1981 Chevy Truck vs Ford Truck

[FishOnOne]

My parents had a 1981 truck so a interesting marketing video looking back.

Our 1981 truck never made 22 mpg hwy with a tail wind. I want to say it was ~16 mpg.
The Urethane clear pads mounted on the lower panel in front of the rear wheels cracked and looked bad
The 5.0 ESC engine was really good at towing compared to the other trucks in our camping group. (350, 351, 400)
Fords tailgates in that error were notorious for rusting out at the lower section and the lack of sealed ends could have been the reason

Was surprised at the number of slides stating * N/A in California :B

Link

[Grit_dog]

FishOnOne wrote:

RanniWins wrote:
I can say from my experience Chevy's are simple, part's are prevalant and cheap, and none can argue a SBC being a great engine, I bought one to my old father at auction on wheels, he was very happy cause he drive without any problem. Ford's always changed stupid stuff from Yr to Yr, Parts are more, and they are a little more complicated to work on. I love ford, and I would buy a Ford, but I can't argue with the GM truck's from the 70's to the 88 model's.

The problem with Ford small blocks is they produced 3 small blocks a 302, 351 Cleveland, 351 Windsor and no parts were interchangeable which drove up costs, but generally were very reliable.

Both very true statements and exactly the reason I grew a distaste for Fords back in the late 80s/early 90s when I started turning wrenches on vehicles.
I didn't have google to tell me nothing would switch over from the blown up 302 I had, to the 351W i picked up to replace it....I learned by trying to fit square pegs into round holes and unlike GMs where you could generally get them to fit, the Ford required me buying a second used engine and then finding a fixer upper to use the first one in...

[FishOnOne]

RanniWins wrote:
I can say from my experience Chevy's are simple, part's are prevalant and cheap, and none can argue a SBC being a great engine, I bought one to my old father at auction on wheels, he was very happy cause he drive without any problem. Ford's always changed stupid stuff from Yr to Yr, Parts are more, and they are a little more complicated to work on. I love ford, and I would buy a Ford, but I can't argue with the GM truck's from the 70's to the 88 model's.

The problem with Ford small blocks is they produced 3 small blocks a 302, 351 Cleveland, 351 Windsor and no parts were interchangeable which drove up costs, but generally were very reliable.

[RanniWins]

I can say from my experience Chevy's are simple, part's are prevalant and cheap, and none can argue a SBC being a great engine, I bought one to my old father at auction on wheels, he was very happy cause he drive without any problem. Ford's always changed stupid stuff from Yr to Yr, Parts are more, and they are a little more complicated to work on. I love ford, and I would buy a Ford, but I can't argue with the GM truck's from the 70's to the 88 model's.

[specta]

1980 was the first year Ford built junk for trucks.

[blt2ski]

RJ,

Had an 89 TBI Astro until we bought a 2000 Safari with the MPFI Vortec version. The numbers I gave were van numbers as I recall.....then again, just past 60 and what 30 some odd years later......My brain could be fried some. It would not surprise me if the van and pickup had different ratings for what ever reason.

My current 4.3 is pretty good on power also, better than the 350 based 4.3 versions. The vortec in the 2000 was definitely the better version of that series. as was the 350, never drove a vortec 454, but got the impression they were good pullers also.

Marty

[rjstractor]

blt2ski wrote:
The 4.3 carb versions were 2bbls. approx 180hp. the TBI was 195 or so, the vortec 210'ish. That motor was designed for the pickups and Astro vans. 85-86 or so was first year, replaced the 250 I6 in the 1500.

I had a '92 K1500 with the TBI 4.3, IIRC it was only 160 hp or so. But it pulled a 4K trailer OK with 3.42 gears and a 5 speed manual, although getting it rolling was not great. Later I had an '84 C20 with the aformentioned 4 barrel 5.0, and it was a gas-guzzling gutless turd. The TBI 4.3 would pull the same weight better, as would my 4.0 Exploder.

[FishOnOne]

mkirsch wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
Straight 6 was available thru at least '86 in the 3/4 - 1 tons. 1/2 tons base option changed to the 4.3 V6 in the 80s.

I remember seeing plenty of half tons with the I6 and later the 4.3 V6's with a 4 barrel carb which was pretty cool, but neither had the power of the 5.0.

Well duh, that was in the days of "there is no replacement for displacement." Need more power, add more holes, or make the holes bigger. Turbos were for weenies. Superchargers were for those delinquent greasers who raced cars in a straight line.

Though I have a hard time believing that a GM 305 was out-pulling all those other engines, unless it was pulling a LOT less, or something was done to it to pep it up. Even today the 305 is regarded as a joke.

I want to say GM made a push towards these V6 engines sometime in the late 80's. Even Buick was running V6 engines in their NASCAR cars.

[Me_Again]

Both the GM 292 I6 and Ford 300 I6 were good engines. I removed a 292 from a 63 sub and put nice 283 in it's place in the early 1970's. Did better on the freeway with the V8, however no more pulling building over.

[BarabooBob]

I had a Chevy Astro with 4.3 injected. We puled a pop-up back then and pulled it all over the Rockies without a problem.
We drove it from WI to NC one time and I told the wife that we were going to jump in thee middle of the fastest group of cars and I didn't care what mileage we got. I wanted to get there asap. We drove from Baraboo (WI) to Indianapolis at about 85 mph. I stopped there to get gas because I thought we should be out of gas. When we calculated the MPG and we got 22 on that tank. I could not believe it.

[Grit_dog]

FishOnOne wrote:

I thought those Astro vans were good looking.

Are you feeling ok?

[FishOnOne]

blt2ski wrote:
Pickup may have had a 4bbl. The Astro I drove had a 2 bbl.

I thought those Astro vans were good looking. A hell of lot better van than the ugly Lumina van.

[blt2ski]

Pickup may have had a 4bbl. The Astro I drove had a 2 bbl.

[larry_barnhart]

I had a new 1986 chev 1/2 ton with the V-6 and 4 barrel carb a 400 turbo trannie and a rear diff of 2.73. Seemed to be odd but was ok for my work truck.

chevman

[FishOnOne]

blt2ski wrote:
The 4.3 carb versions were 2bbls. approx 180hp. the TBI was 195 or so, the vortec 210'ish. That motor was designed for the pickups and Astro vans. 85-86 or so was first year, replaced the 250 I6 in the 1500. I could see someone putting a 4bl on the 4.3 and waking that motor up! the 2bbl was as slug. The TBI not too bad, the vortec a different beast yet. The 4.3 I have in my 14 is on par with the TBI/4bbl 454s Ive had over power wise.
The 292 I6 1BBL was base motor in the square body truck to about 87, then 88-90 when GM started making a DW 3500 the base motor was a 350, 454 and 6.2 diesel with options.
The 88 model year GM CK trucks, the 4.3 was base motor for the 6600 gvw 1500, 7200 6 lug 2500, and the 8600 8 lug was a 3500. 89 or 90, the 8600 2500 came out, with a 9200 3500 sw. 91 or 92 was the 10K DW versions. Also about 90 with the 8600 2500, the 4.3 was dropped in favor of the 350 base for motor. the 3500 also had a 350 base, with a 454 and 6.2 option. a year or two later, the 2500 got the 6.2/454 option. 6.5td came out in 94 with the 6.2 going away.
You could get a 292 in a 25 or 35 series van, with 3.42 gears and a munci 4 spd, those rigs got 17-20 mpg vs a 4.1 geared as noted, about 10-11 no matter what you were doing! I got 15 once playing games in neutral going down some long downhills, like chinook pass locally with my 81 reg cab. could out pull my 88 tbi/89 4bbl 454s at low speeds, but once the BB's got to 20 mph, they left the I6 behind.
Dad had a 66 1500 with a 250 three in the tree, he could get 15-18 with it. Not sure on the rear gear ratio. He sold it, next person put a 4 sp and 350 in it. Chassis had over 300K miles last I heard about. A lot of boats had the 250 in I/O configs too. Our 16' Chris-Craft, a number of others I knew too.

Marty

I'm pretty sure the first Gen 4.3 had four barrel carbs and the name "Vortec" for Vortec heads originally came out on the 4.3 engine.