95 Years of Chevy Pickup History
It started with a simple idea: a few car chassis fitted with hand-built beds to help carry materials around a booming car factory. Before long, millions of Chevrolet pickups were woven into the fabric of a fast-growing country. Chevy trucks tackled the toughest jobs on farms and in the fields; hauled tools and lumber to the burgeoning suburbs; and carried families and friends into and out of the wilds for well-earned vacations.
“The legacy that Chevrolet trucks have built over the last 95 years is important to protect,” said Don Johnson, Chevrolet’s vice president of sales and service. “The best way for us to do that is by delivering the capability and technology our customers have grown to expect, in both our current trucks and in our next generation of full-size pickups."
Here are some Chevy truck highlights.
1918 Chevrolet Four Ninety Half-Ton Light-Delivery Cowl Chassis
There are indications that some Four Ninety-based trucks were built for internal use in 1916 — and that a few even earlier chassis may have been converted to ambulances and sent to France in 1914 — but the first customer chassis appears to have been built on Nov. 22, 1916 in Flint, Mich., and shipped from the factory on Dec. 2 that year.
Two four-cylinder models marked Chevrolet’s formal entry into the truck market for the 1918 model year. Both were cowl chassis units that came from the factory with only front sheet metal. It was customary at the time for buyers to obtain a wooden cab and cargo box or panel van body to suit their purposes.
Priced at $595, the half-ton Light Delivery cowl chassis was essentially a body-less Chevrolet Four Ninety car equipped with stronger rear springs. Mounted with a pickup box or panel body, it provided an agile and economical light-delivery truck for small businesses popping up across America in the boom after World War I.
The second model, a one-ton 1918 Chevrolet Model T (the T presumably stood for truck), cost $1,125 without a body. It was based on the FA-series car and was built on a truck frame that was longer and stronger than the half-ton model. A 37-horsepower engine gave the larger truck the power to haul heavier loads at a governor-limited top speed of 25 mph.
1930 Chevrolet Pickup
The simple cowl-chassis models were replaced in the 1930s by factory-built pickups that initially came with roadster and closed bodies. Chevrolet bought the Martin-Parry body company in 1930 and quickly began selling steel-body half-ton pickups complete with a factory-installed bed.
At the heart of these new pickups was a new Chevy inline-six-cylinder engine, which soon earned names like “Cast Iron Wonder” and “Stovebolt” for its rugged design. First produced in late 1928, the new engine had a modern overhead-valve design. Inline-six-cylinder engines became a mainstay in Chevrolet cars and trucks for decades to come.
By the mid-1930s, half-ton pickups with factory-installed steel boxes became the lifeblood of the truck market, with brands like Mack, Studebaker, Reo and International Harvester competing with Chevy, GMC, Ford and Dodge.
1937 Chevrolet Half-Ton Pickup
In the mid-1930s, as the U.S. economy began to recover from the Great Depression, Chevrolet pushed for leadership in a reviving truck market with what were designed to be some of the strongest, most innovative models produced to that point.
For 1937, Chevrolet introduced new trucks with streamlined styling that many still consider to be the best designs of the era. The ’37 also featured a sturdier body and a larger and more powerful 78-hp engine, among other improvements. A 1937 Chevrolet half-ton pickup was sent on a 10,245-mile drive around the United States, monitored by the American Automobile Association (AAA). Carrying a 1,060-pound load, the truck averaged 20.74 mpg.
1947 Chevrolet Advance Design Half-Ton Pickup
In early 1947, Chevrolet introduced its Advance Design trucks, the first completely redesigned GM vehicles to appear after World War II. Owners of earlier pickup models had asked for a roomier, more comfortable cab with improved visibility and a wider pickup box. They got it all.
Designers sought to make the truck’s styling clean and attractive. Headlamps were now set wide apart in the front fenders, and five horizontal bars made up the grille. The design was produced with few major changes from 1947 through 1953, and it continued with a new front appearance into early 1955.
During the Advance Design trucks’ run, there was a measurable shift among Chevrolet customers to trucks. Before WWII, the production ratio of the brand’s cars to trucks had been about 4 to 1. By 1950 – the year Chevrolet became the first brand to sell more than 2 million vehicles in a single year – the ratio of cars to trucks was closer to 2.5 to 1.
1955 Chevrolet Task Force Pickup
By the mid-1950s, the post-WWII boom was under way, and customers were looking for style and performance even in pickup trucks. In mid-1955, Chevrolet introduced the all-new Task Force trucks, which shared design language with the 1955 Bel Air, and also offered the new small-block Chevy V-8 as an option.
Also new to the 1955 truck line was the Cameo Carrier, a high-styled gentleman’s pickup more at home in a trendy suburban California bungalow driveway than on a farm or in a factory yard. The Cameo Carrier was produced only through 1958, but it set the stage for new generations of well-equipped personal-use pickups, including the El Camino, Avalanche and Silverado crew cab.
A major engineering advance with tremendous future implications was announced for 1957, when a factory-installed four-wheel-drive system became available for the first time on select models
Chevrolet continued to offer the Task Force trucks with annual updates through 1959. During 1958, a new slab-sided Fleetside box option provided an alternative to Chevrolet’s traditional step-side pickup box.
1959 Chevrolet El Camino
The original El Camino introduced for 1959 combined the dramatically finned styling of that period’s Chevrolet cars with half-ton pickup utility. But the excitement was short-lived. After 1960, the El Camino went on a three-year hiatus.
Chevrolet revived the El Camino “personal pickup” concept for 1964, with a new version based on that year’s new midsize Chevrolet Chevelle. During the muscle car era that followed, El Camino buyers could order their truck with a Chevrolet high-performance big-block V-8 powertrain, creating a sport pickup that could “haul” in more ways than one. By 1968, a complete Super Sport package was available.
The Chevelle El Camino enjoyed a devoted following and was produced through two more styling generations (1968-72 and 1973-77). For 1978, the El Camino was successfully transitioned to that year’s new, smaller Malibu platform. The final El Caminos were 1987 models.
1961 Corvair Pickup
Although there had been a number of small pickups prior to the 1960s, the compact-car boom that kicked off the decade brought with it a new crop of forward control trucks, including the Corvair 95. With its unitized body structure and rear-mounted engine, the 95 offered a lot of cargo space in a compact, maneuverable package. The Rampside model offered a side gate on the right side of the vehicle, allowing easy access to the low load floor at the front of the bed. Although clever in design, the Corvair 95 never caught on in the showroom, and in the final model year of 1964, only 851 were sold.
1967 Chevrolet C-10 With Custom Sport Truck Package
It took only one glance at any of the 35 Chevrolet C/K models for 1967 to see that Chevy trucks had a new look that year. The exterior profile, which would characterize Chevrolet C/K models through 1972, featured a lower-silhouette cab and large, rounded wheel openings. The new chassis had coil springs front and rear.
A new-for-1967 Custom Sport Truck package was a trend-setting option that included deluxe carlike upgrades inside and out. The package could even be ordered in combination with bucket seats.
By 1967, the Federal Interstate Highway System was giving Americans unprecedented access to the nation’s natural wonders and recreational areas. Customers who enjoyed such pursuits appreciated the small- and big-block V-8 power choices that gave Chevrolet trucks the torque needed to pull trailers up grades as well as the horsepower to cruise comfortably with a camper at interstate speeds.
1972 Chevy LUV
In spring 1972, Chevrolet started selling the LUV pickup on costal markets. Built by GM partner Isuzu, the LUV featured a 75-hp four-cylinder engine and four-speed manual transmission. Although the specs were modest, the LUV was a fully functioning pickup, with a ladder-style frame, a 6-foot bed and a payload of 1,100 pounds, plus room for two passengers. Within a few years, soaring gas prices would make compact pickups like the LUV a major factor in the U.S. truck market, and it wasn’t long before Chevrolet started work on a homegrown small truck.
1982 Chevrolet S-10
The Chevrolet S-10 was the first domestically produced compact pickup, larger than the imported Chevy LUV but smaller than the full-size C/K model. An 82-hp four-cylinder engine was standard with an available 110-hp V-6 – the only one in the class. Properly equipped, the S-10 could haul 1,500 pounds and tow 4,000 pounds. The roomy cab and high levels of standard and optional equipment gave the S-10 a broader appeal than that of earlier bare-bones small trucks, and it quickly became a mainstay of the Chevrolet lineup, appealing to everyone from young customers looking for a first set of wheels to businesses seeking a rugged work truck.
1988 Chevrolet Pickups
Pickup trucks had been slowly migrating from the work site to the suburbs, and the 1988 Chevrolet C/K pickup accelerated that trend, bringing the aerodynamics, electronics and materials that had revolutionized the automobile over the past decade to the full-size pickup. Extensively tested to make sure it met the high bar for dependability set by previous Chevy pickups, the new truck also featured advanced aerodynamics for improved fuel economy, including a narrower cab for lower drag, flush side glass and a sleek front end with integrated lamps.
A full range of powertrains was offered, from a 4.3-liter V-6 through a 6.2-liter diesel V-8. To enhance durability, the trucks featured extensive use of galvanized steel for corrosion resistance, and a full welded frame with a boxed front section for strength and rigidity. Civilized driving characteristics and styling moved full-size pickups closer to being the family vehicles they are today.
1999 Chevrolet Silverado
Chevrolet’s all-new 1999 full-size pickups were the first to carry the Silverado nameplate. The new trucks resulted from the most intensive development program yet undertaken by GM, and they arrived just in time for a boom in truck sales. The styling of the new Silverado pickups was built on the purposeful design that characterized the preceding C/K pickups. Interiors had all the comfort and convenience features personal-use customers were starting to expect. Power came from a new generation of V-8 engines.
2004 Silverado 1500 Crew Cab
The 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche pioneered the idea of a light-duty pickup that could comfortably accommodate the family, and the 2004 Silverado took this idea and ran with it. In less than eight years, light-duty crew cabs would dominate the full-size pickup market, accounting for more than two-thirds of all sales, and transforming pickups into a true multipurpose vehicle for both work and family. Available creature comforts included dual-zone climate control, Bose sound systems, a rear-seat DVD player, OnStar and XM radio. Even with the creature comforts, Silverado maintained the Chevy truck capability.
2007 Silverado
The all-new 2007 Silverado provided significant improvements in performance and fuel economy, while strengthening the capability and dependability for which Chevy pickups were known. It featured a new fully boxed frame, coil-over-shock front suspension and rack-and-pinion steering for improved ride and handling, while the new Gen IV small-block 5.3-liter and 6.0-liter V-8 engines could deactivate four of the eight cylinders to save fuel. Safety advances included StabiliTrak electronic stability control and head-protecting curtain side airbags.
2013 Chevrolet Colorado
Just as full-size pickups have become the lifeblood of the American economy, midsize pickups are important vehicles for businesses and families in many countries outside the United States. Chevrolet’s new global midsize Colorado pickup is designed to help expand the Chevrolet brand into many of the world’s fastest-growing markets.
Developed under the direction of a truck-savvy team from GM to Brazil, the inaugural version of the global Colorado was launched in Thailand, the world’s largest market for midsize pickups, in November 2011. Over the next several years, the Colorado will be introduced to many global markets, including the United States, where it will offer a more fuel-efficient alternative for customers who don’t need all of the capability of a full-size pickup.
Look for more photos of Chevy pickup trucks on the PUTC Facebook page in the near future. We'll load up larger format images so you can take a closer look at each and every model.
Comments
what about the avalanche? no mention of the hd pickups?
Avalanche was menioned.
"The 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche pioneered the idea of a light-duty pickup that could comfortably accommodate the family,"
I loved the early 70s Chevy Suburban. What a great fricken vehicle. Conversely, the 79 Suburban we had was steaming pile of feces and began the march towards me never, ever buying a GM again. My whole family continually got burned by GM from 79 to 92 and that's all they wrote.....
If Chevy would retro their next truck with styling cues from the 1955 Chevrolet Task Force Pickup, I'd be all over it.
Thanks for the article Mark. Great article.
A notable part of the history which I remember is that Chevy was extremely resistant to the idea of extended cabs.
@ SuperDave
I remember a story about GM and Ford having an agreement that Ford would not build a 'Suburban' ie four door fullsize utility and GM would not build an extended cab truck.
I doubt the story but I guess anything is possible.
@Robert Ryan, Lou and Jeff S
Nothing to do with this article.
This makes for real exciting reading for us down under.
Imagine, Toyota might beat everyone else to the market with a Tundra. Hopefully with a diesel and a strengthened chassis/suspension so it can do some work.
I'll believe it when I see it.
http://www.truckjungle.com/2012/09/01/exclusive-rhd-aussie-toyota-tundra-set-for-local-production/
Also I believe Chevy was first to produce a dual wheel pickup for mass market pickups. Greatest thing ever for top heavy loads!
I'd have to say that from an appearance persective, they lost their way form 2004 onward. The slant eyed look was where the Sierra started looking better than the Silverado.
@Big Al from Oz - that is a steep price for a Tundra. A diesel would be great.
@Lou
Us mere mortals wouldn't be able to afford one. More than double the price of a similarly spec'd mid size.
Looking at the price versus ADR compliance and quantity projected to sell.
But there will be a market.
Great story.
Very nice write up ! Good job guys ! On a side note (A notable part of the history which I remember is that Chevy was extremely resistant to the idea of extended cabs.) Super dave I think your right it seems like you see much more, Regular Cab GM trucks then the other makes ,at least in newer truck ie 2000 till now ?!
The 47 pickup is the nicest. Especially if it was original.
Good article.
@Big Al from Oz--Those 47s were nice and the basic design was kept thru 54 (they were real popular and you still see a lot of them customized or restored). I also like the 54 thru 55 Ford F-100 and the 49 thru 53 Dodge trucks. When I was very young thru my teens I could look at any car or truck and tell you what year they were and specifications. Every fall I could hardly wait for the release of the new models. I really liked 62 thru 67 Chevy SS, Ford Galaxy 500 XL (62-64), and 63 thru 64 Plymouths, Dodges, and Chryslers. I also like the 52 thru 55 International pickups.
Cars and trucks today have nice features and are more comfortable but they are more similiar and don't elicit the excitement that the cars and trucks of the 50s, 60s, and early 70s do. Maybe some of that is that they were more important to me when I was younger, but I think some of it is that most cars and trucks have lost some of their uniqueness and soul. They are better mechanically and more reliable now but they just don't elicit the excitement that the old ones do. To this day if I see a car show with older cars and trucks I have to stop and look at those vehicles, whereas a display of newer vehicles do not get the same reaction or attention.
@Big Al from Oz--After reading the Tundra link I see why you said that the Ram with the Cummins would do well in Australia. It would be a perfect competitor to the Tundara. Kind of expensive but if there is a market then it will sell.
@Super Dave--It is amazing how the advent of the extended cab exploded the market for pickup trucks. I remember the crewcab IHs from the 50s and the 60s crewcab Dodges but those were used mainly by highway departments and some utilities. I also member a crewcab Chevy from about 73, but those were again highway departments and some commercial use. The first extended cabs I saw were on early 80s F-150s and S-10s but that was about all. It seems to me that by the early to mid 90s seems to be the time that I started to really notice the extended cabs and by 1999 I was one of those extended cab owners. About that time I noticed that the pickup was becoming a family and more suburban vehicle. What an interesting evolution of the pickup from a strictly utilitarian vehicle to a family vehicle and an all purpose vehicle. This would make for a good History Channel series and a great discussion.
I'd have to say that from an appearance persective, they lost their way form 2004 onward. The slant eyed look was where the Sierra started looking better than the Silverado.
@Lou, I 100% agree. I like the Chevrolet GMT800's up until the slant eyed front end. Yuck. They completely wrecked the Chevrolet truck from that moment in time forward and it's never been fixed. You can see clear as day where Chevrolet lost it over to Ford. Ford came out with their new IMO groundbreaking truck in 2004 which was very attractive and well built. The Chevrolet on the other hand around 03-04 became one ugly duckling. Not only was it really ugly, it just didn't have the build quality the 400's had. They didn't fix any of it with the 07 redesign either. That sums up Chevrolet's fall from power for me.
Why no mention of the Chevy trucks built from 1973-1987? Or the ZR2 S-10's? There's others missing as well. Quite a few actually.
"To enhance durability, the trucks featured extensive use of galvanized steel for corrosion resistance,"
-Notice they say that about the gmt-400's. And it showed. Very stout build quality and they didn't rot before your eyes. Notice they don't say that about the pile of garbage gmt-800's that came after it. And it showed. Rustbuckets of the worst kind. This must be when GM got in bed with China. Cheap interiors and cheap steel on Everything! Horrible rusty trucks. All of the truck before it though, oh man. Awesome! You can't beat Yesterday's Chevrolet.
I'd have to say that from an appearance persective, they lost their way form 2004 onward. The slant eyed look was where the Sierra started looking better than the Silverado.
@Lou, Amen to that. Chevy trucks have become the poster child of what Not to look like ever since then. That's the truck that literally put me into a Ford. I just couldn't bring myself to buy one it looked so bad. Same with the 2007's. Not good at all. Any truck from the beginning through 1998 was a 10 in my book. 99-02's were ok and still pretty good looking. 03's and up I'd just assume never existed.
Still think it should be made very, very simple: If it looks like a truck, hauls like a truck and tows like a truck, then it is a truck; anything else is a car.
Just another one of the Ford Trolls coming in a Chevy thread using multiple names. YAWN...................
Brian Louis is the real deal.
@Lou, @Brian, @FordTrucks, I tend to agree with all of you. Our last Chevrolet's we purchased were in 04 but there's no doubt they aren't very good looking. They look like imports instead of a Chevy. I love all of the Chevy trucks up through the GMT400. Likewise, the first few years of the 800's until the slant eyed Asian look came about for whatever reason. GM really made a mess with the looks of Chevy trucks from that point on. I will also vouch for the rust on the 800's. Rockers and wheelwells tend to go very fast. Likewise there's substantial frame rust and brake line rust on these trucks. Not so with our 400 Chevrolet's. It would be nice to pick up with the new Silverado where the 1998 model left off. I'm not counting on it though after seeing the new pictures. The wheelwells need serious work. I too love the looks of all of the old Chevy trucks. They're like works of art.
if chevrolet went back to the style of the C/K 1988-1998.
they would sell a crapload of trucks.
those were the nicest they had in a while.
used to own a 1994 chevrolet K2500 A REAL WORK TRUCK!
if chevrolet went back to the style of the C/K 1988-1998.
they would sell a crapload of trucks.
@BigRoy, yep. Chevy Trucks have sucked since 1998. Cheap and ugly ever since. Pre 1999 though, Chevy owned the world when it came to trucks I think. Now it's all about Ford. I looked at the spy shots of the new trucks. You can see a little bit of the 88-98's in the front ends but those wheel arches-cut outs are just awful looking. I don't even know why Chevy bothers promoting their trucks after the 88-98 model ended. They are just making fools of themselves in doing so. They need to be working on making people forget the stinkfests they've released since then.
Cool old trucks. Maybe the best. I'd support Chevrolet if they weren't part of Government Motors. As is though, piss on em. I hate Government Motors Corp.
I agree 2003 thru 2006 headlights were ugly. 2007 to present are not that bad except the sides should be flatter and round the wheel wheels other than those things the current design is better than the 2003 thru 2006. I have had 2 Chevy cars and 1 Chevy truck and for the most part I have been satisfied. I have had 3 Ford products as well with few complaints. As for Government Motors this is getting as old as are the Guts Glory Ram slogan. I am a taxpayer as well and I would much rather pay for a Government loan to preserve American middle class jobs than to pay for another war in the Middle East or to pay for some coke head on Wall Street's mess that caused a near financial collapse of the US economy and destroyed retirement plans. I guess from a political strategy standpoint it is better to have middle class workers turn against each other to divert attention away from the real issues that face the United States of America.
@Jeff S - I don't think the bailouts amount to a hill of beans in the bigger picture, nor that the middle class was saved or would've been impacted either way.
Since you brought up our "real issues", our way of life right now is dependent on the war machine on printed/borrowed money and we Will go to war with Iran, it's just a matter of time. We're just waiting for the right catalyst to set it off, fake or real. Gulf of Tonkin Incident? Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Iran isn't playing by the rules and that means they went off the Dollar like Iraq did. Iraq is back on the dollar now, but by "on the Dollar", I mean the currency that their oil is officially traded in. Figure that 'fixing' Iran will only prolong the eventual collapse of the Dollar as the world's official currency and when that happens, our Dollar will be worth a million to just 1 Euro. But the real danger is Iran's ally, Russia that could put us in WWIII.
Our entire economy is a pyramid scheme that's near the end.
Not to bring down the tread, but this is why I'm so stuck on living for the day. Live fast and love faster.
@DenverMike--Don't really disagree with you but arguments over bailouts is like crying over split milk, what's done is done. I would rather spend taxpayer money on saving good middle class jobs than support Wall Steet bankers and brokers and the war machine. But we are going to support both anyway and as for war that is a cash machine for the military industrial industry. Whatever happens to GM is now in their hands and there is not the political will to support anymore government loans. To some degree I agree with you that you have to live for the day but you cannot become oblivious to what is around you. If we go to war with Iran we would play into the hands of Russia and you are correct it would be WWIII which I don't think any of us really want to happen.
I would just rather read the article about the 95 years of
Chevy trucks and comment about the great article than have a blog about bailouts and the downfall of Chevy. Same with any article whether it be about Ford trucks, Dodge trucks, International trucks, and Studebaker trucks even though IH doesn't make pickups anymore or Studebaker has been defunct for over 40 years. GM bailouts are just as tiresome as the Guts Glory Ram slogans.
@s10collector --Are you really an S-10 collector or is that just a screen name. If you are an S-10 collector then I would like to know what S-10s you have. I am not trying to put you on the spot I am just curious. Having an S-10 I am interested, I think they were great trucks.
@DenverMike--Don't really disagree with you but arguments over bailouts is like crying over split milk, what's done is done. I would rather spend taxpayer money on saving good middle class jobs than support Wall Steet bankers and brokers and the war machine. But we are going to support both anyway and as for war that is a cash machine for the military industrial industry. Whatever happens to GM is now in their hands and there is not the political will to support anymore government loans. To some degree I agree with you that you have to live for the day but you cannot become oblivious to what is around you. If we go to war with Iran we would play into the hands of Russia and you are correct it would be WWIII which I don't think any of us really want to happen.
I would just rather read the article about the 95 years of
Chevy trucks and comment about the great article than have a blog about bailouts and the downfall of Chevy. Same with any article whether it be about Ford trucks, Dodge trucks, International trucks, and Studebaker trucks even though IH doesn't make pickups anymore or Studebaker has been defunct for over 40 years. GM bailouts are just as tiresome as the Guts Glory Ram slogans.
@s10collector --Are you really an S-10 collector or is that just a screen name. If you are an S-10 collector then I would like to know what S-10s you have. I am not trying to put you on the spot I am just curious. Having an S-10 I am interested, I think they were great trucks.
@DenverMike--Don't really disagree with you but arguments over bailouts is like crying over split milk, what's done is done. I would rather spend taxpayer money on saving good middle class jobs than support Wall Steet bankers and brokers and the war machine. But we are going to support both anyway and as for war that is a cash machine for the military industrial industry. Whatever happens to GM is now in their hands and there is not the political will to support anymore government loans. To some degree I agree with you that you have to live for the day but you cannot become oblivious to what is around you. If we go to war with Iran we would play into the hands of Russia and you are correct it would be WWIII which I don't think any of us really want to happen.
I would just rather read the article about the 95 years of
Chevy trucks and comment about the great article than have a blog about bailouts and the downfall of Chevy. Same with any article whether it be about Ford trucks, Dodge trucks, International trucks, and Studebaker trucks even though IH doesn't make pickups anymore or Studebaker has been defunct for over 40 years. GM bailouts are just as tiresome as the Guts Glory Ram slogans.
@s10collector --Are you really an S-10 collector or is that just a screen name. If you are an S-10 collector then I would like to know what S-10s you have. I am not trying to put you on the spot I am just curious. Having an S-10 I am interested, I think they were great trucks.
General Motors Cars rated 12th out of 18 brands tested ... they will be out of business soon ... obviously they are making junk ... no parts or service available when they go out of business ...
I am a life long Chevy truck fan. But I agree that Chevy and GM lost their way after the '02 truck. I also agree the artivcle is good but it left out some of the great trucks that made Chevrolet then. What about the 73-87 turcks? I have six GM trucks in my collection and the 73-87 are my favorites followed by the 67-72's. I believe the GMT-400's will be classics because of their ground breaking design and durability and will probably be known as the last great Chevy's. STyle and design sell trucks and cars and quality keeps them on the road and customers coming back. It seems that GM has forgotten that, with the build and design of the current truck. And the spy photos of the next truck looks like a rehash of this design. The HD's may be good trucks but if you are ashamed for anyone to se the interior of it, you probably won't buy it! You would think that GM would look to their past success and pull from that for future products and style. I know that government regulations for safety and fuel economy will not allow manufacturers to ever build what we have seen in the past again but why not at least imitate some of the design of those trucks when Chevy outsold the world? Why not use the two-tone paint schemes of the 70's and 80's trucks or the aluminum trim along the cab and tailegate ? Even the interior of those old Chevy's looked more expensive than todays plastic. A tip of the hat to Ford and Ram for retaining some of those design cues today on the Platnium and Longhorn. I am disappointed in GM not for taking bailout money but for turning their backs on their legions of loyal customers and living off of a proud legacy rather than contiunuing to build upon it. The General reminds me more of a private these days.
@Jeff S - I agree the bailouts are ancient history, but we don't have to bury the past either. I don't really care if taxes were wasted, but many see GM falling into the same patterns the got them into trouble in the 1st place. People will base car buying decisions on their politics/convictions though. I'm more irritated that GM still uses side-post terminal batteries.
No one wants WWIII, but invading Iran is the only way we may save this sinking ship. Either way, we're screwed and the wheels might already be set in motion.
Love like there's no Tomorrow.
Disclaimer: I have never owned a Chevy/GMC truck; currently own a 23-year-old Ford F-150 Lariat and have owned a Mitsubishi/Dodge D-50 equivalent purchased back in '83.
That said, I have driven many different Chevy trucks over the years--though admittedly not in the last 15 years. My favorites were a diesel-engined LUV and a gas-engined LUV mostly due to their size and economy. They were easily capable of serving as TV/Satellite system pickup and delivery even with the big, heavy rear-projection flat-screen TVs that became popular in the late-'80s/early '90s. These trucks offered easy tie-downs even for airplane propellors I hauled to a regional airport for their hour-based overhauls which made securing them immovably a critical factor. Few trucks today offer this easy securing without significant added cost. Yes, I do like the in-bed cargo strips similar to aircraft cargo tie-downs--but they're expensive. Bars and hooks mounted in the side walls of the bed or along the inner rim of the bed are more efficient and cheaper when you expect to carry only occasional loads or a wide variety that could clog the in-floor systems such as mulch, dirt, sand, etc. But that's beside the point.
Of all the different trucks I've driven, Chevys and Dodges really seemed more reliable over the years. I know Ford has a reputation for reliability in their trucks and the one I'm driving now seems to support that reputation, but when I see the condition of many trucks even half the age of my Lariat--I have to wonder just how much drivers are having to spend maintaining them. Many of you have called Chevys 'rust buckets' but from my viewpoint it seems Fords own that title--at least where I live. The only reason my Ford doesn't follow suit is that it was first purchased in Georgia (no road salt needed) and when it was shipped up here after trade-in for 'winter beater' purposes, well--it just sat and dry-rotted in a carport. No rust in the bed, little rust underneath and no rust on the body--except at the two welded seams beneath the back window. Most Fords I see have the wheel arches rusted out, rust along the cab bottoms and mostly rusted-out beds. I'm talking full perforation at every point just described on trucks half the age of my own. People wonder why I'm parking my truck for the winter right after first frost.
Easy restoration platform once she earns Antique status.
@DWFields--I had an 85 Mitsubishi Mighty Max similiar to you Dodge D-50 that I bought 3 pairs of retractable exterior mounted side tie down hooks from JC Whitney and they worked just like the tie down mounts on the Luv. They were not that expensive and they worked great. You might want to check the internet and possibly JC Whitney's site to see if they still offer them. Mine had a chrome finish and I used them a lot during my 14 years of ownership of the Mighty Max. I currently have a 99 S-10 which has very little rust and runs great after almost 14 years of ownership. Of course it is a 4 cylinder 5 speed manual so I can not speak for the Silverado, but I know people who own those as well and have been more than satisfied with them.
Chevy trucks don't have the proud history that RAM trucks do...simple as that. HEMI, Cummins, Power Wagon. The list goes on and on.
GUTS
GLORY
HISTORY MAKING
RAM
Yes what about the 73-87 generation. My Dad had a 76 and I have a restored 77. Beautiful rock solid trucks.
@JeffS: My Mitsubishi had bars welded on either side of the bed about three inches up from the floor that ran from front to wheel, wheel to tail on both sides. It let me tie down and adjust the placement based on the load and they came with the truck--no added cost and much lower than those exterior-side mounted hooks you describe. On other words, I could cover the load inside the bed if I chose, or tie down something that didn't extend up above the bed rails otherwise. I didn't like my load shifting (even when I was carrying a couple of 5-foot sections of 50-pound rail back there (500 pounds in the bed gave me extra traction in Colorado snow.)
Yes, I do know there are aftermarket devices of all sorts, but when you buy a truck, don't you want it ready to carry a load right off the lot? Why buy a truck at all if it can't carry what you want it to carry?
By the way, that CNG Ram crew-cab long-bed in the other article? I wouldn't buy it for exactly that reason--it can't carry what I want it to carry. What good is an 8-foot bed if half the bed is taken up with the tanks and I'm wanting to carry a couple-dozen 8' tables (or boards, or plywood, or anything else that's 8'long--like your motorcycle.)
@DW Fields--I had those in the bed of my Mitsubishi as well but they were covered up by the bed liner. Also the external hooks were about $20 and were easy to install. I do not consider adding accessories to a truck that you are going to drive for years that significant. My 2008 Isuzu I added mud flaps, running boards, bed liner, bed extender, and bed cover but I keep my vehicles for at least 10 years so why not have it the way I want it. I guarantee you I got my money out of that Mitsubishi several times over regardless of what I added to it. Keeping a vehicle for 14 years was more than enough return on investment. I will not go cheap on having what I need and use on a truck.
@Denver Mike-Yes you don't forget mistakes and GM should not repeat the same mistakes, but you don't beat a dead horse. Dwelling on just what is wrong will not get you anywhere. Learning from mistakes is important. Ford has made many mistakes through out its history as well and will make future mistakes. Learn from mistakes and move on but don't get stuck on the past. If you go through life constantly looking for the bad and looking just to criticize then you will live a miserable life and no one will be able to stand to be around you. That is my phylosophy for the day.
@Jeff S - GM isn't a dead horse and, but is a public figure (never mind publicly funded) and they knew the job was dangerous when they took the bailouts/handouts.
The past is the past, but when GM falls into the same old patterns, they might not want to hear our criticism, but tough $H!T. The same goes for Ford and Chrysler.
I'm no different. I'm far from perfect and really not into being criticized, but in the end, I appreciate it and better off for it. I've lost friends by giving it to them straight and NOT telling them what they wanted to hear, but I'd rather be me than contain my feelings. Most appreciate my honesty and call me when they have to know the truth. If they ask me, I definitely won't hold back.
When people (or corporations) are fooling themselves into believing they know best, that's an internal protection mechanism or AKA, 'ego'.
Remember with GM leaked the photos of their new truck's dash pod a few weeks ago? GM thought they had a winner until the outside world had a look at it. Now GM is scrambling to revise it. There's absolutely no doubt, GM employees/engineers not involved in its development were unable to speak up.
@DenverMike-Constructive criticism is one thing but bashing for the sake of bashing is another. I am sure when you are being honest with you friends you are doing it in the spirit of trying to help them not to belittle them. Guys that just come onto a site and bash a product without any constructive criticism do not help the manufacturer or anyone. Yes I agree that by showing the dashboard GM got valuable feedback, but are you telling me that just bashing without feedback is the same as offering constructive criticism. Should I tell the guy at work that the 2013 GMC Sierra crewcab that he bought is a piece of junk and that it was made by Government Motors or Obama motors? Is that what you are suggesting? Also I thought this was an article on the history of Chevy trucks. Would your opinion differ if it were the history of Ford trucks and I came on and said that Ford trucks are a piece of junk and you can hear a Ford rusting on a rainy night? I bet you would fiercely defend Ford and ask that my comments be censored. I would not do that anyway because I have a lot more respect for people than that, but let's be honest Denver Mike there is a difference between constructive criticism and bashing. Do you honestly think that bashing a product is going to win someone over to your product preference. Are you going to buy a Ram truck because the Ram boys tell you that all Fords are crap? So are you telling me to tell that guy at work that just bought that 2013 Onyx Black Sierra to tell him that he just bought a Government Motors piece of crap? Should I tell Lou that just because I don't own a Ford that his Ford F-150 is a piece of crap? Would you tell any of your friends that their Chevy truck is a piece of crap? Let's be honest.
@Ramless - I've never bashed for the sake of bashing like the HEMIs and Bobs that post here and my post don't always center on criticism or praise either. I often criticize Ford as well as the rest, and yes I criticize GM the most, but show me where it wasn't constructive? It's the same criticism I would say directly to a GM exec or CEO if he/she was a guest in my home or I in there's.
I don't always buy Ford. I bought a new Tundra that I eventually sold to my dad. The Ram my mom drives was once mine. When I bought my F-150 in '04, nothing else could match it. When came time to buy new medium duty trucks, Rams were only 3500s and TopKicks/Kodiaks were funky van-cab cutoffs and of dubious quality.
As far as telling your friend what you think about his 2013 Sierra purchase, I would tell him what great truck that is an how sharp it looks. The deal is done anyways and really, it's the honest truth. I wouldn't have problem owning any of the current new pickups on the market and it would come down to incentive and what was available. Show me a bad one???
Styling peaked in '67 and went downhill from there
The comments to this entry are closed.