Today on Shitbox Showdown, it’s truck versus truck as we look at two beat-up stuff-haulers, and decide which one is the better motorized pack mule. But first let’s see how yesterday’s Chrysler K-cars fared:
The wagon has it, it seems. And it also seems everyone has a K-car story; those little boxes were such a huge part of the American vehicular landscape for so long that it was almost impossible to avoid them. Thanks all for the votes, and the memories!Â
These days, love ’em or hate ’em, Americans drive trucks. They’re everywhere. Ford sells more than 2,000 trucks per day on average alone, and its competitors aren’t far behind. And it seems like the machines get bigger and tougher-looking every year, while growing more soft and luxurious on the inside. Owners love to personalize them with all sorts of heavy-duty bric-a-brac, and increasingly inappropriate wheels and tires, in an attempt to say… well, honestly I’m still not sure what they’re trying to say. “I really love black powdercoating,” maybe, or “I can order from an accessories catalog like nobody’s business.”
But then there are other trucks, and you know them when you see them, that make a different, quieter statement about their owners: “I do stuff. I own furniture that I made. I’ve used a tile saw. I have different hammers for different purposes. I know how to wire a three-way light circuit and calculate board-feet of lumber. Now, if you’ll excuse me, that new half-wall in the living room isn’t going to sheetrock itself…”
Let’s look at two such wonderful workhorses now.
1977 Chevrolet C20 “Camper Special – $2,000
Engine/drivetrain: 350 cubic-inch V8, 3 speed automatic, RWD
Location: Amboy, WA
Odometer reading: 168,0000
Runs/drives? Runs well, according to the seller
Ironically, this truck was not built for work at all. It’s a “Camper Special,” a 3/4 ton truck outfitted and optioned specifically to be used with a slide-in camper. The package added an extra 6″ of bed length over a standard 8 foot bed, a wiring harness for the camper, heavy-duty suspension bits including a thicker front stabilizer and, on this truck anyway, air shocks (which are said to work just fine). It’s powered by the same small-block/Turbo-Hydramatic combination that has provided motivation for everything from sedans to hot rods to box trucks. It’s good, proven stuff.
You also get this sweet “Camper Special” badge:
This truck appears to be doing retirement backwards, however, and now that its campground days are done, it has been put to work, as witnessed by the trash can and bits of greenery in the bed.Â
Cosmetically and creature-comfort wise, it’s less than ideal, with some damage to the interior (sadly not shown in pictures), which has apparently been mistaken by mice for a public toilet. (Though how the seller determined that it’s specifically mouse urine I’m not sure. Were there chemical tests involved?). “Keep in mind this truck is very photogenic,” the seller writes. “Keep your expectations low.”
(As a quick aside, back when I drove my own beat-up Chevy truck to work daily, it was twice the backdrop for an impromptu amateur modeling photography session. I’d look out the window and see some trendily-dressed ingenue leaning against the side of the bed, while a wanna-be Mapplethorpe snapped pictures of her. The second time it happened, I went out and unlocked it for them so they could take photos with the girl at the wheel. “I just love the texture of this thing,” the photographer said. I just smiled.)
Despite the rodent issues, with all the heavy-duty stuff, an apparently clean bill of health mechanically, and that sweet orange and white two-tone job, this looks like an awesome rig to pull up to the lumber yard in. But let’s look at its competition before we make any decisions.
1993 Ford F-150 XL – $2,150
Engine/drivetrain: 300 cubic inch inline 6, 5 speed manual, RWD
Location: Federal Way, WA
Odometer reading: 200,000 miles
Runs/drives? Like a top, if the seller is to be believed
If there is such a thing as a “default pickup truck,” this is it. Ford’s classic F-series, from arguably its best era. Built like a tank and mechanically simple, with Ford’s clever “Twin I-Beam” front suspension and an inline six that is the stuff of legends, this is all the truck you ever really need. By 1993, the six was fuel-injected for improved drivability and slightly better mileage (though it’s still a thirsty beast), and the rest of the truck had been in production so long that pretty much all the bugs were worked out. This one has the Mazda-built five speed manual behind it, which, while it’s no Miata gearbox, is easier to live with than some trucks’ transmissions.
The seller = makes a point of how ugly the truck is, which I suppose is a point of pride for a work truck — that “texture” again. Honestly, it doesn’t look too bad to me. It’s dull and faded, and there’s a painted-over logo on the driver’s door that indicates it used to be part of a fleet. I’ve seen a lot worse. 
Inside it’s all work truck, with a vinyl bench seat, rubber floors, and crank windows, though apparently it does have AC, which is nice to have after a long hot day at a jobsite.
There isn’t a lot of information to go on about its mechanical condition, but these are about as complicated as an anvil, and built just about as strong. At 200k, it’s about half to two-thirds the way through its service life, from what I’ve seen of these trucks. Just treat it right, and it’ll keep doing its thing for years to come, like a good tool should.
So there they are. Two good old honest trucks, in slightly varying flavors. Which one do you want?
In general, I’m not sure you could go wrong with either. Both were built like tanks, are simple to repair, and have great parts availability. No bad choice here. In the case of these two in particular, and based off of the photos, I’d go with the Ford. Rust never sleeps, and it looks like it has attacked the Chevy.
You can vote against the square body, but you’d be wrong. Now, if that Ford were ten years older, from the “platonic ideal of pickup trucks” era, with a 300 and a manual, then yeah. But it ain’t.
2 old workhorses, full of character and a soul that only gets earned through years of wear. I dont know that I could really choose between the two. The Ford is probably more reliable, more economical, and after owning half a dozen of either of these two body styles, the Ford is more satisfying to drive. These 300’s had a beautiful torque curve, and a perfect clutch for either teaching a newbie or just being lazy about operating it. They were insanely abusable, and the shift throws were long, but straight and sure, with the shifter “clicking” into gear in such a satisfying way.
But the chevy is just so damn soulful in it’s own right. Seeing that big square hood ahead of you, the “chishishishishishish” sound of the starter, the SMELL of metal, sun-baked vinyl, and gas that sends the feel good right to your brain when you climb in. You dont get that with many vehicles that can be bought for 2 grand. Plus, being a 2wd, if you want a stickshift, you need about 500 bucks in secondhand parts and a weekend to be rowing your own in this thing.
Tough choice here. I’d probably do the chevy.
This is an excellent comment. That is all.
+2 on the excellent comment (and choice) now I don’t have to make one!
I’m going to have to go for the Chevy. Parts availability is about the same but the heavy duty specs, the looks and the weird bed all make me go for the GM pickup. Plus I think I’d rather work on a carb than a pre-OBD II EFI system if it becomes an issue. And I don’t like a manual in a work truck. So yeah, bowtie all the way.
Having been a long term owner of a 1974 Chevy 3/4 ton I must vote for the Chevy. As to the Ford 300, my Chevy had 378K miles on it when I sold it. I still see it around town doing its thing. FWIW, when I sold it, it still had its original engine, transmission (4 spd) drive line and rear end. I replaced the clutch twice and the brakes three times. About half way through its life I replaced the rusted out 8 ft bed with a 10 1/2 ft flat bed that weighed a short ton. Reduced top speed to 85 while drinking one mpg worth of fuel.
This truck may have been an anomaly but does show what properly maintained machinery is capable of.
Easy vote for the Ford. I have a ’98 F150 XL with near the same specs (single-cab, long-bed, manual everything but has A/C) so while I wouldn’t buy another truck for the time being, I still would pick it from the two.
Both are a good call. It’s a horses for courses decision. Need heavy duty, the Chevy. Need transportation, the Ford.
Will say it’s unusual to see that era on Chevy without completely rusted wheel wells.
I’ll go with the Ford personally.
Also. Not sure of the 8.5 ft bed. I’ve never heard of that before.
What’s better than an 8′ bed? An 8.5′ bed is.
I am not sure that C20 actually has the 8.5 ft box. The package was the Longhorn, and there should be a seam towards the front of the box where they added 6 inches to a regular 8ft box. there should also be some badges for it.
Born & raised in a Chevy family, love the two-tone paint, the extra space in the bed, and of course the 350. All that being said, I voted Ford. Newer, better shape, no mouse piss, apparently less rust, and a stick. If I wanted a project, this Chevy all day and twice on Sunday. If I wanted a use it now tool, this Ford.
GIMME DAT SQUAREBODY!!!1!!11
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
Yeah, knock you over with a feather, right?
If I were single (or willing to get divorced, I guess), I’d take a trip out west, scoop up the Squarebody, rent a Uhaul trailer, and pickup that Skylark while I was out there.
These non-rusty west coast relics are just killing you, aren’t they?
I’m well aware of the Ford 300s reputation for dogged reliability, and the 5sp is an added bonus as well. That said, the Chevy is the easy choice for me. Having owned a series of smallblock-powered trucks in various states of disrepair over the years, I’ve never had a single one fail me. And as readily available as Ford 300 parts may be, GM pickup parts are at least as cheap and plentiful.
Not to mention, the Chevy just looks better. As dull as that orange-and-white enamel may be, it’s nothing an afternoon with a buffer and some compound won’t drastically improve. I think I’d even retain those white wagon wheels! And having remediated mouse piss in a number of decrepit aircooled VW interiors over the years, I’d gut the interior for a thorough scrubbing, and go back in with a freshly repadded and recovered seat. With a little elbow grease, this would easily be a $6-8k truck here on the southwestern plains. More than you’ll ever be able to say for the Ford.
“More than you’ll ever be able to say for the Ford.”
You haven’t been paying attention to prices recently, I think.
These are literally the first two examples that popped up when I put in that year range F150 for my area. There were a couple others that started to drop down in price, but they weren’t as nice as it sounds like you’d make that Chevy
https://tampa.craigslist.org/pnl/cto/d/new-port-richey-1994-f150-ford-classic/7467583725.html
https://tampa.craigslist.org/psc/cto/d/brandon-1995-ford-f150-flareside/7466579740.html
Both are fair offerings…I do like the classic looks better and would it not be up against that purposeful Ford…ratio says F150
“Don’t You Buy No Ugly Truck!”
The Chevy is prettier, but Ford wins the drivetrain by a mile.
It’s also inaccurate to call the 300 thirsty. Late in its run they kept putting shorter gears on it to make it seem quicker. With tall gears it’s a slow, torquey fuel sipper. I had an ’84 with a 4 speed and 2.47 rear end that was rated at 24mpg, and had no trouble hitting it. (Standard EPA rating of 22 for a 4 speed was with a 3.00 rear end, the 2.47 was optional.)
I cannot remember what ratio my 94 with the 300 has, but there must be some truth to what you are saying. It gets 18 mpg on the highway all day long which was a little disappointing, especially with the smaller tank and the issue I have getting it to actually fill all the way up at the pump. Still, I love it anyways.
I’ll vouch for the fuel economy…I had an ’89 with the same drivetrain and usually hovered around 20 mpg with sensible driving. But I also condemn the Mazda E5OD which was prone to slave cylinder (or worse) failure.
Had a 6 cyl, manual F159 of that era. I’ll take the automatic thank you.
That 4.9 inline six is unstoppable. Every exaggerated legend you heard is true. I owned a ’75 F100 Ranger with one. The antifreeze wasn’t up to the task of staying liquid in the -30°F ND winter I drove it in years ago. The antifreeze…well it froze in the block. The engine overheated spectacularly and I had to pull over.
A few days later, I had it towed to my garage where it sat until spring where I expected massive carnage. I was never so excitedly disappointed. Changed the oil and coolant and she ran like a champ after that. Helped me move all my stuff to my new house later that year. A year after that, I changed the head gasket as a reward for outstanding service and preventative maintenance, not necessity.
This is an easy vote.
I worked a a scout camp in the early 2000’s and we had a 1991 green F150 with the 300 straight six. That truck was abused each summer, left in a field for the winter and always started back up in the spring.
One year, we decided to change the oil because nobody working there could remember when it had been done. The sludge that thing was running on was scary. I would buy this in a heartbeat if it were up here in Canada.
I feel like that Spitfire comment was directed at me.
And yes.
I took my ’89 SHO to the brickyard to pick up 500lbs of lanscape retaining wall blocks (75# each), and the yard worker looked at me and said, “Just pull that Tuarus 1/2 Ton around to the back.”
No, I didn’t put it all in the trunk. I put tarps in the back seat. Balanced the load a bit better. It handled the incident quite well.
I once took my 1968 Cutlass to a sporting goods store and bought an air hockey table. With the legs removed, it fit in the trunk without only a foot sticking out.
Am I to take the lack of editor’s notes as an indication that David Tracey is better acquainted with Robert Mapplethorpe than he is Jake and Elwood?
Anyhow I really like the looks of the Chevy, but if I were to purchase a beater work truck (and who am I kidding, I am never going to do that) I would go with Ford.
I was wondering about that too. Or maybe he just gave up.
Straight six, five speed, crank windows, long bed, single cab… I was all set to fly across the country to buy it, but Jet Blue just cancelled my flight.
The Ford. Reliable and parts are easier to find than dirt. Clean inside and(mostly) outside. No mouse urine/chewed wire(hopefully). A decent engine and a manual! No brainer for me
Is it wrong that I voted Chevy before even reading the article?
Hey, you wanna smell like mouse urine, you do you.
Right there with ya.
No. It just means you are a typical American truck buyer, loyal to your brand.
It’s a two tone square body. I’d have to question your sanity if you didn’t have a knee jerk reaction to seeing it.
I’d much rather look at the bowtie truck’s lines, but … 5 speed manual AND an injected inline 6? That’s just so on point purposeful.
The Chevy is so pretty, but one wonders how much of it is rust underneath.
That Ford is going to be running long LONG past when that Chevy has returned to the dirt. I’ve got basically the same vehicle, but nicer condition and automatic, I took it from 156k to 386k and its still taking me to work and back every day, only time it left me stranded was at about 280k when a fuel pump went out while I was traveling cross-country.
Toughest one for me yet.
I went with the Chevrolet, since I already have a daily. Would be a great second vehicle. Sort out the interior, leave the outside and you have a tool and a main street cruiser with a nice patina.
However, if I had to drive and use one of the two daily, it would be the Ford hands down. That truck will continue running after we’re all dead.
Everyone knows the scent of Mouse Piss.
Could just as well be spilled Coors Light.
Around here, we try to avoid it:
https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/illness-and-disease-z/hantavirus