Heavy Hauler With Style: 1957 Chevrolet LCF 5700

From a styling standpoint, 1957 might be the pinnacle of American design. Just take a look at this big LCF 5700 truck, it features some amazing design work, yet it’s a 2-ton work truck. Most of these ended up as farm trucks, but that didn’t mean they needed to be big ugly boxes! No, Chevrolet gave them the same Task Force looks of the smaller trucks, which themselves were styled with the same elements as the Tri-Five cars. If only American manufacturers could do the same today! If you’ve been on the hunt for a very large, but good looking truck, you can find this one here on eBay in Lansdale, Pennsylvania with a BIN of $4,000.

There’s a surprising amount of interest in this truck, but then again it really shouldn’t come as a surprise that people would want to take a closer look at a handsome truck like this one. The patina is really interesting and makes this the ideal truck for someone wanting to build a truly unique truck. Drop it to the ground, install a bigger engine, mount a stepside bed and you’ll have one eye-catching rig.

The trucks original 283 V8 is still in it, which is said to run. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have brakes, so it isn’t safe to drive. It’s equipped with a 4-speed, no word on its condition, which sends power to a 2-speed rear end. This combo will get you down the road with a heavy load, but a modern 8-speed would handle more power and be much easier to use. Pair something that with a fuel injected V8 and you’d have a capable and comfortable truck!

Honestly, what a great looking truck! The styling is fantastic and this one will look good whether you leave the paint alone or respray it. Getting it safe for use in modern traffic will take some work. Just having better brakes, or just having them in this case, would make it a much better truck to drive. Personally, I’d start with getting the brakes upgraded, tune-up the engine, and install a new interior. I’d probably also install the stakeside bed that the seller has for it, but eventually, I’d want to install a stepside bed. That’s just me, so what would you do with this one?


  1. local_sheriff

    What an über-cool truck; Task Force COE is probably the coolest cab ever! I’m instantly thinking potential car hauler here, who doesn’t need a push car for a project now and then?
    Problem is when the vehicle to haul project cars itself becomes a project. Its frame may be on the light side for push car duties, air suspension / brakes would probably make it a far better experience to drive, but also drag up price.
    Extremely cool truck, would love to see it finished, however if it were mine it’d be a money pit. Best of luck to next owner!

    Like 6
    • Greg S

      My significant other took a look at this awesome truck and said go ahead and buy it…but you will be living out of it.

      Like 5
    • moosie moosie

      I’m pretty sure this truck is a snub nose, “LCF” are “Low Cab Forward” body style and yet more,,,, “COE” is Cab Over Engine, but to me those last two could be either or, another one is “FFC” for “Flat Face Cowl” ? Maybe an old Chevy parts guy can explain it better, I’m suffering from CRS.

      Like 1
      • local_sheriff

        You’re absolutely correct there moosie; I googled these cabs shortly after I wrote my post and found out these are indeed referred to as Low Cab Forward rather than COE; a style which is more like a cross-breed between regular cab and COE.
        An interesting detail I found is that the LCF all came with V8 as standard engine – there simply was no room for a long I-6! As we can see on one of the interior pics, removing the distributor or adjusting points must have posed a true PITA for some owner down the line…

        Like 1
      • Howard A Member

        Actually, on LCF’s and COE’s, there was a panel or “dog house” that could be removed for access to the distributor. You can see the mat is torn here, and you can see the distributor. Some dog house’s came half way into the cab on short conventionals and COE’s.
        I tend to disagree there was no room for the 6. I’ve seen plenty of these with 6 cylinders. 235’s, I think. I bet it outsold the V8 3 to 1. Farmers, who these trucks catered to, were slow to change, and many preferred the 6. They were in no hurry, and a 6 always got them back. I was actually surprised to see a V8 in this.

        Like 1
      • geomechs geomechs Member

        Yeah, I seldom saw these with V8’s. The sixes ruled supreme…

        Like 1
      • Howard A Member

        Wait,,you’re right. After posting, I found, LCF’s WERE only made with V8’s. Never knew that, thanks.

        Like 1
      • geomechs geomechs Member

        I saw these with sixes. One of the trucks my friend butchered was powered by a six. Now, it wouldn’t surprise me if the only six available was a 235 but I’ve seen them with sixes. And I highly doubt that a V8 was pulled and replaced by a six. I know a farmer who also has a ’61 model that is six-cylinder powered…

  2. Wayne

    Josh, capable maybe, comfortable? No way. Ever drive one of these without at least 4,000 pounds on the back? ( and that is the very back, which is not the way you would “safely” load it. It won’t ride well until 6,000 properly loaded pounds are sitting on the frame.
    It is a cool looking truck. LCF back then is not even close to LCF now. ( picture an ISUZU box truck. Now that is an LCF!)

    Like 3
  3. TimM

    I have an Isuzu box truck!!
    Trade you!!!!

  4. Mountainwoodie

    Speaking of the devil…. I took these at the San Diego Big 3 Swap Meet last February..these things are HUGE!

    Like 8
  5. Mountainwoodie

    I mean HUGE

    Like 6
  6. Howard A Member

    It is fun to see something like this, in one piece, but the best and easiest ( and probably the safest) would be plop the cab on a modern chassis. I’m sure Uhaul wrecks several on a daily basis.

    Like 9
  7. AMXBrian

    Yup, destined to be a restomod on a newer chassis.

    Like 1
    • Butchb

      $2000ish for 6 new tires, tubes and flaps plus few tire shops want to fight with that style rim, rusty to boot. New wheel cylinders, master cyl, steel and rubber brake lines… pricey to get it to roll and stop. Better money might be spent dropping the cab on a late model chassis.

      Like 1
  8. geomechs geomechs Member

    I do agree that these cabs are real cool perched on a modern chassis. Personally, I wouldn’t do such a thing; I would go out of my way to fix if up mostly stock and use it as a truck. A flatbed hauler would be great. I’ve got a friend who started to make a crew cab out of two cabs. But the project got stalled halfway and it’s sitting outside in the elements, along with two complete LCF chassis. Now the city is on his back to get the thing out of sight. I might add that our friendship is quite strained.

    Like 8
  9. Russ Johnson

    Memories of my dad’s first farm fuel tankwagon business in Iowa. When I was a young tyke, he had two tank wagons as a Standard Oil agent. One was a 57 Chevy, the other a 58. He ran these through most of the 60s.

  10. local_sheriff

    geomechs; I’m always striving to expand my knowledge of vintage vehicles and I’ve only scratched the surface here. If you have remembrance, or even better pics, of LCF with sixes I’d be happy you post it. I was also surpriced they don’t seem to be offered.
    In a 56 Chevy truck brochure found on GM heritage center the SB v8 is described as ‘regular equipment’ on 5-7-9000 models(LCF). It should also be noted Buick’s 322 Nailhead was optional power plant in the HD series.
    Keep in mind GMCs, though similar, had MANY differences from Chevies both technically and visually.Please see what you can find;would love to see it ! :-)

  11. Patrick

    Definitely cool! I would prob. not mind dropping it on a newer chassis, but I don’t care for the “pick-up truck” scenario. How about a semi type look? I could see some authentic semi type stacks behind the cab. Maybe even a dual axle setup in the rear. No stake rack, but maybe a roll off bed on it. Maybe a fifth wheel trailer arrangement even?? Modern diesel power?? Oh yeah!

    Like 1
  12. treg forsyth

    Upgrade the running gear with a turbo diesel and graft a vintage air stream trailer on the back, awesome motorhome.

    Like 1
  13. Dean Blegen

    t You guys are partially right on the Chevy LCF’s. I’ve got a pristine ’56 5700 with a 265 V-8 in it with a 4-speed Borg-Warner transmission and a GM 2-speed Vacuum rear end. 68 miles per hour is where the engine is running at 4,000 RPM which is where the ’57’s were governed. I’ve got one of these too in a Conventional Cab 6500 ex-fire truck with only 16,000 original miles on it. Both are heavy duty and have a 19,500 GVW rating whereas the standard GVW was 16,000. There was significant Changes between the ’56’s and the 57’s V-8’s. The governor was one of them because the firts V-8’s in teh Chevy Trucks had a bad habit of throwing fan belts because they were so quiet. My Dad had two ’57 6400 series and the 283 V-8’s. Both had two-barrel carburators and were very “hot” trucks compared to anything else onte hraod including treh Fords which had been the kinds of teh road prior to the Chevy 283’s and the really hot ones had the 4-barrel carburators and dual exhausts much like the car “Power Packs”. Most of thise came with tachometers as well. BUT NO 55-59 Chevt LCF ever had a 6-cylinder until 1960 and then Chevy would let you get the “Big Six” which was a 261 Cubic Inch engine which really was a very heavy duty 235 engine which looks exactly the same, but has heavier connecting rods, different Cam and bigger carburetor. It had no governor but was a very good “lugger” and was very popular and was too long for the Chevy LCF. GMC however did have a Big Six in it because it had an extended front clip that opened from the side to service the engine. The GMC V-8’s had a Pontiac Engine in it that was a 326 Cubic Engine. They also had Electric 2-speeds as well and came with a little higher GVW ratings as well.
    I was only 15 when my Dad bought those trucks for his Milk Routes (Cans!) and we also also had large V-Snow Plows on them as well. We lived in Northern Wisconsin where got a lot of snow and I prayed for it every Friday night!

    Like 1
  14. Dean Blegen

    Me again (Dean Blegen), I neglected to say that the GMC’s also had an LCF, although I don’t if they called it that but a “stub” nose (Or some say- “Snub” Nose).
    They shared the same cab as the Chevy LCF’s except for the front fenders and the hood like I mentioned above. About half of those came with the GMC inline six that was about 300 Cubic Inches versus the Chevrolet Big Six that had 261 cubic inches. Both of them by the way, were excellent cold weather starters, unlike other trucks at 40* below zero!

    The outfit from Janesville that delivered Chevrolet’s to the Midwest employed 2-ton Chevy Conventional Cabs pulling 4-cars or trucks per load or about 26,000 lbs. per load tractor included.

    In 1955 when Chevy came out with their new 265 V-8 W.R. Arthur & Co. switched their new trucks over to the new Chevy V-8’s versus the old war horse 261 Big Six.

    That didn’t last long! At 45 miles per hour which is what their drivers were instructed to drive at, the V-8’s were running to fast for low-range in the rear end, and too slow for high range!!
    And they burned way too much gas because of the “mix-match” in their torque range so they took out the V-8’s and replaced them with 261 Sixes! (Just a little sidebar from one of the drivers that I knew from Janesville).
    They didn’t go back to the Chevy V-8’s in their semi’s until Chevy came out with the 327’s in 1962. Not long after that Arthur started tacking on bigger trailers for more than four vehicles and went on to Diesel’s for six and eventually eight cars to a load, They hauled them all the way from Janesville, WI across Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and into Montana before we had the Interstate System! What a grind! Imagine that?

    Like 1

Leave A Comment

RULES: No profanity, politics, or personal attacks.

Become a member to add images to your comments.


Keep me in the conversation via email. Or subscribe without commenting.