Good morning! Welcome to another week of questionable automotive decisions. This week, we have a week-long theme, inspired by some of my recent movie viewing: we’re going to look at cars that would make the best rides for a post-apocalyptic wasteland. On Friday, we’ll have a four-way showdown of the winners, and determine the best cheap car for fleeing zombies, or riding to Valhalla all shiny and chrome.
Friday was all about ridiculous excess and unsuitability for the task of daily driving. And I have to say, I didn’t expect the enthusiastic response this one got. I was afraid of featuring such expensive vehicles, no matter how crazy and over-the-top they may be, but you all seemed to love both of them. And damn near equally: the vote is a virtual tie.
As always, I have to consider the circumstances, and where I live now, the roughest terrain around is my gravel driveway, so the Land Rover would be pointless. The Pantera, however, would be fun to open up on some of the straight-as-an-arrow country roads around here, so that’s my choice. Besides, I want to know what that crazy bundle-of-snakes exhaust sounds like.
Now then: I finally saw Furiosa not too long ago, and enjoyed it, though I now understand the complaints about the digital rather than practical effects. But the vehicles were cool, as always. And during a recent snowstorm, my wife and I binge-watched all of the Resident Evil movies – because what else are you gonna do? I had forgotten that the third film, Extinction, is essentially a road movie, with a whole convoy of armored-up vehicles traveling across the desert.
Being the incurable gearhead that I am, naturally I focus on the cars when I watch films. And as we all know, car-casting can make or break a movie. You’ve got a lot of leeway when it comes to post-apocalyptic films like these; folks would probably just be grabbing whatever ran and wasn’t blocked in by debris, so directors can use almost anything and have it be plausible. But the cars they choose aren’t always necessarily what I would choose. Which got me thinking: What if you had time to shop? What would you choose, for such a difficult world? That’s what we aim to find out this week. Here are our first two contenders.
1980 GMC 3500 Sierra – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: 350 cubic inch overhead valve V8, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: West Linn, OR
Odometer reading: 73,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Four-door crew-cab pickups are the norm these days, but back when this truck was built, they were rare. Trucks hadn’t yet invaded the suburbs and displaced sedans and station wagons as family haulers, so the only real reason for a truck to have four doors and an extra row of seats was to haul extra workers to a job site – hence the term “crew cab.” GM’s crew cab was referred to as a “3+3,” indicating its seating capacity: three in the front, and three in the back. This 3+3 is a one-ton dually – what’s known as a “Big Dooley.”
Powering this monster is the tried-and-true Chevy 350 small-block, topped with a four-barrel Quadrajet carburetor. It’s nowhere near the ridiculous levels of power you can get in a truck these days, but it gets the job done, and it’ll run on any “guzzoline” you throw at it. Keep oil in the pan and water in the radiator, and it’ll be happy. It spins that big wide rear axle through a four-speed manual transmission, almost certainly my favorite cast-iron monster of a truck transmission, the Saginaw-Muncie SM465. It runs and drives well; the engine was replaced with a new crate long-block 5,000 miles ago.
The “Rounded Line” trucks (which, ironically, is what the “squarebody” generation of trucks is actually called) didn’t have the level of interior appointments you might expect to see in a modern truck. Flat, wide benches are the order of the day here, both front and rear, along with rubber floors and plenty of exposed painted steel. We only get a couple of tiny photos of the inside, but it looks like it’s in acceptable condition. I pity the person who has to ride in the center seat in front, however; that must be awkward, straddling the gearshift.
It’s a little rusty outside, but nothing terrible, and I don’t see any damage to speak of. The rear fenders in particular look to be in good shape, which is nice; they’re fiberglass, and since they stick out so far, they often fall victim to bollards in parking lots and drive-thrus. Either someone knew what they were doing maneuvering this one around, or they’ve been replaced. The steel ladder rack is a nice touch as well, and could serve as the basis for a lookout platform, or something.
1999 Chevrolet Express 2500 – $4,991
Engine/drivetrain: 4.3-liter overhead valve V6, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Portland, OR
Odometer reading: 137,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Here it is: the automotive equivalent of Methuselah. This van has been in production since 1996, and you can still walk into a Chevy dealership today and drive out in one. There have been a lot of incremental improvements over the years, of course, but the basic bones have remained the same. There has been no reason to change it, because it still does exactly what it’s supposed to do. That’s the thing about General Motors: it takes a lot of big swings and often misses, but when it gets one right, it knocks it out of the park, and keeps it in production forever.
This Express is a light-duty 3/4 ton model, powered by a 4.3 liter V6 engine and a good old 4L60-E automatic transmission. It’s nothing fancy, but you can rebuild it all out of parts found in any junkyard. I’ve seen these vans go for half a million miles, so this one is probably just getting started. Yeah, the V6 won’t exactly throw you back in your seat with its acceleration, especially if you have a load of stuff in it. But it also doesn’t guzzle fuel with the same gluttonous abandon that a V8 would. It’s for sale at a dealer, so we don’t get much information about its history. They do say it has a rebuilt title, but I doubt that matters when you’re trying to outrun a horde of zombies.
In typical cargo van fashion, it’s a blank canvas inside. It has a bulkhead between the two front seats and the rest of the interior, which could be a useful addition. There’s plenty of room to sleep, or install a kitchen, or turn it into a mobile workshop, or whatever you need.
I can see a panel van having certain advantages in certain situations. Fewer windows means fewer pieces of glass for undesirable types to look through or break. And it’s just crying out for some sort of big mural on the side, just in case you want to ride through the apocalypse in style. The chrome wheels and white-letter tires add a touch of cool as well.
Big burly trucks make a lot of sense in a situation where you just have to keep going no matter what. Simple pushrod engines and ox-cart suspensions can put up with a lot of abuse, and the body-on-frame design doesn’t rely on the body for structural integrity. So for the purposes of this thought experiment, they’re ideal. But which form makes the most sense to you – the crew-cab truck, or the big box on wheels?
It’s tough to vote against a two-tone Squarebody, but for the suggested use case, a panel van seems like the way to go. I’ll take the Zombie Express.
I chose the van as it seems logical for me. I’d transform it into my tiny house. I also dig the wheels and tires put third pedal in it and paint it like the mystery machine!
Crewcab for the win, always the crewcab when a choice. Speaking as I grew up with and learned to drive in a ’64 F100 coach-built crewcab. I also have a ’92 F350 longbed dually crewcab, so there’s that.
Seriously,
I was thinking either a 6.0, a 454, or the 8.1 (though I have no clue how reliable the 8.1s are). Either way, 4 grand for that truck… if I had it on me right now I’d go buy it.
I’m thinking a 6.0 would at least have some pretense of fuel efficiency, relative to anything BBC.
That’s actually an excellent point, especially in the scenario Mark gave us.
In the zombie apocalypse scenario only, I’d have the kidnapper van. Lock the doors and sleep in relative safety. Tough to do in a crew cab.
This is the correct answer. Also, much less exposure to being chewed on by those bastards, when you are, once again, looking for a functioning, gas pump (and maybe some Twinkies) at a post-apocalyptic 7 Eleven, because you need to top off those two tanks, AGAIN, on the Dooley…..
The plus side to the van is that you could advertise it as a 2015 and most people wouldn’t know.
However, I have to go with the crew cab dually as it holds a special place in my memory bank.
Back in the mid-80s, I was a labourer for a masonry company. I was the one assigned as the designated driver (not in that way, though on some Fridays…) and was responsible for taking the one ton crew cab work truck home with me every night. Each morning, I’d pick up the bricklayers and other labourers in our crew, then drive to the job site 45 minutes away. There were often 8 or 9 of us in total.
This was no problem in the summer, as some guys would sit in the box. Winter (on the Canadian prairie, no less) posed a different challenge. We’d sometimes have 4 or 5 guys squeezed into the back seat and 4 of us across the bench seat in the front.
In those circumstances, I’d steer and work the clutch and the bricklayer I designated as my copilot would work the shifter. We got shockingly good at it and it’s a memory that has stuck with me for 4 decades.
So I voted GMC.
I was once the designated driver on a construction crew, mostly because I had a valid license. The other guys didn’t like that I wouldn’t let them drink on the way home so, as a compromise, we’d go to the nearest gas station so they could chug a few 22oz for the ride. When I suggested this was a sign of alcoholism one guy said “That’s ridiculous!” and the other just said “Yep.” I liked the second guy better.
Have to go for the dually if not for the only reason of not paying $5k for a $3k at best van. Plus that ck looks like an absolute survivor. Parts are still easy to get and you can fix it with a hand tools. Good deal I’m sure it will be gone soon. Someone from a rusty area is probably on a plane right now to get it.
Well, this was easy: Gotta go GMC, those beasts are just awesome and badass…I’d do whatever the hell was needed to make it work in an apocalyptic world. Plus it’s got a crate engine so it’s good for a while. The van (down by the river) is ok but I prefer the conversion version
I vote for the Dooly. It looks like a splendid base to build my post apocalyptic technical from. And a carbed engine like that friendly old 350 can be made to run on chicken shit brewed methane with not much more than a repurposed biro and some rubber tubing if necessary.
I’m going for the old C/K truck. It’s getting old enough that it’s getting into future classic territory. I would keep it as a weekend/occasional use vehicle for the odd time I have to haul something bulky or heavy. And this vehicle might appreciate in value.
Had to go with the GMC. Reminds me of high school friend we used to cruise around with. His parents breed race horses on the side, so his 1st vehicle was the hand me down late 70s Chevrolet truck, crew cab, long bed, single not dually wheels, 454 w/ low gear in back for pulling the horse trailers. And it was the marigold w/ white color. Ugly!, but you could put a lot of teens in it. It would hold its own from 0-40mph, redlight to redlight. Terrible mileage, but his parents had big coop tank of fuel by the barn. That was before they dyed ‘farm use only’ fuel.
He once ran off the road and took out a row of small trees. No worse for wear, so should hold up again a pack of zombies.
Slight off topic, but are there any million mile+ Squarebodies? With original 350 or 454 V8s?
That would be a good indicator and sign that they can start and run when zombies begin to chase you…
I choose the van as it would be harder for the zombies to break into,and I would install a platform on the roof for exfil and shooting purposes.
… something like a mount for a .50 cal. Zombies begone!
I was going to say white van because someone’s going to have to round up all the children after the apocalypse, but I’m going go with a different take. We already have an apocalypse in our cites as far as the unhoused go. A increasingly common sight is white vans arriving at encampments to bring outreach, food, health services etc. to these communities. In short they bring some hope. So, white van because after the apocalypse, we will all need hope.
Also, why is it that nobody considers the fact that fuel will be impossible to source after the apocalypse? Heck, even a blackout cripples pumps. What will you do with that dually after you have driven it three blocks and the tank is dry?
Well a hand/battery operated pump drop a hose down in any gas station storage tanks active the pump and fill up tanks and any gas cans.
But the Hanks for making the rest of us look bad. JK
Well if I can’t get a Avtoros Shaman ai would prefer a van. Although this is not the van you are looking for young Skytucker. You want the bulkhead but one with a passthrough door. If you are driving and need more ammunition from the back you don’t want to get out among the horde of zombies to go around and then come back to drive. I also prefer the Ford cargo package to this bare bones edition