Welcome to your mid-week Shitbox Showdown! Today we have two vehicles with manual transmissions, built for different purposes, but both no-frills workhorses. We’ll look at them in a second, after we tally yesterday’s score:
Interesting; based on the comments I was expecting the Chevy to win. And speaking of the comments, man, you guys are a tough crowd. I post two project cars; they’re too scary. I post two good cheap commuters like these; they’re too boring. I post anything at all; they’re too expensive. (Can’t do much about that last one.)
Today, because I didn’t have anything already in mind, I tried something a bit different: I pulled up the big Craigslist site map, closed my eyes, clicked on two cities at random, and from each chose the first cheap stickshift vehicle that looked interesting and ran well. As luck would have it, we got a one-ton flatbed truck and a work van. No comfy or quiet rides today, I’m afraid. Let’s check them out.
1973 GMC C3500 flatbed – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 350 cubic inch overhead valve V8, three-speed manual, RWD
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Odometer reading: 123,000 miles (or could be unknown; does it matter with a truck this age?)
Runs/drives? “Real good”
Old stickshift trucks are a favorite among Autopian writers, from Jason’s infamous “Marshal” Ford F-150, to David’s honeymoon-wrecking Jeep J10, to my own ex-Forest Service Chevy K1500. But those are all standard consumer-grade half-ton pickups. What we’re looking at today is completely different, even though it may look the same. This is a one-ton dually, probably sold as a cab and chassis originally, now sporting a stake-side flatbed. The orange color and the lights on the roof make me suspect it was once a Highway Department truck.
Powering this old brute is a tried-and-true Chevy small-block 350, backed by a three-speed manual transmission. There’s a good chance its transmission may have a “granny” low gear as well, like my truck does – the fabled Saginaw-Muncie SM465, which is technically a four-speed, but the gears are labeled L, 1, 2, and 3. The seller says it runs and drives great, and clarifies that “its [sic] a work truck.” You don’t say. I mean, you could do a grocery store run in it, and it would be hilarious to pull up to a valet parking stand at a fancy restaurant in this; the look on the valet’s face would be priceless.
It’s in good shape for the price; the desert air has been kind to it and kept it from rusting too badly, though the orange paint is probably beyond any efforts at polishing. You’d want to check out the underside carefully; this truck is built extra-beefy, but you have no way of knowing how it has been treated over the past fifty years.
This truck is overkill for most people’s around-the-house needs, and it’ll rattle the fillings out of your teeth if you drive it around empty, but if you need to haul big heavy stuff around regularly, there’s nothing better. It’s cheap, it’s tough, it’s a stickshift, and it’s orange. What more could you ask?
1986 Dodge Mini Ram Van – $2,400
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Baldwin, WI
Odometer reading: 68,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
If you’re after something a little less heavy-duty, and perhaps with some covered cargo space, allow me to present the 1986 Dodge Mini Ram Van. This is a first-generation Dodge Caravan, minus the rear windows and every stitch of interior aft of the front seats. Built for tradespeople, these little vans were popular with plumbers and electricians and anyone else whose job typically involved carrying around a lot of small stuff.
This one is powered by Chrysler’s 2.2 liter K-car engine, driving the front wheels through a five-speed manual. If you’ve never driven one of these, I can tell you it’s awkward – the gearshift is a standard K-car unit, and the top of the knob is barely as high as the seat bolsters – but surprisingly fun. A carbureted 2.2 is nobody’s idea of a high-performance engine, but compared to other small vans of the era, these handle pretty well, ar least. This one runs and drives fine, and shows 68,000 miles on the odometer, though it could have rolled over.
Also note the “Fuel Pacer” light in the spot where the PRNDL would be on an automatic Caravan. I’m assuming this is an upshift-indicator light, to tell you when to shift for best fuel economy. I’m not a fan of these; at best they’re irritating, and at worst they confuse drivers who don’t know what they’re really for. I once had to convince a friend that she didn’t have to shift her Pontiac Sunbird right when the upshift light came on; she complained about the car having no power, when it kept telling her to upshift at 2000 RPM.
This van is refreshingly rust-free for a western Wisconsin vehicle, which lends credence to the low indicated mileage. We don’t get any good views of the cab area, but the cargo area looks nicely seasoned with dings and scrapes. It has done some work over the years, but it looks ready to do plenty more.
Obviously, it’s hard to draw a direct comparison between these two, because of their wildly different layouts and capacities. So factor in your own use-case for them: you need a utilitarian vehicle to do… something. Which one of these suits your purposes better?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
The cool thing about a stake side is that you can put whatever bed sides on that you want. You’re just a Lowe’s trip away from a 20 foot stack of hay bales.
Work truck. Make those idiots in triple lifted F150s look like the insecure posers they are trying desperately not to be.
the issue with this one is the location dictated a 2wd truck. while I grew up on Iowa farms with little more than 2wd D100’s for sliding around, the 3 speed and lack of front axles makes the poser F150’s somewhat more useful as long as the cheap Rough country lift blocks stay in place I suppose.
Tough choice here. Always dug those Gmc/Chevy trucks, but I can use the van more effectively. Van for me. Good little Stealth Camper.
If I get a cheap truck, I can justify getting a boat. I live only a few miles from a boat launch so fuel economy is not an issue. One terrible decision leads to another.
Ram Van all day. Better fuel economy, the little engine isn’t great but also not bad, and your load is secure and dry. Besides, it’s a perfect starter for a little stealth camper.
I expected the truck to lead the scoreboard, but guess maybe that bed is too open for most. I was going van anyway. I appreciate the double Dodge badging in front on this one, thought the hood one looks like it might have been a later addition as it looks a bit more italicized like later Dodge logos.
The upshift lights supposedly netted an extra point on the EPA ratings, which kind of explains their ubiquity in some domestic vehicles of the time.
I’ll take the Dodge, though it is a bit van-illa.
Hmmm, both have interesting potential. I went with the RamVan as a base for a shagadelic custom conversion. How hard is it to find a 2.2L turbo for an engine swap?
However, with the GMC, you could buy one of those DIY wood garden sheds from Home Depot and build a mobile tiny home on that bed.
or even just take the axles off a popup and bolt it tot he flat bed is cheap glamping is the goal.
Since most of my carrying is dump runs and the like, the truck wins. I could also scour boneyards for a bed and replace the flat bed to make it bit more usable.
The Van is good option for items you want enclosed or as a first business vehicle.
The orange truck for me. The 350 and that 3 (4) speed tranny were the same combo as my dad’s ’76 Chevy 3/4 ton. Pretty well unkillable. Tons of useful things you can do with that flatbed, and it’ll tow like a beast as long as you keep the engine properly tuned. Or you could drop in an aftermarket throttle-body injection system to make it a bit more reliable and dial up the power some.
meh, at this point the thing to do would be to just LS swap the old girl. swap the 3 speed with a SM465 and make sure the axle had no more than 3.08 gears. the trans has 6.? to 1 granny low, so you can at least go 65 with the 3.08 gears and the ring gear gets thicker the lower numerically you go on gears. Maybe even go into the 2’s on the rear gears to kind of reverse engineer an OD situation.
They’re both great choices, but I can’t say no to an orange Squarebody.
Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I genuinely like both of these vehicles. I will take the truck, though. I love ’70s pickups and the flatbed makes it stand out from the classic trucks you usually see. I would do some body work, reupholster the seat, and add some custom wheels. It could be a very cool vehicle.
Also, my old truck (’77 F250) isn’t quite as ridiculous as the flatbed, but I did valet park it at a fancy restaurant few years ago. At the time, my truck had no exhaust (both exhaust pipes previously rusted off), a random unlabeled lever sticking out of the floor to operate the transmission (the column shifter was just for show), and a a hidden switch to start it (the key was also just for show). The truck also wouldn’t idle, so you had to keep your foot slightly on the gas at all times to avoid stalling. I thought they would refuse to take a vehicle like that, but they didn’t act like it was particularly out of the ordinary. Maybe valets would be unfazed by this flatbed as well?
Van with a stick is an easy choice for me.
The only big concern is that it’s spent decades in a land of harsh winters and salted roads.
I went with the orange truck; it seemed to have a Sanford and Son vibe to it.
The van is probably a better choice for me, but man I keep thinking of all crappy Craigslist cars I could tow home with that truck. Which is the last thing I need, so picking the van to save my marriage.
That Ram has to be hilarious to drive. A Shadow with the 2.2 was dog slow, I can’t imagine it in a Caravan.
Big Orange for me. Sure it’s impractical but it’s in great shape for its age, much sturdier and simpler to work on than the Dodgey van, and it’s got strong nostalgia power for someone my age.
I’ll spend my Internet money on the Van. It’s more versatile and has better gas mileage
Dodge mini van for the win. Low miles, clean and a friggin’ 5 speed manual.
These are a blast, dirt simple to maintain and work on, and even do pretty good on gas, (for 1986). Even with the od at a possible 150K miles, this still makes me want it big time. These are some serious fun and versatile work trucks.
Oh hell yeah! Gimme that big orange slice! Truck on!
For my purposes, the van makes way more sense, but…big orange truck!
Big truck! Big truck!
Big truck Big Truck!
I’ll take the flexibility of the van over the truck’s brute hauling power. You may not be carrying a couple pallets of bricks with the van, but you can carry more delicate things out of the elements without rattling them to pieces.
Yes, delicate things like fillings in molar teeth!
I don’t know. Give that little Ram I suppose.
That GMC is just too beefy for my current needs, and I’ve bin bounced around enuf for one lifetime. That tiny van has potential though: busking transport, kayaks, plywood, air mattress, and plenny of room for a mural or two.
Ram Hard Live Free
That Mini Ram Van, mmm…I think I just found my budget overlanding build foundation.
Both are… rough, but I have to go for the Van almost entirely based off being 13 years newer and at least a bit more modern. They’re both awful even in this current car market, but at least the van should be OK on gas, and bearable to drive and park around town
The blue van has all the space of the truck but it’s actually enclosed. Plus, a 4-cylinder engine and 5-speed manual means better gas mileage too, even without listening to the shift light.
We need more 4-cylinder vans.
Also, the Squarebody annoys me a little, running for so long when the much cooler-looking gen before it only lasted 5 years. The generation before and the one after the Squarebody are much cooler IMO. 73 was the first year of the SB, and the trucks lasted through 87, while the SUV’s continued for 4 more years!
And I remember the early years of SquareBody rusting if a wet sneeze blew in their direction.
I’m a ’67-’72 man. If N//A ,’60-’66 a la John Steinbeck “Travels with Charley.”