Production Quantity

[67RS/SSx2]

Is information available about the production volumes for these old square bodies, specifically crew cabs (even GMC)? I have seen production numbers for old cars but not for trucks.

[Keith Seymore]

Not to my knowledge. The information would be used comtemporaneously for planning purposes but much of it was not kept for posterity.

I don't know that anyone cared back then, other than "...as many as possible".

My recollection is the average production volume across all C/K models during the square body period was about a million units per year; less during the early years ('73, '74 = 700,000), more during the later years ('86, '87 = 1.1 or 1.2 million).

K

[67RS/SSx2]

I was afraid that would be the case. I have some earlier GM cars that I play with (1960s vintage). Seems there is tons of info about those cars so I thought there might be some info about trucks. Oh well.

I just bought a one owner 1983 GMC Sierra Classic 2500 crew cab. I'm stoked about it!

I owned a 1984 Silverado C20 crew cab a few years ago that was loaded out. My great uncle bought it new. I was the second owner. I much regret selling it but it was my daily driver (50 miles per day) and at 10-11 mpg it was killing me. Again...oh well.

I have not noticed many GMG crews so i was just wondering how many were built and also how many Chevys were built for comparison. Guess I'll keep wondering.

Oh yeah...now I get to do this.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by 67RS/SSx2

I was afraid that would be the case. I have some earlier GM cars that I play with (1960s vintage). Seems there is tons of info about those cars so I thought there might be some info about trucks. Oh well.

I just bought a one owner 1983 GMC Sierra Classic 2500 crew cab. I'm stoked about it!

I owned a 1984 Silverado C20 crew cab a few years ago that was loaded out. My great uncle bought it new. I was the second owner. I much regret selling it but it was my daily driver (50 miles per day) and at 10-11 mpg it was killing me. Again...oh well.

I have not noticed many GMG crews so i was just wondering how many were built and also how many Chevys were built for comparison. Guess I'll keep wondering.

Oh yeah...now I get to do this.

GMC volume was about 1/10th of Chevrolet.

In the assembly plant we would build approx 9 Chevys followed by one GMC.

K

[Rich84]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

GMC volume was about 1/10th of Chevrolet.

In the assembly plant we would build approx 9 Chevys followed by one GMC.

K

So I do own a rare truck afterall...lol

[Rubble]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

GMC volume was about 1/10th of Chevrolet.

In the assembly plant we would build approx 9 Chevys followed by one GMC.

K

Why way more Chevys than GMC's Keith,what was the reasoning behind that?

[dieseldawg142]

Originally Posted by Rubble

Why way more Chevys than GMC's Keith,what was the reasoning behind that?

every GMC truck we've bought, cost more than the chevy. (new)

[Rubble]

Originally Posted by dieseldawg142

every GMC truck we've bought, cost more than the chevy. (new)

That's funny,in 1988 I bought a new 1/2ton 4x4 Chevy & it was cheaper than a GMC with same options..

[67RS/SSx2]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

GMC volume was about 1/10th of Chevrolet.

In the assembly plant we would build approx 9 Chevys followed by one GMC.

K

Thanks for that info. It is good to know. Looks like an '83 2500 crew cab was probably a pretty low volume vehicle.


Hey, looky...my 100th post!

[Ski-me]

I've been curious on this as well, and maybe Keith, you can shed some light.

In the past, like 60's and 70's, the GMC brand was considered a slight premium and had more options than the equivalent Chevy vehicle. So if you had a GMC, it was considered nicer than Chevy.

However, in the 80's and beyond, GMC and Chevy were really the exact same truck with different badging.

Is this the correct assumption or were there more differences??

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Rubble

Why way more Chevys than GMC's Keith,what was the reasoning behind that?

Chevy has always been the "bread and butter" of the industry. The GMC, as a result, has been positioned as more of a "specialty" brand. So - just model mix, based on production demand. We did the same thing at Flint Assembly on Line 2: the model mix was 2:1 in favor of Suburban (in other words two Suburbans followed by one Blazer).

Originally Posted by Ski-me

I've been curious on this as well, and maybe Keith, you can shed some light.

In the past, like 60's and 70's, the GMC brand was considered a slight premium and had more options than the equivalent Chevy vehicle. So if you had a GMC, it was considered nicer than Chevy.

However, in the 80's and beyond, GMC and Chevy were really the exact same truck with different badging.

Is this the correct assumption or were there more differences??

You are correct - by the 1980's a GMC was simply a Chevy with RPO Z88 added (nameplate conversion. BTW - Chevy has an RPO too: X88). The only thing making a GMC better was the perception in the older customer's minds.

However, by the GMT800 timeframe (and certainly by the GMT900) there was some attention paid in returning the GMC nameplate to a more premium status.

Remember the "We are Professional Grade" advertising? I didn't "get it" - so I asked the Marketing guys for an explanation. Their description:

The Chevy owner - works at the construction site
The GMC owner - is the foreman at the construction site
The Escalade owner - owns the construction site



K

[83GMCK2500]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Chevy has always been the "bread and butter" of the industry. The GMC, as a result, has been positioned as more of a "specialty" brand. So - just model mix, based on production demand. We did the same thing at Flint Assembly on Line 2: the model mix was 2:1 in favor of Suburban (in other words two Suburbans followed by one Blazer).




You are correct - by the 1980's a GMC was simply a Chevy with RPO Z88 added (nameplate conversion. BTW - Chevy has an RPO too: X88). The only thing making a GMC better was the perception in the older customer's minds.

However, by the GMT800 timeframe (and certainly by the GMT900) there was some attention paid in returning the GMC nameplate to a more premium status.

Remember the "We are Professional Grade" advertising? I didn't "get it" - so I asked the Marketing guys for an explanation. Their description:

The Chevy owner - works at the construction site
The GMC owner - is the foreman at the construction site
The Escalade owner - owns the construction site



K

Thank you very much. (I had mostly gotten it, but it was nice to hear that from you.) In what generations (before the 80s) was the GMC the more premium of the two over Chevrolet? Born in the early 80s, grew up in a GMC, I've followed GMC's rise in appearance again.

[rs74]

My father in law has always told me he thinks that GMC was a better truck than a Chevy. He bought a 67 C30, 79 K25 and an 89 C1500 new. He swears by it for some reason.

[nekkidhillbilly]

had both theres no difference. gmcs had more trim even in the cheap models for the most part. you gotta think ppl pay out the butt for a chrome trim molding even today. originally gmc was the work truck at one time and the chev was the upscale. idk when it changed mid 60s i guess. but the gmc was originally gms first truck ie general motors corp. at one time all hd trucks where gmc even. i guess they could build em cheaper and use what ever parts they wanted from the other brands. like the buick nailhead and pontiac powerd gmc trucks. i dont think they could do that with the chevy nameplate back then. if you look at your earlier gmcs though they all had white bumpers cheap steel wheels ect....