79f150 vs 79 chev c10

[mudslut79]

Which one would you truely consider to be the better of the two. I know a guy that has a c10 and has owned it since new. And uses it as his dialy driver and plow truck in the winter and has never let him down as i know of. Now my truck has let me down twice since i owned it. Mainly because the spacer between the block and power steering mount was to short. And the belt would fall off for the water pump fixed it hasnt let me down since. But in terms of enginneering wise what would you rather own i know this is a ford website but honestly.

 

[john112deere]

If we're talking about a 79 in the year 2008, I'd take whichever one was in better shape and had been beat less over the last 30 years.

If we're talking about which I'd rather have in "new" condition, I'd go with the F-150. Mostly just because I'm a Ford guy, but also because they hold up better against rust, based on what I see running around in this area.

 

[blacksnapon]

Each have their upside and downside. Its surprising to know how much similar each is. Both use new process transfer cases, similar front differentials. Just about the only difference would be the engines, transmissions, and bodies. GM has always been more concerned with horsepower than building a good allover truck. Of course, thats just my warped way of looking at it.

 

[john112deere]

GM has always been more concerned with horsepower than building a good allover truck.

I came to more or less the same conclusion, based only on conversations with "Ford guys" and "Chevy guys"...

 

[mtflat]

Welcome to the playground...... are you related to Tony?



Small sample - real life.

I had a new 77 F100 and a friend of mine bought a new 79 C10. Mine was never in the shop. His was in the shop every other month - usually engine related.

Since then he's only owned Fords. fwiw

 

[godblessmud]

what engine/tranny are we talking about here? 4x4 im assuming?

 

[DOHCmarauder]

100% from memory is that GM's of that era used full time 4WD while Ford still used manual hubs (manual hubs being the choice of purists)


Power ratings of that era were always close.....Chevy really didn't start pulling away until the Vortec series in the mid-90's.

I know Ford used the open knuckle/kingpin front end while I think GM was still using the big ball joint set up.

I know the Chevy frames had a propensity to crack around the steering box....look through off-road magazines and you may still find the kit to fix it.


According to some, however, they are both horrible trucks due to their C-channel frames and riveted mounts......no way they could still be on the road!!!

 

[polarbear]

Each have their upside and downside. Its surprising to know how much similar each is. Both use new process transfer cases, similar front differentials. Just about the only difference would be the engines, transmissions, and bodies. GM has always been more concerned with horsepower than building a good allover truck. Of course, thats just my warped way of looking at it.

Good post. I was there when they were new (oh gawd). '79 Ford was the last year of a chassis who's durability was legendary. They also had a one-up on rust- for some reason the GM's rusted out worse over the years and miles.

Jack- the rivets and C-channels in that era came from a time where weight was irrelevant to design. If the design was inferior, they just used heavier components to make up for it. Today, since weight is everything, the design itself becomes more of an issue. My .02 anyways.

 

[mudslut79]

Yeh his truck is pretty rusty but never fails him i seen people have good luck with gm to though. So im kind of for gm but more for ford but what i really can not stand is when people talk bad about ford mainly gm guys. That just drives me nuts then i cant come up with a good inbarrasing name for chevy but they come up with like a million for ford. So in that way i kind of just lost all respect for gm that plus the new ones really suck. Went down hill just like chrysler its really sad now days they dont care about quality its about quanity and big warranties that they cant seem to stand behind. Thats another reason i like ford trucks cause the dealerships actually care.

 

[Skandocious]

plus the new ones really suck. Went down hill just like chrysler its really sad now days they dont care about quality its about quanity and big warranties that they cant seem to stand behind. Thats another reason i like ford trucks cause the dealerships actually care.

Uh oh... I think I can hear Ernie stomping in this direction. Is that smoke coming out of his ears?

 

[DOHCmarauder]

Good post. I was there when they were new (oh gawd). '79 Ford was the last year of a chassis who's durability was legendary. They also had a one-up on rust- for some reason the GM's rusted out worse over the years and miles.

Jack- the rivets and C-channels in that era came from a time where weight was irrelevant to design. If the design was inferior, they just used heavier components to make up for it. Today, since weight is everything, the design itself becomes more of an issue. My .02 anyways.

I made a trailer out of a 70's Ford frame....still have it, it's on a buddy's property....... after notching the top, I could bend the rails by hand before welding them to the coupler!!!

In case you didn't know, both Ford and GM still use C-channel and rivets on their HEAVIER trucks.

 

[Skandocious]

both Ford and GM still use C-channel and rivets on their HEAVIER trucks.

Huh? I thought the new F150 had a fully boxed frame. At least that's what Mike Rowe told me on the commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY_XMemqY18

 

[DOHCmarauder]

Huh? I thought the new F150 had a fully boxed frame. At least that's what Mike Rowe told me on the commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY_XMemqY18

Key word:

HEAVIER

'05>F-250's and up use a boxed front section with C-channel the rest of the way back. Shackle mounts are rivited.

GM HD's are also C-channel after the front boxed section. The 800 chassis (pre-07) uses rivited mounts. Research shows that 900 (post '07) is just a derivitive of the previous chassis using the same torsion bar suspension and ridiculous low slung frame rail......with the parking brake cable exposed for all to gaze at.

Ernie says the 900 does NOT use the rivited mounts.....I will accept that.


'99-04 Super duties use C-channel the entire length of the frame.

 

[Skandocious]

Well heavier is a relative term. F150s are 'heavier' than rangers and explorers..

 

[DOHCmarauder]

Well heavier is a relative term. F150s are 'heavier' than rangers and explorers..

Sigh.....


The thread is about 1/2 tons.

 

[SuperCab]

I think the Ford is better as far as the chassis and suspension etc.

The one thing I have against the Ford is the weight of the engine.

Take the 400 sbc and the 390 ford.

They had 265 hp each in the low compression stock 2bbl.

The Chev is like 100 or 150 lbs lighter then the Effie!

Why in the world did ford have to make the engines so rediculously heavy?

Now, would I run out and put a telorvehc engine in my ford? no.

would I get a yvehc just 'cause of the engine? no.

But ford could've done better IMHO

 

[DOHCmarauder]

I think the Ford is better as far as the chassis and suspension etc.

The one thing I have against the Ford is the weight of the engine.

Take the 400 sbc and the 390 ford.

They had 265 hp each in the low compression stock 2bbl.

The Chev is like 100 or 150 lbs lighter then the Effie!

Why in the world did ford have to make the engines so rediculously heavy?

Now, would I run out and put a telorvehc engine in my ford? no.

would I get a yvehc just 'cause of the engine? no.

But ford could've done better IMHO

Pretty sure the 390 was all done by '79. (76??)

351M/400's were the F-150 motors.

You're correct, though, that the tall deck Cleveland (335 series)was a tad heavier than the SBC......but power was comprable, if not pitiful, across the board.




[edit] seems the 351M/400 were about the same weight as the SBC.

 

[SuperCab]

Yeah,the fe had seen it's last by 1976 but that wasnt the point i was trying to make.

the ford engines are too heavy.

 

[DOHCmarauder]

Yeah,the fe had seen it's last by 1976 but that wasnt the point i was trying to make.

the ford engines are too heavy.

If you say so:


http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html