Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-05-2015, 11:49 AM | #76 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Salisbury, Maryland
Posts: 31
|
Re: Whats the next "67 to 72"??
|
03-05-2015, 12:07 PM | #77 |
laying low
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Searcy, Ark. USA
Posts: 13,376
|
Re: Whats the next "67 to 72"??
Easy there guys or this thread will get locked down.
__________________
Boog 69 Chevy stepside, 358/T350, 4.11 posi, 4.5/4 drop, rallys, poboy driver primer is finer 91 Chevy sportside, Tahoe, Yukon & GMC Crewcab All GM..'nuff said. I stand for the flag and kneel at the cross |
03-05-2015, 12:16 PM | #78 |
laying low
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Searcy, Ark. USA
Posts: 13,376
|
Re: Whats the next "67 to 72"??
Theres an idea. There wont have to be a "next 67-72" when they start repopping everything for these trucks. But that may be in another 20 years or so since there were so many of these trucks built and still available.
There is at least one company selling a complete new cab for the 47 to 54 trucks. Assembled in the usa and i heard they dont have immediate plans for the 67 to 72. One day maybe.
__________________
Boog 69 Chevy stepside, 358/T350, 4.11 posi, 4.5/4 drop, rallys, poboy driver primer is finer 91 Chevy sportside, Tahoe, Yukon & GMC Crewcab All GM..'nuff said. I stand for the flag and kneel at the cross |
03-05-2015, 12:47 PM | #79 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 2,154
|
Re: Whats the next "67 to 72"??
Quote:
I have 2 sons (15 and 17) and neither cares a hoot about fixing old cars or shooting guns. If I had the opportunities that they have, I would be nagging someone all the time. As far as the original post if there is a future, I think 95-99 Trucks will be hot. The dash in the 88-94 is not as nice so I think the will trail the 95 up. I think similar S10 Blazers and pickups will come back. I think the late 90s 2 door Tahoes will be popular. To the guy that said Diesel Dodge trucks-I don't think so. The body will be gone and all that's left will be the Cummins engine-and that won't take nearly until 2035!
__________________
'83 K20-TPI '73 C10 '79 C10-ex-diesel(SOLD) '07 Tahoe(Son driving) '14 Suburban-DD '71 C10-current project |
|
03-05-2015, 12:56 PM | #80 | |
Special Order
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mt Airy, MD
Posts: 85,858
|
Re: Whats the next "67 to 72"??
Quote:
Yes, steel has been developed into a higher strength alloy...which only serves to allow the industry to reduce the gauge on like parts. The only advantage is to the manufacturer's pocket book, not us. I'd rather have thicker mild steel than thin high strength. Ever see so much hail damage on older vehicles? Or a fender dent from leaning on your old truck? These parts were stamped using automated tool & die equipment to close tolerances. The person stepping on the switch pedal had no effect of quality of part produced. I have owned these trucks in original condition with no squeaks or rattles. Loosely assembled? Sounds like anecdotal BS you referred to earlier. I have the facts right here in my driveway Better built? All I'll say is over the last 40 years I have seen more of these trucks on the road than any other at any given age. Where are all the 67-72 Dodges and Fords? I have been buying someones used trucks and making a living out of them while I've seen brand new trucks run their cycle and disappear. I haven't tuned my '72 3/4t 4wd with 350 4.10 gears and no overdrive since not sure when. But, I get 12.5 mpg all day long. I hear some great figures from these newer trucks, but I also hear numbers worse than mine. So where are the 40+ years of advancements in fuel efficiency? My truck is quite largely original I have seen these trucks used to haul/tow loads far beyond manufacturer recommendations and keep on ticking for decades beyond. All this payload hype is advertised and truly moot. The fact is, it's illegal to for a 1/2t or 3/4t truck to gross out at 1 pound over 10,000#. You can't register them about that weight, at least no here in Maryland, and I'm pretty sure that's a national standard. It takes no genius to know moving a load is one thing and stopping is another. It doesn't matter what brakes you have, the tow vehicle weight plays a major factor in safety. I'll never load to their claimed gross.
__________________
"BUILDING A BETTER WAY TO SERVE THE USA"......67/72......"The New Breed" GMC '67 C1500 Wideside Super Custom SWB: 327/M22/3.42 posi.........."The '67" (project) GMC '72 K2500 Wideside Sierra Custom Camper: 350/TH350/4.10 Power-Lok..."The '72" (rolling) Tim "Don't call me a redneck. I'm a rough cut country gentleman" R.I.P. ~ East Side Low Life ~ El Jay ~ 72BLUZ ~ Fasteddie69 ~ Ron586 ~ 67ChevyRedneck ~ Grumpy Old Man ~ |
|
03-05-2015, 01:21 PM | #81 | |
laying low
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Searcy, Ark. USA
Posts: 13,376
|
Re: Whats the next "67 to 72"??
Quote:
__________________
Boog 69 Chevy stepside, 358/T350, 4.11 posi, 4.5/4 drop, rallys, poboy driver primer is finer 91 Chevy sportside, Tahoe, Yukon & GMC Crewcab All GM..'nuff said. I stand for the flag and kneel at the cross |
|
03-05-2015, 01:41 PM | #82 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Salisbury, Maryland
Posts: 31
|
Re: Whats the next "67 to 72"??
Quote:
Once again, you show a lack of citation of sources, and even claim it is seat-in-the pants technology land. Here is a tidbit for you, these trucks weren't made by seat in the pants technology, they were made with engineering using math, and actual science. You believe whatever you want about steel, or hail damage, because yes, older vehicles were much better for low impact collisions and things such as hail or hitting a mailbox. Steel is thinner now, and a lot more weight goes into occupant safety as opposed to body rigidity. The weight has to come off somewhere to keep an average car from weighing 4 tons. Oh and about your Fords and Dodges, they last just as long too. They have their own forums. I had a 1974 Ford f100 that my parents bought from me before my 1970 chevy c20, and it was basically the same damn truck as I have now, except a Oval and not a bowtie (i6 vs v8 as well). You need to use the internet to do some research. Look at traffic fatalities per year/mile driven, or any NHTSA report and compare it to 1960-1980 report. You can argue with me all you want, but arguing math makes you look simple. Here, this is your "old" steel vs a 2009 car. That old american car really handled that impact well, didn't it! Wish they would do a pickup into a pickup to show the difference there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g Guess who would have died. Here is a frontal crash test of a 1979 K20 at 30mph, and a 2015 Chevy at 35mph (btw 35 mph is exponentially more force than 30mph at this mass) 1979 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpvCDDtHnKc 2015 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y51ES-z0m8 The difference is pretty clear. There is almost no transfer of force into the cab on the 2015, and the doors probably still open. The k20 damn near folded, and that driver is going to not be a comfortable guy for a while. Stop selling these damn trucks like they are the best vehicles ever made, they aren't. They were value engineered just like every other vehicle EVER made. Once a corporation enters into a perfect competition environment, the only way to continue making profit margins is to cut production costs. This was very true in 1960-1980, just as it is today. In fact, with news proliferation today, car companies actually have to be MORE careful, as bad press can absolutely tarnish a company and affect stock prices dramatically. Last edited by UMDSmith; 03-05-2015 at 01:50 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|