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 badThe 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 reasonWas surprised at the number of slides stating * N/A in California :BLink

The pice of gas was 1.35 adjusted for inflation 2.42. Paint jobs and rust proofing were bad. Pollution control was a heavy burden.

Had a 1980 GMC 3/4 with the 292 six and 4:56 axle. I drove it all over the National Parks of the west for 4 years with a 9 1/2 Coachman truck camper on it. Never had any problems anywhere driving through the mountains or on the flat land. It was the same engine they put in school buses. The body was going with rust is the only reason I got rid of it. Oh, yeh. It got 10.6 mpg with or without a load, in the mountains or not. And top speed was 78 mph. I added a 32-gal aux tank and could go almost 400 miles with 39 usable gals of gas. Now I get the same mileage with my Duramax pulling 14,000 lb of toyhauler, with a much better top speed available.

My ‘78 K20 400 cid Cheyenne was very similar to the featured Chevy. Payload about the same too and it ate gasoline with and without the camper mounted. Couldn’t go far even with the two 20 gallon tanks.

Labman7 wrote:Had a 1980 GMC 3/4 with the 292 six and 4:56 axle. I drove it all over the National Parks of the west for 4 years with a 9 1/2 Coachman truck camper on it. Never had any problems anywhere driving through the mountains or on the flat land. It was the same engine they put in school buses. The body was going with rust is the only reason I got rid of it. Oh, yeh. It got 10.6 mpg with or without a load, in the mountains or not. And top speed was 78 mph. I added a 32-gal aux tank and could go almost 400 miles with 39 usable gals of gas. Now I get the same mileage with my Duramax pulling 14,000 lb of toyhauler, with a much better top speed available.I've never seen a 3/4 ton GM truck with a six. I don't know what the rear end ratio was but I want to say around 70mph it was running pretty high rpm. Which reminds me it had the first gen overdrive transmission and you couldn't simply disengage OD with the column shifter, you had to disconnect a connector under the hood so that's how it stayed so that explains it not making 22mpg, which I still doubt it would make with OD engaged.

Fish, the base engine on the K20 in 1978 was the 292 cid in-line six. I have the manual. In fact on the K30 too.

1981 Chevy Truck vs Ford Truck | Good Sam Community

Grit_dog
Navigator
Aug 30, 2022
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
Nomad
Aug 30, 2022
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
Explorer
Aug 29, 2022
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
Explorer
Aug 22, 2022
1980 was the first year Ford built junk for trucks.
blt2ski
Moderator
Aug 19, 2022
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
Nomad
Aug 19, 2022
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
Nomad
Aug 19, 2022
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
Explorer III
Aug 19, 2022
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
Explorer III
Aug 18, 2022
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
Navigator
Aug 18, 2022
FishOnOne wrote:

I thought those Astro vans were good looking.

Are you feeling ok?

Forum Discussion

1981 Chevy Truck vs Ford Truck

About Travel Trailer Group

Related Content

Chevy 2.7 turbo 1500 truck.

Truck

Truck warranty

Truck caps

Ford Trucks