GM Semis

[KQQL IT]

FB grabs

[C10 - C90 Bill]

A Gas Engine in a Long Nose? Wondering if that was really available. I've never heard of one. Possibly in the early days of '66 or '67? If so, I'm sure it was the 637 V-8 only.

[Bob B.]

Originally Posted by C10 - C90 Bill

A Gas Engine in a Long Nose? Wondering if that was really available. I've never heard of one. Possibly in the early days of '66 or '67? If so, I'm sure it was the 637 V-8 only.

Yes and yes! I have never seen one or even a picture of one though, but that model is listed in the Data Book and brouchers. There were a very few 637 gas powered Crackerbox cabovers made, a guy on the ATHS website had one years ago.

[C10 - C90 Bill]

Bob, Just as an update, how many 9500 Conventionals have you ever seen with a 637 V-8 Gas?

Also have you ever seen one yet with a 10-Speed Road Ranger behind it?

It's been just about 50 years now since the company I worked for took delivery on a JE with a 10-Speed and in all those years, I have never yet to even hear of another. I have also researched it pretty thoroughly through the years. Did we have the only one in the US, lol?

[Bob B.]

Just a couple and they were HE series fire engines. Seems that mose 637's came with large Spicer 5 speeds but the consensus seems to have been they needed more gears. A 10 speed or 5X4 would probably have ideal.

[C10 - C90 Bill]

Originally Posted by Bob B.

Just a couple and they were HE series fire engines. Seems that mose 637's came with large Spicer 5 speeds but the consensus seems to have been they needed more gears. A 10 speed or 5X4 would probably have ideal.

I have to say that it was a pretty good match. I have also seen (in pictures) a few with 5X3's and 5X4's. I'm surprised that the 10-Speed wasn't standard, like it pretty much was with a Detroit. But, especially with Firetrucks, they may have wanted a Trans that was Synchronized.

Which reminds me of the '68 Long Nose I saw a few years back. It had a 6-71 instead of an 8V-71 but to my surprise, it had a 5 and 2 (2-Speed Rear). I had never seen one in a Long Nose before but sure enough, it was a former Firetruck.

[KQQL IT]

Neato tanker

[NewBayColony]

Another beauty from Pacarhauler! Looks like a 62 Biscayne behind the cab.

[KQQL IT]

The 62 4x4 shorty tho

[regan wilson]

Originally Posted by KQQL IT

The 62 4x4 shorty tho

There's a C-30 and a Corvair Pickup on there too.

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by regan wilson

There's a C-30 on there too.

A GMC factory flatbed it appears to me, however, hard to tell if its a 3/4 or 1 ton FB, unless the wheelbase or rear suspension is more visible.

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by KQQL IT

The 62 4x4 shorty tho

IMO,that would be the jackpot of that load!

[KQQL IT]

Originally Posted by factorystock

IMO,that would be the jackpot of that load!

That's what I was thinking. Probably lowest production numbers on the load.
Where that 4x4 factory in 62 or a conversion.
My pre 73 history is lacking.

[factorystock]

Always wondered the difference in HP between turbo and non turbo.

[C10 - C90 Bill]

Originally Posted by KQQL IT

That's what I was thinking. Probably lowest production numbers on the load.
Where that 4x4 factory in 62 or a conversion.
My pre 73 history is lacking.

A friend of mine has an original '64 1/2 Ton 4 X 4 with a factory 3-Speed on the Column yet. It was the first one I ever saw.

Edit: Wrong info posted earlier deleted.

[streetrodchev]

Starting for the ‘60 model year, GM did the 4x4 in house on the 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks.
Prior to ‘60 it was a NAPCO conversion.
It was also a NAPCO conversion on the 1 ton and heavier trucks from ‘60 until???
GMs first in house 1 ton 4x4 was 1977.

[C10 - C90 Bill]

Originally Posted by streetrodchev

Starting for the ‘60 model year, GM did the 4x4 in house on the 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks.
Prior to ‘60 it was a NAPCO conversion.

I stand corrected. The '58 and '59's looked factory to me, but I now see factory 4 X 4's didn't start till '60 as you have stated.

[streetrodchev]

Starting in ‘57, you could get a truck new from the dealership with the NAPCO conversion. (It didn’t leave the factory as a 4x4).

[KQQL IT]

Another of the jimmy fuel tanker

[Bob B.]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Always wondered the difference in HP between turbo and non turbo.

GMC offered the 6-71T early on in the 970 series around 1957 rated at 235 H.P., when most 6-71's were 180 H.P.. They must have dropped the engine option sometime before 1960 because I can't find any records of it after. I don't think the 6-71T returned to GMC's until the early 80's.

[regan wilson]

Originally Posted by Bob B.

GMC offered the 6-71T early on in the 970 series around 1957 rated at 235 H.P., when most 6-71's were 180 H.P.. They must have dropped the engine option sometime before 1960 because I can't find any records of it after. I don't think the 6-71T returned to GMC's until the early 80's.

I wonder if the reason was turbo failures. That was one reason it took so long for the turbocharged cars and trucks to come about. The old Turbo Trans Am is a good example.

[C10 - C90 Bill]

Originally Posted by regan wilson

I wonder if the reason was turbo failures.

That does sound familiar. I believe I read some details about that somewhere.

[special-K]

I sure like those lo-pro tankers. That Cannonball needs a chop top and lowered on airbags .

I bet it was warranty costs that halted the turbos. I just looked at a YouTube video that was a '62 Olds ad for the new Jetfire. That car was a leap forward. They didn't talk about the rear transaxle/independent suspension. It was all about that 215 aluminum V8 with turbocharger that put out 1hp per cubic inch. They put three years into development. but one thing different was they had a fluid you added under the hood, which I imagine either helped cool or lubricate, or both. And I bet buyers didn't keep up on that. We didn't see turbos used for a long time after those.

[Bob B.]

Originally Posted by special-K

I sure like those lo-pro tankers. That Cannonball needs a chop top and lowered on airbags .

I bet it was warranty costs that halted the turbos. I just looked at a YouTube video that was a '62 Olds ad for the new Jetfire. That car was a leap forward. They didn't talk about the rear transaxle/independent suspension. It was all about that 215 aluminum V8 with turbocharger that put out 1hp per cubic inch. They put three years into development. but one thing different was they had a fluid you added under the hood, which I imagine either helped cool or lubricate, or both. And I bet buyers didn't keep up on that. We didn't see turbos used for a long time after those.

I think only the Pontiac Tempest version had the transaxle/IFS, the Olds F85 and Buick Special had a regular rear axle with coil springs.

Yeah, didn't see turbos on cars for some time after that one!

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by Bob B.

GMC offered the 6-71T early on in the 970 series around 1957 rated at 235 H.P., when most 6-71's were 180 H.P.. They must have dropped the engine option sometime before 1960 because I can't find any records of it after. I don't think the 6-71T returned to GMC's until the early 80's.

Maybe a "special order" engine in GMC's during the 70's.