Weighed my 1967 and 2011 Chevy trucks

[wesmigletz]

1967 SWB, 283 2BBL, 4 speed, stock wheels, 235/75/15 tires, repro floor and bedside, spotlight, no carpet or sound deadener, heater, no AC, 1/2 tank of gas: 3660 LBS

2011 Chevy short fleet regular cab, 5.3L, 6 spd auto, factory tow package, all stock as delivered by GM, with 1/4 tank of gas:4600 LBS

Both were weighed on the same truck scale, supposedly accurate to 20 pounds.

[northern 85]

Wow didnt expect that.

[hugger6933]

I would expect that being that I've been through both styles down to the last bolt and to nothing but a framerail. In wiring alone the newer one would have more weight by five times at least maybe closer to ten. also the frame itself is probably two to three times as heavy. [you consider a channel vs. hydraform box rail all the way]except the last few feet]now the sheetmetal the advantage probably would lean back the other way towards the 67.

[mrein3]

Originally Posted by northern 85

Wow didnt expect that.

I felt the same way the first time I figured out my then 30 year old truck was 1000 pounds lighter than my friend's brand new Chevy truck.

The new ones get double the fuel economy than these old timers too. Just goes to show you what aerodynamics, computer controlled fuel injection, computer controlled timing, and a lock-up overdrive transmission can do.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by wesmigletz

1967 SWB, 283 2BBL, 4 speed, stock wheels, 235/75/15 tires, repro floor and bedside, spotlight, no carpet or sound deadener, heater, no AC, 1/2 tank of gas: 3660 LBS

2011 Chevy short fleet regular cab, 5.3L, 6 spd auto, factory tow package, all stock as delivered by GM, with 1/4 tank of gas:4600 LBS

Both were weighed on the same truck scale, supposedly accurate to 20 pounds.

Good data; thanks for posting that (and congratulations on your new purchase!).

K

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by hugger6933

I would expect that being that I've been through both styles down to the last bolt and to nothing but a framerail. In wiring alone the newer one would have more weight by five times at least maybe closer to ten. also the frame itself is probably two to three times as heavy. [you consider a channel vs. hydraform box rail all the way]except the last few feet]now the sheetmetal the advantage probably would lean back the other way towards the 67.

As a sidebar: here is the patent for the hydroform process:



K

[Hart_Rod]

^
|

thats cool!

[midniteblues]

man they certainly dont feel that light when you gotta push a dead one

[67_C-30]

I've laughed at people for years who always harp about these "heavy old trucks". I used to have have a 6 cylinder. 3OTT, low option truck that weighed 3550#. For comparison's sake, a new Camaro SS weighs 3860#, a late model Mustang GT weighs 3620#, a '70 Chevelle SS weighs 3790#.

You'd think looking at older cars with metal bumpers, big bodies, etc. that they'd be heavier, but all the crap that is on new cars along with sound deadening, impact beams in the doors, and several hundred pounds worth of wiring, they are actually heavier. That is a big reason why despite engines having EFI and being more efficient, many of them don't get a lot better MPG than they ever did.

[Hart_Rod]

Originally Posted by 67_C-30

I've laughed at people for years who always harp about these "heavy old trucks". I used to have have a 6 cylinder. 3OTT, low option truck that weighed 3550#. For comparison's sake, a new Camaro SS weighs 3860#, a late model Mustang GT weighs 3620#, a '70 Chevelle SS weighs 3790#.

You'd think looking at older cars with metal bumpers, big bodies, etc. that they'd be heavier, but all the crap that is on new cars along with sound deadening, impact beams in the doors, and several hundred pounds worth of wiring, they are actually heavier. That is a big reason why despite engines having EFI and being more efficient, many of them don't get a lot better MPG than they ever did.

My new 2014 Camaro SS weighs more than my 68 SWB and they both have the same motor and transmission....

[yuccales]

Originally Posted by midniteblues

man they certainly dont feel that light when you gotta push a dead one

You got that right!

[Prematuregrey]

My K20 was 5200#'s when I took it across the scales a few months back. Seems like a huge weight difference from the 2wd-4wd, but mine with the BBC, 1 tons, and saddle tanks has some extra weight added over factory. I think it also had the dual shocks still on it when I weighed it too.

[68gmsee]

When I park next to some new trucks my 68 seems like a mini truck. The new ones definitely are larger and bulkier.

[slikside]

Originally Posted by mrein3

I felt the same way the first time I figured out my then 30 year old truck was 1000 pounds lighter than my friend's brand new Chevy truck.

The new ones get double the fuel economy than these old timers too. Just goes to show you what aerodynamics, computer controlled fuel injection, computer controlled timing, and a lock-up overdrive transmission can do.

My thoughts, exactly!

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

As a sidebar: here is the patent for the hydroform process:



K

Congratulations man! That's really cool.

Another testament that this is THE chevy truck forum to frequent!

[ItsRandy]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

As a sidebar: here is the patent for the hydroform process:



K

Really great you got credit for your contribution to the invention. That doesn't happen for everyone. I worked 5 years developing a project which was awarded 3 separate patents when I completed it...my name doesn't appear anywhere in the patent documents. The guy who owned the company took all the credit.

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by Prematuregrey

My K20 was 5200#'s when I took it across the scales a few months back. Seems like a huge weight difference from the 2wd-4wd, but mine with the BBC, 1 tons, and saddle tanks has some extra weight added over factory. I think it also had the dual shocks still on it when I weighed it too.

A 2014 C2500 4X4 Auto regular cab base model truck has a curb weight of 6118#.

[brad_man_72]

I knew I wasn't crazy for thinking my 67 with modern drivetrain is better than a new truck.

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by brad_man_72

I knew I wasn't crazy for thinking my 67 with modern drivetrain is better than a new truck.

Not crazy at all. When I sold my 2000 Z71 with 113,000 miles on it, it was more worn out than most of my old trucks with no telling how many miles. The plastic tailgate handle was broken, the driver door bushings were shot, the foam on the steering wheel had a big hole in middle where I always drive 1 handed, and the stupid plastic headlights and wheelflares were white chalky. Never again will be I buy that junk anymore.

[slow-1]

Originally Posted by wesmigletz

1967 SWB, 283 2BBL, 4 speed, stock wheels, 235/75/15 tires, repro floor and bedside, spotlight, no carpet or sound deadener, heater, no AC, 1/2 tank of gas: 3660 LBS

2011 Chevy short fleet regular cab, 5.3L, 6 spd auto, factory tow package, all stock as delivered by GM, with 1/4 tank of gas:4600 LBS

Both were weighed on the same truck scale, supposedly accurate to 20 pounds.

This helps explain why putting a stock 5.3 in an old truck makes it a hot rod...1000 less pounds to push.

Does anyone remember back in the 80's when Hot Rod magazine took a big Caddie and ran it in the 1/4 mile a bunch of times? The first time they had like 6 people in the car and the trunk full, by the end they had most of the body work cut off and they had shaved a bunch of time by shedding weight.

[slow-1]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

As a sidebar: here is the patent for the hydroform process:



K

Awesome!

[mmiddle]

I'm surprised that theses trucks are so light. I was guessing around 5k for a short fleet 2wd. My 2003 Duramax CC LB tips the scale at 7200#

[hugger6933]

I always get a good laugh at the people that say they don't make'em like that any more. Boy am I glad they don't. I see these trucks where most don't at the insurance salvage pools. I see all years makes and models everything from fender bumps to train hits. The new trucks are a 1,000 times safer and stronger than the older trucks. when I mean strong, I am not talking torque I mean the strength of the metal it self compared to yesterday stuff and how it is enginered to take impacts and crumple and fold away from the drivers compartments instead of just folding into the cab. Jim

[67_C-30]

Originally Posted by hugger6933

I always get a good laugh at the people that say they don't make'em like that any more. Boy am I glad they don't. I see these trucks where most don't at the insurance salvage pools. I see all years makes and models everything from fender bumps to train hits. The new trucks are a 1,000 times safer and stronger than the older trucks. when I mean strong, I am not talking torque I mean the strength of the metal it self compared to yesterday stuff and how it is enginered to take impacts and crumple and fold away from the drivers compartments instead of just folding into the cab. Jim

You are exactly right about the structural design and safety. However, the rest of the new trucks leave a lot to be desired including thin, easily dentable body panels, plastic handles and knobs, junk plastic headlight assemblies, etc.

[wesmigletz]

Originally Posted by slow-1

This helps explain why putting a stock 5.3 in an old truck makes it a hot rod...1000 less pounds to push.

Does anyone remember back in the 80's when Hot Rod magazine took a big Caddie and ran it in the 1/4 mile a bunch of times? The first time they had like 6 people in the car and the trunk full, by the end they had most of the body work cut off and they had shaved a bunch of time by shedding weight.

I think that was called "Caddy Hack". One of the mags also did a story where they but big rims and a lot of "ricer" mods on an acura and actually slowed the car down.

[suspect]

These 67-72's are considerably smaller. They're almost comparable to a S-10. Has anyone weighed a S-10 or Ford Ranger? I wonder what the weight difference is?