$200,000....BWHAHAHAHAHAHHA

PS: OBAMA SUCKS

Trying to figure out: What's hanging under the hood/wired to the battery in the picture with the hood up...?

I just don't get it...$200k for a custom truck is a lot considering you can buy a brand new truck for $40k and turn it into the world's coolest whatever for another $40k.

I'm continually mystified at this luxury truck market.

Too expensive, but what a nice looking vehicle. It reminds us of days when trucks were for work and not hauling lard-butt insecure males to Home Depot for a few 2 by 4s. Icon sends a much-needed message to the big 5 truck makers.

I'm tired of pickups looking like pimp-mobiles or weaponry. Let's get back to some honest, tough, plainly equipped working-man's rigs.

It's the 2014 Silverado!!

yawn....

No coverage of the the ram 1500 power wagon??? Four Wheeler spotted it.

Obviously, @Tacoma, you don't pay attention to what you read. The rancher stated that he had BROKEN several newer trucks and needed something that would stand up to the punishment. He's saying that five of these $40K rigs you so happily touted couldn't take what he believes this ONE truck will handle. And I agree.

Every one of you--I don't care what brand you claim is best--has argued that modern trucks of your not-so-favorite brand is flimsy junk and to be bluntly honest, you're all right; not one single modern pickup truck is built to take the punishment even 20-year-old trucks can handle--much less 50- or 60-year-old models. What good is a heavy-hauling HD if it gets totaled colliding with one of those older trucks that simply drives away from the wreck? For all that higher price and higher luxury, the roadworthy life of one of these new trucks will probably max out at 10 years--20 if you're especially careful with it.

Nice truck. A little expensive, true. But love the use of the Dodge and Cummins !

@DWFields--I agree this truck will outlast several 40k to 60k trucks and in the long run this truck will pay for itself even if it is 200k. Since this truck is custom built it will not rattle to pieces and will easily be around for at least 20 years and maybe another 40 (judging from looking at this truck it is from the mid 60s. If I had the money I might have this company build me a special truck or maybe take my S-10 and rebuild it from the frame up rebuilding it to be better than the factory. I bet they could do wonders with my 99 S-10 extend cab.

at 200k someone is making a bunch of proffit BUT how many shops have people of this caliber to build a one off restoration like this? not many Bravo, thats badd asss

from what I can see, if the headlight are what I think they are, they look like the headlights that Harley Davidson sells in their P&A catalogue, 53/4" LED $399.95 each! and I have one on my Sportster and one on My V-Rod, and believe me when I tell you, they are worth every penny! they are standard eqip. on the $32K 2013 HD Road Glide CVO, but that bike has 2 built into the faring, and they are 7", thay also make a 4" version, the lighting is amaizing!

I suspect that one is paying for the level of quality of work. A few thousand hours of labor is what makes it expensive. The rancher must be wealthy. One could raionalize it based on the fact that he broke a few HD pickups but what is under this truck?
A HD pickup.
The body is old and that is about it.

It would make more sense to buy a class 6 - 8 truck and turn it into a pickup. International did just that with the CXT.

@Jason H - I'm seeing dual batteries in parallel. At first glance I thought it was a 24V set up. I would suspect that black box you are refering to is a modern fuse panel. If this truck is changed to be luxurious like a new LongHorn it would need it. Old trucks like this had fuse boxes the size of a small pack of cigarettes.

@DWFields: the doors might be thinner gauge metal, the hoods might be aluminum, but have you ever compared the crash testing of IIHS current trucks to the old ones? I don't think there will be much driving away by any older trucks after hitting a new one. There are videos of Chevy testing a 58 (ish)model against like an Impala or Malibou. The old one looked nasty afterword, and the crash dummie told the story. Just look at a 98 (pick one) Chevy/Ford/Dodge and see what they look ike in a frontal offset. Now look at the newer one. Big differance. I have an old K2500 I am parting out out back, I look at te frame, not much more of a frame then my 83 W150, as back then the big deal was when you got more capacity, you got more brakes, gear, a tougher rear end housing. Now it's on a differant frame. In 87 My step dad wrecked a 74 GMC C20 or whatever they called them then. He nailed the gas on that 454, got out of control, and smacked a tree. He had the steering wheel pinning him in, he wasn't even going that fast. Do that today (even in a Chevy) and you will be in better shape then he is in now.

@ DW umm this truck is an old body sitting on a modern Ram truck chasis, how will it hold up better than a brand new truck? its the same thing ??? baffled here. I would rather take a brand new Ram and mod it the same way these guys have and save 120k, but hey maybe I'm nuts?

@ TRX4 Tom, your spot on there, unfortunatley modern engineering on vechicles makes them absorb impacts but usually at the cost of the vechicle being a write off, think i'd rather be alive collect my insurance and buy another truck..

on another note, very cool truck, love what they did, never see it in my garage as I've never been a fan of any of dodge trucks looks except for the current version and the price is way too high for this one, but love these kind of projects. I want to take an early bronco and do this sort of thing with it, modern drivetrain etc

guess that would be vehicle not vechicle, sorry bout my fat fingers haha !

It might be true that an acc. between a new truck and an old truck might look like the old truck had less damage, but it is inside what counts! I remember the "older" truck had dashboards that were as heavy and strong as oxi's bumper! the trucks might look like there has not been much damage on the out side, but the crash test dummy would rather be in a new truck, thats for sure!

@ TRX4 Tom,

The crash test was between a 59 Chev and a 09 Chev Malibu.

Both weight the same,yes the old 59 was 3400 lbs !

59-61 GM products were known to be weak cars back in the day.Weak a pillars,basically no front bumpers remove the fenders its all open.

I even think the front bumper on the new car would go through the grill of the old one as the old one sits lower,that alone changes results,if bumpers were even it would have been a more accurate test to see which was stronger,bumper to bumper..think of a slightly raised truck and a stock height truck going head on (same make model year ect)the slightly raised would do better as it gets the other trucks weaker point (misses bumper)

If the 09 Malibu went up against an old Chrysler Imperial,say good bye to the Malibu,the old Mopars dont fold like a cheap suit.Imperials were even banned from demo derbies as they would not be destroyed.

Mopars also had a subframe and the engine compartment was surrounded by an engine cradle (like a new car) remove the front fenders ,hood ,grill,header panel ect..you have a solid metal frame/cradle from the firewall all the way around to the front (where the rad bolts to) wheel wells ect.. like a new car (hard to explain)
On the stupid show Dukes of Hazzard they used the Charger because it was strong and it could also be re used after jumps (of coarse not all)but it was strong and could take abuse,even the movie Bullit the Mustang fell apart,handles,suspension as the Charger didnt fall apart,by the way the stock 440 Charger ran rings around the modified 390 Mustang !(have the original article from the stunt guys.Mustang interior,body panels fell off,Charger was solid,and the stock 440 ran circles around the modified 390 (heads ,carb) around a local circle track they used to test/fix the cars.If you ever drove a 440 car you know they move 12 sec 1/4 mile when they get traction,remember old tests were done with skiny 14" tires(so they spun and spun still got low-mid 13's ) plus tracks they used to test back then,some were dirt lol !
Also,the 2012 Charger weights more than an old 68-69 Charger,like most new cars are heavy today,that means safer,and they are made to crumble to a point then get real strong but...if it doesnt crumble wouldnt it be safer ? I survived a crash in a old Mopar.Just sayin,most people died in crashes back then because of no seat belts,never wore them,that alone saves lives..

As for trucks,I would love to see a head on crash with equally preparred trucks.You would have to make the bumpers line up to get accurate results,as with the old chevies,raise the old 59 up so it misses the 09's bumper and the 09 would crumple.

Now I know my 2010 Ford F-350 4x4 would crumple a 1938 Ford truck,but I would like to see my old 1977 F-350 Crew cab 4x4 go against my 2010 F-350.I know my bumpers line up as they both are modified and sit high enough for my taste but low enough to fit in my shop.

Cheers !

Nice looking old Dodge ! Should have a crate HEMI or Viper V-10 though,I aint a Diesel guy !

Old vehicles might be tougher at very slow impacts or if you were on the work site and banged into a body panel or bumper but that is the only place they would have an advantage. Older vehicles were not engineered to keep the forces involved in an MVC away from the passengers. Experts in trauma have realized decades ago that the body can only absorb an impact equivalent to 20 mph. Ever wonder why that is the speed limit in school zones?

TacomaHQ: Amigo, I get it. We're all guilty of it. We constantly make the mistake of thinking the things we purchase has something to do with who we are. And it works both ways. The man that's adament about frugality is guilty of the same pride as the man that buys the 200K pickup truck. They both treasure money too much.

Please note that I never said anything about the safety of the passengers; I commented on the simple fact that in a collision that would total the newer rig, the older one was likely still drivable. I should know, I crashed a '63 Nova into the back of another car when I was a kid and even though the collision jammed the radiator into the fan blades, I was able to drive it to a body shop (braking hard, my bumper dipped below the other car's.) The other car, though an early '70s model, had to be towed because the fenders crumpled onto the tires. The same '63 Nova later took a hard hit to the rear fender from the side where, again, I drove the car home and later to a body shop for repair why the other car, a '71 or '72 Lincoln, had to be towed.

Hey, I had three wrecks as a kid and two of them were in that old Nova (didn't have enough power to get out of its own way) and one in a '73 Cutlass S. I was able to drive away from all of them where in the first two cases the other car had to be towed.

@Lou: A personal opinion here.

Back in '02 I purchased one of the first Saturn Vue SUVs (now known as an SUW). Over the course of 8 years I put 130,000 miles on it--taking it frequently to the mall and local big-box discount store. As you know, parking in those places is tight and you simply can't keep a car looking new when those around you don't care if they hit yours with their doors or bumpers getting into and out of those parking spots. Quite honestly a modern car and truck tend to look old very quickly under those conditions. On a construction site I can't see that conditions would be much better if that truck is truly a working truck.

My point here is that despite those conditions, due to the "polymer" door and body panels the Saturn simply didn't take dings--even when somebody quite visibly rubbed their front fender down the side of it. A little rubbing compound and the white paint from the other car came right off. Using similar 'polymer' body panels on pickups could be an enormous savings to the user and to the manufacturer. They'd be lighter than steel panels and more durable than aluminum.

judge for yourself, ill take the new car, this is mind blowing, new car = minor knee injury while old car is =dead
while the old car is cool and would look good in my garage i think the daily driver would be the malibu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aDs1sHJLFE

@Triton V-8; Yeah, I know a thing or two about old Chargers, as I have worked on Chargers, Challengers, and Darts on dirt tracks, and my old 69 Dart was a figure eight car. With three championships on it. That Dodge unibody is tougher then the Ford Unibody of those days. But the control arms on the Camaro and Nova are a bit stronger. We have to stiffen a frame quite a bit to expect it to last,but then most people would on any unibody. I did race a 76 Charger in Hawaii, it was good until the the frame bent, due to the bumper being so strong. T-bone an Oldsmobile with a broken steering shaft, hit the wall, get pushed into the uke tires, on and on, the bumper took it,frame only could take so much.

That class allowed no reinforcing to the frame past the firewall (a stupid rule, why build cars that won't take the abuse, ad then you have to put the rollcage into another) I guy went out there with limited experience in a 71 Dart and was running fast, till somebody complained he had stiffened it up. So he cut out the bars, somebody hit him, and itwas over. But that coulda happened to all unibodies. The Novas didn't last long, and the cars the GM guys used were Malibous, Monte Carlo, Oldsmobile...full frame.

I have also worked on a 70 Challenger in El Paso at the dirt track. Or helped here where my friend ran a 72 Roadrunner, neither like the wal, but same can be said for all makes.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing them crash test some old trucks to see where they came to where we are now. Just look though at the IIHS safety tests and see how the 90s trucks compare to 2009 and up. Like the pre 2004 Ford. See how the A pillars move. Those trucks were alot thinner. I can go look at my 83 Ram W-150 and know my rear bumer would play hell with my 2010 Ram front bumper. But now then bend more on purpose.

Dale Earnhardt's car was tough, in fact so tough, it didn't absorb it. Now they found "soft walls" and Han's devices, and better seats.

If you feel like having a good laugh, look up the Neon on IIHS frontal, then look at the new Dart, or Avenger.
Yes the Chrysler Imperial is tough. There is reason they ban them.

Or, here's what it looks like for the driver of the Bel Air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fPF4fBGNK0U

I doubt they toughened them up much by 62, but I wished my momcoulda had a 62 when I was in high schol. She had a big huge Ford van, the big one. With A/c on roof, and 460 engine. That's what she kept out of a divorce. While it was in just fine shape, it was too much for her to drive by herself. So she traided and was supposed to get a Ford Escort and some money back. The Escort had a supposedly rebuilt engine. My arse! It was a pos, and we sued and won, but the sorry car dealer had nothing but a bull (he said) to give us. Yeah, that will do us alot of good! But he had a rust free 62 Impala 2 door. She woulda liked that.

@DWFields - I agree that composites would be a good way to go.

@DWFields I would rather have steel, or aluminum. But I guess I could get use to polymer if I had too.

@ TRX4 Tom She couldn't take a chevy, it's not a dodge! lol just kidding. She should of took the bull, she got a horse trailer to haul it around in now for the rodeo's.

Speaking of plastics, a quick bit of research discovered this:

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120820/OEM01/308209980/1424

That Saturn Vue I had used aluminum for hood, roof and tailgate. Because of the flimsy nature of aluminum, I put a dent in it by merely putting my hand in the wrong place when closing it. (fortunately easily removed by pushing it back out from the inside).

The use of aluminum for body side panels, fenders and doors may give you a beautiful paint job, but when the least little bump gives you a dimple it doesn't care how nicely it's painted, that dimple WILL show. Yes, steel will likely remain critical in the bed of a truck simply for its strength, but even there we're seeing where a drop-in plastic liner ends up being the sole load bearer when that steel bed has rusted out--so there is proof that plastics can do the job.

Again, plastic is durable enough to absorb minor 'parking-lot' dings and resist corrosion while it's easy and inexpensive enough to replace in the event of a more serious incident. Plastic is also more recyclable again because it doesn't rust away, so you realize less loss when scrapping and re-using the base material.

@johnny doe: Well, before they traded to get the van to tow a trailer, she was in a '75 Buick Electra Limited, 455 engine. That engine was a torque monster and actually did better on gas then the 350 2 barrel Monte Carlo I had. I learned how to drive in that Buick, they shoulda kept it. But with a trailer to tow, we couldn't all fit in the 75 C-20 GMC 454 truck. If we only had a crew or even extended cab then... well aside from the big one ton ones that Dodge and Chevy made.

Before the Buick there was a (gasp) Pacer! It couldn't get up a hill for anything! It was dependable, but the only time it was in the shop, people were trying to make it get up a hill better! Actually, though it was great in the winter! Good traction! Nowadays, I would chuck the little 1 barrel and put a 390 Holley on that 6 cylinder!

May be it is using leather made from Marilyn Monroe skin. This is made for a special erson, that is, the truck is custom made, so you would understand why it is so expensive. It would be much cheaper if the same truck was built for serial production. (I think:)

I have seen better