C80 Spec Tags

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by C10 - C90 Bill

They made some pretty heavy C-80's. I would have to check my books to see if GMC offered heavier Front and Rears than Chevy did.

Something is screwy with the way the Chevy C 80 tops out at 25K in all the literature. When a GMC is ordered with the same optional heavy axles 9k, 11k front and 22 or 23K rear, the GMC is rated in the 30-32K range. IMO, a heavy spec Chevy C 80 should be listed with the same GVW as a GMC, why it's not, is a mystery to me. Side note, a 6500 is just a higher powered 6000, ( 478 vs. 401) otherwise same available axles.

[C10 - C90 Bill]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Something is screwy with the way the Chevy C 80 tops out at 25K in all the literature. When a GMC is ordered with the same optional heavy axles 9k, 11k front and 22 or 23K rear, the GMC is rated in the 30-32K range. IMO, a heavy spec Chevy C 80 should be listed with the same GVW as a GMC, why it's not, is a mystery to me. Side note, a 6500 is just a higher powered 6000, ( 478 vs. 401) otherwise same available axles.

Although I didn't read the pages above, I did check some brochures online and I'm beginning to see what you are saying. One '64 brochure stated GVW's up to 25,000. Although I'm sure that they were referring to single axles only. Another brochure, which was probably '65 or '66 stated GVW's from 25 to 29,000.

Also discovered another thing. Seems like most singles axle 80's, '63-'66, did have the narrow fenders with the lighter fronts. I guess all the C-80's I've been observing online through the years have been either '60-'62 or tandems with heavier fronts and wide fenders.

[factorystock]

Another C 80 with data plates. Same 25K GVW, but has the 9K front. IMO, it should be a 27.5K GVW. '63 was the first year Chevy mediums automatically came with narrow fenders, unless you got the 9k or 11k front axle. All '60-'62 Chevy mediums came with large front fenders whether they really needed them or not.

[C10 - C90 Bill]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Another C 80 with data plates. Same 25K GVW, but has the 9K front. IMO, it should be a 27.5K GVW. '63 was the first year Chevy mediums automatically came with narrow fenders, unless you got the 9k or 11k front axle. All '60-'62 Chevy mediums came with large front fenders whether they really needed them or not.

Right, that's why I separated '60-'62 and '63 to '66 above.

For some reason, Axles don't always add up to the GVW. My '67 7500 had 9 Fronts and 22 Rears, which should have had a GVW of 31,000, but the plate stated 27,500. May be a good question for Bob.

[factorystock]

To add more fuel to the C 80 max. 25K GVW mystery, a heavy duty 60 series, known as the C 60H comes in at 24K GVW. In my book, a C80 with 11K front and 23K rear ( maximum optional axles) is a conservatively rated 30K GVW rig. Great extra heavy duty truck to find without having to get a CDL.

[Bob B.]

Originally Posted by C10 - C90 Bill

Right, that's why I separated '60-'62 and '63 to '66 above.

For some reason, Axles don't always add up to the GVW. My '67 7500 had 9 Fronts and 22 Rears, which should have had a GVW of 31,000, but the plate stated 27,500. May be a good question for Bob.

Not sure about back in those days, but these days it is common to see a class 7 truck that would normally have a 30,000#+ GVW downrated to just under 26,000#'s. It's a CDL cheat, idea is to get a more durable truck without requiring a class A license to drive. Chevy even has a downrate package currently available on the 7500 LCF. You get the higher rated axles and tires but the GVW is the same as the 6500 model. Going back to the 60's era Chevy yes sometimes the only difference between the 60H and 80 was the availability of the 409 engine as Bill pointed out.

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by factorystock

Something is screwy with the way the Chevy C 80 tops out at 25K in all the literature. When a GMC is ordered with the same optional heavy axles 9k, 11k front and 22 or 23K rear, the GMC is rated in the 30-32K range. IMO, a heavy spec Chevy C 80 should be listed with the same GVW as a GMC, why it's not, is a mystery to me.

Found it. It was corrected in 1966 literature.