reprinting the article.
Living on Air Force Bases during the 1960s, I noticed the light trucks were mainly Dodge, Ford and occaisional International Harvesters, particularly in crew cab configuration. Of course Chevy/GMC didn’t offer crew cabs at that time, which was probably the reason I didn’t see them.
Around construction sites, I saw more Ford and Dodge 3/4-ton 4x4s than Chevy/GMC.
I recall hearing or reading that a couple reasons Fords and Dodges were preferred over Chevy/GMC because their 4x4s had higher ground clearance and were more rugged.
Any truth in the ruggedness claims? Or was it a matter of Ford and Dodge offering better fleet sale deals than GM?
Norm’s observations and insights were very interesting.
Interesting comments about the lack of pickup trucks in the neighborhoods of yore. It made me think, and considering as a child I living in a small town south of Buffalo in the early 70s, the lack of pickups really stands out. It wasn’t a particularly blue or white collar town, but I can recall only one pickup in my neighborhood, and that was Mr. Bruce’s ‘69 (or ‘70) dark blue Chevy 1/2 ton, short bed, stepside. It was pretty immaculate, as he didn’t really use it much. While he was a builder, he was more of a general contractor, and didn’t do too much manual labor,; in fact I remember him putting it up for sale. I never much liked stepside pickups, they looked ugly and seemed less practical. The only other truck I recall was my friend Dave’s dad (not the same immediate neighborhood) had a red ‘65 F-100 long bed that saw double duty plowing snow. Funny that I can’t remember anyone having a snowplow truck other than him, and this is 30 miles south of Buffalo lakefront on Lake Erie. Dave’s dad did trade his truck for a brand new ‘73 F-100 longbed, but this one was light green. I remembet riding somewhere with them one winter day, and his dad wryly noticing the windshield had a circular concave spot, on the passenger side, about 3 or 4 inches in diameter, that the wiper wouldn’t clear because it wouldn’t flex in the cold weather. Now that I think about it, there was an old man., a WWI veteran, in my neighborhood that had an dog ugly early 50s Ford pickup with an oil tank and a 8 foot drip boom on the back. In the summer he would oil the dirt roads every few weeks to help keep the dust down. Looking back, I don’t think that was too enviromentally friendly. And….the folks on the corner bought a brand new, loaded, ‘73 F-100 in tu-tone green, to go with their brand new green ‘73 Monterey sedan. This is my recollection out of dozens and dozens of neighbors. Even the tradesmen usually drove old station wagons. My grandfather, who had retired to a 40 acre hobby farm near Fredonia, didn’t have a pickup. Any road hauling chores, pretty much just dump runs, were done with the tractor and an old manure spreader converted to a utility trailer. To be fair, after a few years, he finally traded his ‘69 Fairlane coupe for a loaded, tu-tone brown ‘74 F-100. I never got to ride in that truck as we moved to Florida in April ‘74. Trucks were a little more common in Florida, but not as ubiquitous as they are today. Our first house in Iacksonville had an abandoned ‘50s Willys pickup in the backyard. I loved it, but my parents hated it, as it was a rusty eyesore. Our neighbor had a ‘74 Mazda pickup, but I don’t recall it being a rotary motor unit, though. This by now being the mid-70s, trucks were as the PS article stated, becoming very much “in”.
Another misprint I found in the specs is the 1 bbl carb on the Ford’s 352 V8.
My first truck was a ’65 C10 stripper, equipped just like the test truck except mine had a 283. 3455 lbs, with the V8 mine was probably still only a little over 3500 lbs.
Weighed my ’70 C10 stripper with 307 engine the dump, subtracting my weight it was 3940 lbs. My 2WD ’04 Titan “stripper” (auto, AC, PS, 5.6 V8, power ABS brakes, cruise) weighs in at 4620 without driver. And it can do 20 MPG at 65 (at 1600 RPM), vs 12 MPG highway in the much lighter (and slower) ’65 and ’70. The Titan can drop to 12 MPG around town in the winter, though, which is about the same as the old Chevy’s in town.
Nice read, too bad they didn’t have a stripper F100 included or instrumented testing.
Even the ’88-’97 GM trucks didn’t weigh more. The title on my ’93 C1500 showed an unladen weight of 3800lb. It was a regular cab V-6, but included A/T, A/C, power steering and brakes, plus other options.
” a lot of Dodges/Fargos had a V-8 with that weird automatic shifter in the dash. Power steering or brakes? Hah, that’s for sissies…”
Not pickups, but both A-series vans in our family were so equipped. I preferred that shifter to a sloppy column setup, or the push buttons used in older Mopar passenger cars. No power steering or brakes available on those vans.
In the early 70s, we had a fleet equipped with hydro-turn plows for the snow. Because a couple of trucks were bought on bid each year, we had a collection of most makes. Even though plowing snow, all were 2 wheel drive pickups. We filled the bed with sand for weight. They worked surprisingly well. A couple of things I recall.
The Internationals were all late 60’s models. They had rusted through floorboards by the time they were 2 years old. They were powerful, but the gearing and the manual transmissions made them slow to back up. The heaters couldn’t keep your feet warm because the floorboard holes seemed to suck the warm air out before it could fill the cab. I didn’t like ’em much.
The Chevys ranged from late 50s to early 70s. They were our newest and oldest trucks. I liked the low hood on the newer models best because it was easy to see how the plow was aimed. The seats were comfortable and the heaters powerful. They only problem was they all had a floor shift manuals. Manuals were slow to back up. 1st was a granny gear too slow to throw the snow. 2nd was better but still too slow to throw the snow far enough when plowing long open parking lots. 3rd was perfect for throwing the snow if it was light, but the engines bogged down if the snow was too heavy.
The Dodges were all early 60s models. For some reason, the Dodges were our only automatic equipped trucks – all with 318s. Some of ’em were Fargos. Same truck, different nameplate. When plowing, the Loadflite automatic was a real advantage in that it could back up faster than a manual. I liked the pushbutton models because you could shift with your left hand while keeping your right hand on the T-control for the hydro-turn plow. The Dodges also seemed to turn tighter than any other truck (Yeah, we did use elbow steering momentarily when shifting and adjusting the plow at the same time). A couple things kept the Dodges from achieving plowing perfection. The front axle “plowed” snow when backing up and it was too easy to loose traction. The Dodges probably didn’t rust as fast as the Cornbinders, but because they were older, they too had big holes in the floorboards. The inner step of the Dodge cab usually had a hole to your side where slush would get kicked up by the front tire and get your left side wet. When you drew a Dodge to plow with, you were wise to carry pieces of cardboard to plug rust holes with.
The Fords were early 60s through early 70s models. Unlike the Chevys which all had small block 283s, the Fords were a mix of 6s, 292 V8s and 289/302s. The Fords all seemed to have the tightest cabs. For whatever reason, they didn’t seem to rust as fast as the others. I can’t recall a single Ford that had floorboard holes. That really helped the heaters. Ford seats just didn’t fit me as well as the Chevy seats. Some guys liked the Ford seats, I preferred the Chevys. For some odd reason, the garage mounted the T-handle for the plow in a position that made it awkward to use when the Ford was in 2nd gear – a position often used when plowing more slowly. Not really the trucks fault, but it made the Fords very annoying when plowing in tight places. One thing I do remember about the Fords is that they seemed to have the best defrosters and best wipers. All our trucks would fog up some, but it was easiest to keep the Ford windshield clear. Likewise, cracking the side vents did a better job of keeping the side windows clear at the relatively slow slowing speeds. Alone among the trucks, some of the older Fords still had a manual choke. You could pull it out a little to kick up the idle without loading the engine up. When you put a heavy load on the hydraulic pump, you didn’t need to worry about keeping the revs up with the accelerator like you did on all the other trucks. The main trouble with the Fords was that they just seemed clumsy. They didn’t turn very tight, the steering seemed harder than other trucks with the weight of the plow and they just didn’t have the comfort of the Chevy.
We didn’t have any Studebakers or GMCs. We did have 2 mid-60s Jeep Gladiator pickups, but I never drew one. They must have been good trucks because 2 really senior guys always got to draw them 1st. Us junior guys always got what was left over.
In the early 70s, we had a fleet equipped with hydro-turn plows for the snow. Because a couple of trucks were bought on bid each year, we had a collection of most makes. Even though plowing snow, all were 2 wheel drive pickups. We filled the bed with sand for weight. They worked surprisingly well. A couple of things I recall.
The Internationals were all late 60’s models. They had rusted through floorboards by the time they were 2 years old. They were powerful. I think they had 345s. However, the gearing and the manual transmissions made them slow to back up. The heaters couldn’t keep your feet warm because the floorboard holes seemed to suck the warm air out before it could fill the cab. I didn’t like ’em much.
The Chevys ranged from late 50s to early 70s. They were our newest and oldest trucks. I liked the low hood on the newer models best because it was easy to see how the plow was aimed. The seats were comfortable and the heaters powerful. They only problem was they all had a floor shift manuals. Manuals were slow to back up. 1st was a granny gear too slow to throw the snow. 2nd was better but still too slow to throw the snow far enough when plowing long open parking lots. 3rd was perfect for throwing the snow if it was light, but the engines bogged down if the snow was too deep or heavy. I think the Chevys were all 283/307s. Never knew the axle ration, but for some reason, the combination just seemed to need different gearing for really good plowing. Something a bit higher than 2nd but not as high as 3rd.
The Dodges were all early 60s models. For some reason, the Dodges were our only automatic equipped trucks – all with 318s. Some of ’em were Fargos. Same truck, different nameplate. When plowing, the Loadflite automatic was a real advantage. It could back up faster than a manual. I liked the pushbutton models because you could shift with your left hand while keeping your right hand on the T-control for the hydro-turn plow. The Dodges also seemed to turn tighter than any other truck (Yeah, we did use elbow steering momentarily when shifting and adjusting the plow at the same time). A couple things kept the Dodges from achieving plowing perfection. The front axle seemed lower than the other trucks. It “plowed” when backing up over unplowed areas. It was too easy to loose traction. The Dodges probably didn’t rust as fast as the Cornbinders, but because they were older, they too had big holes in the floorboards. Dodge cabs had an inner step to the side of the seat that developed rust holes. The front tire would kick slush up that hole and get your left side wet. When you drew a Dodge for plowing duty, you were wise to find pieces of cardboard to plug rust holes with.
The Fords were early 60s through early 70s models. Unlike the Chevys which all had small block 283s, the Fords were a mix of 6s, 292 V8s and 289/302s. The Fords all seemed to have the tightest cabs. For whatever reason, they didn’t seem to rust as fast as the others. I can’t recall a single Ford that had floorboard holes. That really helped the heaters. Ford seats just didn’t fit me as well as the Chevy seats. Some guys liked the Ford seats, I preferred the Chevys. For some odd reason, the garage mounted the T-handle for the plow in a position that made it awkward to use when the Ford was in 2nd gear – a position often used when plowing more slowly. Not really the trucks fault, but it made the Fords very annoying when plowing in tight places. One thing I do remember about the Fords is that they seemed to have the best defrosters and best wipers. All our trucks would fog up some, but it was easiest to keep the Ford windshield clear. Likewise, cracking the side vents did a better job of keeping the side windows clear at the relatively slow slowing speeds. Alone among the trucks, some of the older Fords still had a manual choke. You could pull it out a little to kick up the idle without loading the engine up. When you put a heavy load on the hydraulic pump, you didn’t need to worry about keeping the revs up with the accelerator like you did on all the other trucks. The main trouble with the Fords was that they just seemed clumsy. They didn’t turn very tight. The weight of the plow seemed to affect the steering more than other trucks. The clutch also seemed heavier. 12 hours in the Ford would give your left leg a real workout. Fords didn’t bog down in 3rd as easy as the Chevys, but I still like them less because they were just less comfortable.
We didn’t have any Studebakers or GMCs. We did have 2 mid-60s Jeep Gladiator pickups, but I never drew one. They must have been good trucks because 2 really senior guys always got to draw them 1st. Us junior guys always got what was left over.
“In” is interesting I traded a car for a International once it was usefull but probably missed in by about 15 years and yes it was my daily drive, zero comfort or amenities it was just a flatbed truck, silver diamond six, 3.7 litre it pulled like a loco and drank fuel, I liked it.it carried dirt bikes better than the Humber 80 estate I traded.
I chose a 35 year old ’66 F250 Camper Special as my first hobby truck. I chose it primarily because of the styling, but I found that the cabin had a better driving position than my Dad’s ’75 Chevy Stepside. The twin I beam suspension seemed to ride okay. I kept it for a few years, but I’ve never liked a standard cab pick up.