It’s hard to beat the kind of utility a 4×4 like this GMC has to offer. Not only do you have ample space to haul anything from car parts to lumber, but you also have the traction needed to go off road or blow through snow drifts. And don’t forget, your getting all of this in a stylish package! This truck is a little beat up and rough looking, but the exterior is original and it’s said to run and drive. Prior to 1960, GMC was using Napco 4 wheel drive systems, making this the first year that they used their own in house system. You can find this rig here on eBay in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho with a BIN of $10,500.
While it would definitely look better after a complete restoration, this truck does have a cool look to it. Since has some rust in the front fenders and floors, a restoration might be necessary. Given the demand for classic 4x4s, it might just be worth restoring.
I really only have one complaint about this truck, besides the BIN that is. And that’s the engine, which isn’t the original. It started life with a V6, but is now powered by a 350 V8. Now don’t get me wrong, the 350 is a great engine and likely greatly improved this trucks performance, but it isn’t original. And when it comes to top dollar trucks, it’s all about originality. I’ve seen fully restored examples with their original engines go for nearly $30k, so I’m not so sure this one is really worth $10k. I could certainly be wrong, but would love to hear what you think it’s worth!
Great truck, I really like the GMC V6’s but they can be expensive to rebuild…….the V8 conversion probably cost less. The 6’s were some of the last real truck gas engines…..designed, built and only installed in trucks. My dad had them in some 2 ton trucks in one of his companies. Not the best fuel economy but would run for 400,000 miles on the highway.
First thing I would do is swap out that jc whitney looking instrument cluster for the 62-66 style with the tach and clock. Interesting that idiot lights were known as tell-tales back then
GMC’s always used round gauges like that….one of the differences to a Chevy.
given the condition its just a WEE bit overpriced.
It is still 10 times the truck at 1\5th the price of the $50,000 wonder that was on here a week ago. And it even has paint.
The old eye-brow hoods, my favorites of this body style. If I got this it would get the full restoration. It might be a challenge finding a V-6 for it but not impossible. Someone along the line definitely tried to save some money installing the 350. It might go faster but it would lose in a tug-O-war. There used to be a lot of those V-6 motors around even 20 years ago but so many of them got pulled and discarded.
Asking price is a bit lofty. Here’s a little trivia : Up until 1996, GMC’s and Chevrolet’s were built on separate assembly lines with the GMC being the Heavier of the two. In late 1996, they were/are both built on the same line with no difference between the two except for grille, badging, etc. Since 1997, both are essentially the same truck with a $7,000 price difference. Marketing at it’s best, leading the masses to slaughter like cattle following the @ss in front of them being led to the hammer.
V6. I did not know.
They also made a V12 version……..702 cubic inches
The 12 version was awesome. It even had 4 valve covers.
GMC also made a V6 with plaid valve covers. The “Thunder” V12 was a joke. It was a last ditch effort for those who refused to go diesel. It ran hot, and got dismal gas mileage, like 3-4 mpg. Made from 1960- 1965. Try and find one.
http://6066gmcguy.com/engines/Plaid-3.jpg
My IHC semi with a 549 only got that kind of mileage. Those are the reasons for the death of heavy duty gas engines…..that have had a resurgence in the last decade with the proliferation of natural gas engines even in large ships. They are spark ignited too……The USAF had many 701’s in missile transporters that were used into the 90’s with success. There is also a company now that is rebuilding and modifying them for hot rods. Suprislingley, they are not that heavy, make decent power and look really cool in a street rod. They are available on there web site.
Barnfinds deletes my posts when I write like you. Rock on me boy!
I had the Ford version with the correct “wrong bed”. These old 4x4s are very cool and practical if you don’t mind the ride, which is brutal.
Had a friend who had a jimmie just like this one , he pulled a good sized camper trailer ( 26 -28 ft ) all over and in the winter he plowed snow with it ,he had some parking lots and it always got the job done , he swore by that v6 , I also remember some rather large trucks with the GMC logo having a V6 emblem on them !!
Up to 5 ton with the larger version of the V6, the small one was a 305 (I think) the large one was a 351.
They also built a 401 V6, I had that thought while writing but had to look it up to confirm my memory.
The V-6 got as big as 478, and it was available in both gas and diesel (Toro-Flow). In 1966 the General started to unify its truck lines. I started seeing Chevy C-70s and C-80s with 401 and 478 V-6s. It seemed strange to see a Chevy with a V-6 crest on the hood.
The factory 4 wheel drives were pretty rare up until about 1971. Mine is one of 564 short fleet sides built in 1964.
As much as I like the GMC, my internationals were superior. Most had positraction from the factory and there V8’s were also real truck engines. There were also many more options available, everything from Diesel engines to dozens of gear ratios, multiple transmissions. My 68 has a factory 5 speed overdrive, Power steering, power brakes, posi traction, 345V8 and on……
Gotta have an overdrive with that rear end gearing and posi traction would be nice! Now if the IH’s were just as good looking as the GMC’s………..
My 68 1200 has 4.10 gears in addition to the overdrive. Many of my pickups have had 3.73’s whitch are respectable highway gears with a 1-1 transmission. Styling goes to taste. I don’t care for the 69 and newer IHC’s, although I have owned many, but the 61-68 is pleasing to my eye. I don’t care for tall standing trucks and the IHC has a similar stance to the 67-72 GM trucks that I also like. IHC had a huge variety of ratios available allowing them to be taylored to any job. The big 3 manufacturers had fewer options so it is important to know what is in the truck. Particularly when you contemplate adding large tires and that sort of thing. I think GMC had more options than Chevrolet. They have always tried to be a truck manufactured for professionals. I paid 2800.00 for my IHC 2 years ago and drove it 400 miles home from Seattle. It has 40,000 of miles on it, was a one owner truck with a 12,000 winch and a nice shell. The owner used it once a year on a hunting trip until he died. I too think the prices are getting crazy but I am an old guy and the market will go where it will. When I was young, the old guys were saying the same thing.
I’m sorry, I just can’t see justifying the high prices, except for pure unobtanium. Be advised, even with radials, it’s going to pogo stick down the road and wander like a retired person at a flea market. This isn’t your new Silverado. Looking at the firewall, does anybody else see the dual-master cylinder ( I think one side was for the clutch) and the other line is missing? What’s stopping this thing? Pure novelty, these were not that much fun to drive. Granted, this is a good example, but they were designed to bounce through the woods or plow snow, not 6 lane interstates.
Agree with what you said about the way they drive. I dropped a fuel injected 350 from a 87 model into my 64, I’m sure it would do 75-80, but I don’t have the guts to try. At 45-50, it’s bouncing all over the place & demands both hands on the steering wheel. And that’s with new bushings in the springs, new shocks & steering stabilizer. Of course, that also might have something to do with the bias ply Grip Spur tires!
That master cylinder is the old single circuit, possibly the original from the looks of it. I’m not sure why they did an engine swap & didn’t address the brakes. On my 64 above, I split the system & installed a dual circuit master cylinder. No hydraulic clutch on these trucks, all leg power!
As for the price, I may not like it, but that’s what the market is for these trucks. And this one is certainly cheaper than you can find a rougher example (like mine) & restore it. I blame the tv shows & big auction houses that broadcast on tv also for driving the prices crazy.
Contrary to popular belief these older 4x4s weren’t that hard to handle on the highway. They rode rough but as long as everything was in alignment and the wheels and tires were sound you could drive them at highway speeds. You could end up picking your teeth out of the steering wheel. We used 4x4s on the farm for years and we drove them on the highway all the time.
That dual master cylinder is both brake and clutch. GM used it from ’60 to ’62 one both lines of trucks. The decision was made to go to a mechanical clutch linkage at the same time that torsion bar front ends were discontinued.
The long wheelbase trucks were much better riding than the shorties. A heavy suspended SWB could get really ugly on anything but a perfectly smooth road.
I stand corrected on the master cylinder. I have not worked on a 60-62 K model & did not realize that. Thank you geomechs.
Dave Wright I like your truck. Todays manufacturers are missing a market. The IH, “early” Datsun, Toyota, Chevy S10 and Ford Ranger were what farmers contractors wanted. Bench seats, Rubber floor mats NO FRILLS WORK TRUCKS. I miss those type trucks.
My friends 61 GMC jimmy. Been is his family since new. In perfect condition. That v6 was only good for in town driving. Freeway speeds are difficult to obtain.
Just needs higher gears. When my dad couldn’t get the V6’s he bought 350’s that were called “premium” engines. They were 4 bolt main, forged crank engines that were sold as having the best parts and most careful assembly the factory could do. They had a broader torque range than the V6 but less torque. It runs at higher rpm so had more speed running lite but required more shifting when loaded. The quality of a driver was also apparent by the fuel receipts. The 350 had a 4bbl carb and had the potential of getting good mileage but if the driver was into the secondary too much you could really tell. Most of those trucks were 2 tons with 2 speed rear ends, I don’t remember the ratios. With the torque of the V6, it could be driveable with higher gears. If it was designed to pull a big trailer, it would feel limited running lite…..you would be looking for a higher gear that wasn’t there.
No offence but i kinda just like interior and the body. A fuel efficient engine is the kind of thing i would like with a body like that