Talk:Chevrolet C/K

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am of the opinion than there is in this article enough information, pictures and such that it warrants reason to have seperate articles on each generation of the c/k. I may get to creating them myself. I think this page should be kept and perhaps shortend to still provide some information on the whole series and special models/editions, but generation-specific articles would better allow for more detail and more expansion. also, I think the title should be GM C/K or general motors C/K or such as gmc also made the truck, and while the trucks are most surely close enough for one article, chevrolet and gmc are seperate brands and the chevrolet-only title could be more inclusive of the sister brand. Keserman (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet offered the 6.2 Diesel engine option in the C10 1/2 ton chassis pickup as far back as 1979, possibly earlier. I have found documentation through GM mentioning this in their 1979 Truck build books...

Hmmm. I looked at the 1979-1984 GM parts book. Page 31 rev 84.1 1981 Engine Series LF9 diesel (350) No LH6 6.2 diesel . Page 32 rev 84.1 1982 Engine Identification LH6 6.2 and no LF9. I would like to get my hands on a 1973-9 truck build book.Hatzie (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be noted that Suburbans were 2 door bodies (not counting the back door/gates) through the 1966 model year. From 67-72 Suburbans had 3 doors, with the third door on the passenger side. From 1973 on, Suburbans were 4-door body style.-WK-4.245.36.143 (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article states the GMC Sierra was introduced in 75, but I know that Sierras were available from the 1960s at least. Anyone know for sure? —Morven 05:19, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Sierra was a trim option begining in the 1971 model year, and was the equivelent of the Chevy Cheyenne. Formally, the top of the line trim package was the CST (Custom Sport Truck). 1972 saw the top of the line become the Sierra Grande and the Cheyenne Super.

Also, it should be noted that, initially, only GMC models had the 1500, 2500, 3500 series designations, the Chevy equivelents being 10, 20 and 30 for 1/2, 3/4, and 1 ton models.--139.78.96.87 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)-WK-[reply]

pbyhistorian: That's a good point. My 1989 1-ton Chevrolet (V Series) has an exterior trim piece that says "3500", but I do remember Chevrolets with the two-digit numbers. It would be nice to know when they changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbyhistorian (talk • contribs) 20:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the 1989 GMC Sierra 1500 is not a GM C/K pickup truck. By 1988, the Sierra was its own model produced by GMC. The fourth generation would be better represented by a Chevy C/K.

--Zouf 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My brother-in-law has an '88 Sportside. I'm sure he has a pic he'll "donate." ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 1989 four Wheel drive duelly truck with the factory 454 engine. Would this be a 4 bolt main engine. 1hotvette (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My dad's 6.5TD is a 1995.

Blows the 6.2TD being replaced in 1997 thing out of the water, now, doesn't it? --Bhtooefr 01:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide more correct info, please do so! If you can provide a reference for your information, it would be all the better. The real beauty of Wikipedia is that you can actually correct misinformation and not just sit back and complain about it. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that it debuted in 1991.5, but I'm not sure. I would have edited it, but I don't actually have confirmation of WHEN it actually happened ;) -Bhtooefr 20:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 6.2 and 6.5 TD was not factory. They were Dealership installed and warrantied turbo kits made by Banks or ATS. This changed in September 1992 when GM installed their own for the 1993my 6.5. I am unaware of any factory 6.2 TD built by GM just dealership and private party installs. I don't have references to back it up though.Hatzie (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there nothing on the preceeding Chevrolet Truck Models(3100-6700 Series)? Am I going to have to create a whole page on this subject? ----DanTD 12:18, 24 May 2006

Well, yes, since those were technically not C/K trucks, they wouldn't be covered on this page. Ayocee 16:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole GM truck article should really go by truck generations, Since the C/K nomenclature started during the 1960-1966 generation. Because of the nature of trucks, especially these having had model numbers with names tacked on somewhat arbitrary, it would be better to treat these by generation, as most other scholarly works on this subject do, ie:

Models to 1939;

1940-1941

1947-1955 First Series (so called "Advanced Design")

1955-1959 Second Series (so called "Task Force")

1960-1966

1967-1972 (so called "integrated styling" or "glamour trucks")

1973-1987

1987-1998

1999-2006

2007-present

Someone has finally written a page for the Advance Design Chevrolet_Advance_Design and Task Force models Chevrolet_Task_Force. This info needs to box for a predecessor to the 1960 models.

This article should mention that the 1973-87 c/k and its gmc counterparts had fuel tanks near the cab (side saddle fuel tanks). In collisions, they were very vulnerable, and because of their location, if they were hit, it often caused catastrophic fires that could kill the occupants. In other words, these models were the 'pinto of pickups'. I believe this feature of the design eventually led to a lawsuit.

First, please sign your posts. Second, it did lead to at least one lawsuit against GM - but it also led to a lawsuit against NBC by GM which resulted in a very public apology by NBC for not fully disclosing the many problems in their overly dramaticized test, which included an overfilled gas tank, an improper fuel filler cap, and incendiary devices placed on the truck being impacted. The 1973-1987 GM C/K truck was not signifigantly more dangerous than the Ford and Dodge contemporary competitors, and the sheer number of these trucks still on the roads should attest to the actual danger of those tanks in practice. Fire-damaged vehicles are rarely salvaged in any form other than as parts-donor vehicles due to the extensive and effectively irreparable damage caused. It is also extremely unfair to compare it to the Pinto - the Pinto fires were clearly caused by a design flaw that allowed an exposed bolt to easily puncture the rear-mounted tank in even mild rear-impact collisions. While the side-mounted tanks on the truck are not in the safest position, there is no blatant single design flaw that causes them to be punctured in a statistically signifigant number of collisions. Please perform your own research before making wild claims.

Besides, the '67-'72 had the tank mounted inside the cab, directly behind the seat. Mine has yet to explode. Ayocee 04:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added to the history of the vehicle. It is not a wild claim and can be easily be validated by research. There was more than one lawsuit; there were multiple lawsuits in multiple states. --Haleme 19:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One should be careful of whose facts one considers in these cases. Lawsuits do not have the same evidence and proof rules that criminal cases require. All of the participants have far more latitude when presenting their "facts". I don't consider tort cases to be the final word as the facts can be very slanted. Remember "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." {Mark Twain...} Presentation is everything including what you choose to omit. The wide variance in quoted numbers of fatalities should make any skeptic take a second third... look. This article should carefully present the available facts in an objective manner. (Hatzie (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'd hack this out myself, but maybe there is a nugget of fact in there that can be sourced and rephrased:

"The basis for Chevy's slogan, "The Most Dependable, Longest Lasting Trucks on the Road," the 73-87 Chevy/GMC pickup is the most common "old truck" seen today, and for good reason -- they are simple, servicable, reliable, and like all Chevys, have the power to get the job done."

The slogan is a "fact" I guess. The part about them being the most common old truck is a bit assertive - relative to number sold, for instance? And has anyone ever measured this? The part after the hyphen simply needs to go. human 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it, whoever did so. Huw Powell 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have some insight into when the changes were made from normal carb, to electronically controlled carb, throttle body injection, tuned port injection, etc?

they went to throttle body inject in 1987, but some late 1986 models have it as well. 71.207.156.16 12:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)kp[reply]

Feedback carbs were in use on some of the 1981 Oldsmobile passenger cars but I don't know when they were added to the trucks. I do know they were in use by the time they built my 1985 C1500. TBI was 1987 model year on. I think GM used TBI on trucks till the vortec V8 ended production. Tuned Port Injection doesn't apply to the trucks. It was only factory on the F-bodies and Corvettes... I think it started in the 1984 vette and then the 1985 F cars.Hatzie (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vortec V8s have an 8-injector sfi system, and every pre-1987 I've ever seen was equipped with a normal carburetor. FlyDragonn (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to criticize, but I wonder if the photos of the trucks used in this article should be factory stock representations, and not customized models? The reader should have an idea of what the truck looked like when it was originally manufactured, not what a later owner did to it 30 years later, IMO. Photos of factory stock Chevrolet trucks from 1960-1998 — either original factory promotional photos or current-day photos — are readily available and can be posted easily following the guidelines. [[Briguy52748 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)]] (P.S. — That said, if there's a section that can be created about the following these trucks have and that some people customize them, then by all means use the picture in that section of the article).[reply]

I absolutely agree. Also, I agree that a "custom" truck file might make sense, especially for things that many people do the same way - ie, lift kits, motor upgrades, disc brake conversions, etc. Huw Powell 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know, these models also offered a 327, and my 67' K20 has 3 fuel tanks 2 saddles and 1 behind the seat. As for glamour truck, i can go places jeeps haven't heard of.

As is correctly stated in the article, the 327 ci. V-8 was replaced by the 350 for 1969. Also, those extra 2 fuel tanks were a dealer installed option and were not listed in the GM option and spec book "Truck Data Book" (GM) BrianAlex (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- 1973-1987--- The author states - correctly that "The R/V designation remained in use for the crewcab bodies and SUVs (Chevrolet K5 Blazer and Suburban) until 1991." The body style for the crew cabs (V designation) did not change to the new platform until 1992. I believe the R designation was for cab and chassis single cab that also retained the older design. The author needs to clarify the 1988-1999 section regarding the fact that the new platform was not applied to the R and V vehicles.

pbyhistorian: I'm not qualified to make edits in this subject so I'll simply say I find the revised text confusing. It appears to state that the C/K designation was changed to R/V for 1987 trucks so that the 1988 (and forward) trucks could continue using the C/K designation. Then why change? Yes, manufacturers sometimes do things that appear bizarre in retrospect but if there is indeed a better explanation than just the word "prepare", it would be helpful here. I managed to find the owner's manual for my 1989 4WD crew cab Chevrolet dually and was surprised to see "R,V Series Truck" on the cover (I always assumed I had a K3500). Perhaps it would be better to say R/V was a transitional designation; as far as I can tell, it corresponds to "old body style" (which I must always say whenever I go to the parts store).

A section about the VIN number may also be helpful. In the table of values for the fifth character - which the manual calls "Line" - "C" and "R" translate to "Conventional Cab, 4x2" whereas "K" and "V" (as in my VIN) translate to "Conventional Cab, 4x4". These values appear to be the basis for the C/K and R/V designations. If so, "V" may not mean "crew cab" as stated above, but simply "4WD" which would make the R/V designation consistent with the C/K designation: 2WD/4WD. Any indication of "crew cab" seems to be limited to the seventh character of the VIN; mine is "3", which the manual translates to "Four-Door Cab". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbyhistorian (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a base model 2000 GMC C2500 WT with a 6.5 diesel (not the 6.6 Duramax). If the C/K 3500 ran till 2001 alongside the new body style trucks it would be good to note. It would be similar to the 88-91 R/V full ton dually that had the same body as the previous generation 1/2 ton truck for 4 years past the "end" of 1/2 ton production. Hatzie (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no info about the GMC big block v6 on the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMC_V6_engine
Since the article is geared towards the Chevy I didn't see a sensible way to add the info in, so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. Did there used to be a GM page? 08:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to find information on how the R3500 designation differs from C/K 3500. Can anyone provide some insight into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.28.193 (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R3500 was just an alternate for C3500 (etc.) They changed the '87s to R to prepare for the new '88 pickups. The Blazer/Suburban kept the R designation through 1991 since it kept the old body.

Same thing goes for K3500 vs. V3500. --Sable232 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RV30/35 was in production till 1991, along with the SUV chassis, not just 1989 as stated. I worked with a man in LA back in 2003 that owned a clean 1991 R35 Crew Cab Dually with a nice Reading work truck box. Hatzie (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the lists of every engine, every option, every standard feature and every year-to-year change have to be cleaned up. While it's fine to use Wikipedia as a starting point, Wikipedia is not a directory of information or statistics. There are plenty of other Chevy truck fan sites and info sites out there with all the reference info one could need. This article should be more readable, with info summed up in paragraphs as much as possible. Really, it could be cut down to half its current size while still covering all the major points, so feel free to dig in. --Vossanova ^o< 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it back into the realm of readability, at the very least. I kept most of the information intact, I wasn't going to get that deep into it. Just converting those awful lists into prose did wonders. I did pull the lists of trim packages out of the "aka" fields, they didn't fit there, they weren't complete anyway, and they're far better explained in the text. I fixed a couple grammatical things in the Brazil section but there isn't enough information there to make sense of what's being said so I couldn't really clean that section up. --Sable232 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many 1967-1972 C-10 trucks did GM make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korn4u19 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think, for many reasons, that this article should be merged with the Silverado article. I see Silverados from up to the early 60's and they're labeled "Silverado", not "C/K". If this has already been discussed, please direct me to the part of this talk page where it was, and if not, I need a reason as to why it isn't merged yet. Gray Ninjakoopa 16:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silverado was just one of many trims of the C/K line. No individual truck was called "C/K" -- one letter is for 2WD and the other for 4WD, but that's what the entire model line was collectively referred to until 1999.

Similarly, we didn't merge Ford F-Series into Ford Explorer because there used to be an F-Series "Explorer" trim. IFCAR (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the best argument for keeping Chevrolet Silverado split from Chevrolet C/K is the size of the articles - they're already both quite long, and combined they would be harder to navigate. I think it's commonly understood that "Silverado" was also used as a trim name for the original C/K series, but there is a definite generation split between the pre-1999 and post-1999 Chevy/GMC trucks, for which C/K and Silverado are the best titles. --Vossanova ^o< 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The F-Series article is quite long as well, but I guess I can compare this split to articles like the five different generations of the Mustang and Taurus. About the Explorer not being merged with the latter, I thought it was only similar to the Ford Ranger? The new Explorer Sport Trac looks like a Crew Cab F-150 stepside-esque, respectively, but I thought the Expedition was modeled after the F-series trucks from 1997-present. Gray Ninjakoopa 21:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mechanical relation between the Explorer and F-Series. However, there was during the 1970s an Explorer trim of the F-Series line -- just like there was a Silverado trim of the C/K line. There is as much justification for merging C/K and Silverado based only on the name as there is merging F-Series and Explorer -- none. IFCAR (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in 1971 the change from the 396 to the 400(402) was actually a change. The 402 is actually .030 inch larger bore than the 396. The engine blocks otherwise remained basically the same. but the increase in bore size did up the displacement by roughly 6 cubic inches. Wingnut33 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 402 came about when GM "recycled" a bunch of slightly defective 396 blocks by boring them out. When the recoverable 396 blocks were gone is when GM made the 402 a regular production engine. I suspect the original 396-but-really-402 engines were the bored out 396 rejects. Should be verifiable by casting numbers, if any of those "396" engines are still around. Bizzybody (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the original General Motors publication titled "Chevrolet Trucks 1969,Truck Data Book"
and it lists three different 3 speed transmissions available; 3-spd,Heavy Duty 3-spd and 3-spd with overdrive.
There is also another 4-spd manual that was available,namely the New Process 435CR which had a 4.56-1 low gear ratio (Other brand trucks used this transmission with different gear ratios,Chevy and GMC used this one).It had one P.T.O. (Power Take Off).
I would add these if I knew how.BrianAlex (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LD is probably the Saginaw SM318?? 3 speed used in the 67-86 trucks.
HD would be the Saginaw 3speed SM330 or Warner T-89 that were used in 67-86. They replaced the 55-66 3 speed Warner T-85.
3-spd with overdrive would be the SM326 with an optional Saginaw overdrive (Chevrolet part No. 3924783) for the 65+ Saginaw SM326 3 speed trannys. OD was an add on unit.
According to Novakthere were two NP435's used by GM in the 1967-72 trucks. the NP435A with 4.56:1 L and NP435D with 4.90:1 L. Hatzie (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What year was the change to a nearly vertical front slope on the second generation hood? Bizzybody (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow deleted a whole section I wrote, was having issues with my browser, can an admin revert the article back to before I screwed it up. My apologies.

Never mind, I think I fixed it or undone the damage I did.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanosblue (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this only applies to the medium-duty C-Series, but I've seen trucks from the 1967-72 era that have badges boasting 427 cid engines (http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_832479-Chevrolet-C-60-1969.html). So should we make it seem like the biggest engines are 402s? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevrolet C/K. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120122072414/http://www.exponent.com:80/nbc-dateline/ to http://www.exponent.com/NBC-DATELINE/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big 105 Million jury verdict overturned by appeals court in June 1994

GM Wins Appeal Over Side-Saddle Gasoline Tanks : Courts: Jury had awarded $105 million to the parents of a 17-year-old boy who burned to death in traffic accident, Los Angeles Times, Donald W. Nauss, June 14, 1994.

definitely some interesting history. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe the picture at the top of the article, is not a good enough picture, the truck shown is in bad state, and we may need a truck that is in reasonable condition. Averagetennesseejoe (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this model line is far from obscure, there is a great deal of information that can be included on an article related to the Chevrolet/GMC C/K. However, such an advantage can also prove to have its own issues, as the length of an article can become an issue that needs to be addressed, balancing between being informative and becoming information overload.

To better accommodate the information, perhaps it is time to make this article a parent article of the multiple generations of the C/K model family. The Ford F-Series is a good template of how to create separate articles (the 1973 and 1988 generations have enough content to stand on their own right now, along with the 1967; the 1960 certainly has room to grow) for each model generation. This has been done with a number of articles related to the best-selling vehicles in the world, including the Volkswagen Golf and Toyota Corolla.

While this would be a major undertaking and migration of content, it would allow for an updated format to present and edit content for viewers and editors. Thoughts? --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It certainly is a major undertaking, but I think this article has reached a level of content where a page split would be a marked improvement for the reasons you mention. --Sable232 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - and while I am not willing to help (zero interest in these, sorry) it won't be as much work as you fear. Go boldly forth etc.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]