Go looking online for information about the GMC version of the Advance Design trucks and you’ll come up with very little. For the Chevy you’ll find more than one list of year-over-year changes, but nothing remotely like it for the GMC. I found one source that talked about the GMCs separately, and it claims that GMC called these trucks “New Design.” Nobody cares; everybody lumps the GMCs and the Chevys under the Advance Design banner today.
But the two trucks do share a great deal. Grilles and badging are the primary visual differences. I did find out that GMC used the four-bar grille from 1949 through the end of the model’s run; previously, the grille had three bars. And in 1954, just like the Chevy, these trucks got a single-piece windshield. I assume that GMC, like Chevy, switched from turn-down to push-button door handles in 1952. Et voilà, this truck is from 1952 or 1953.
Unlike Chevy, which badged each Advance Design truck with its series number, GMC leaves series identification as a frustrating exercise for the discoverer. To the CC Commentariat: do you recognize any signs that help narrow that down for us all? At least I photographed this truck (on film!) in a beautiful setting, a historic neighborhood on Meridian Street in the Near Southside of Indianapolis.
The full floating axle and the 8 lug wheels would indicate to me that this is one of the heavier 3/4 or 1 ton units (whatever GMC called them at that time).
Those were really, really good looking trucks.
I’ll second that. I prefer Dodge’s technology from those years, but these are among the prettiest pickups of all time.
Just what about “Dodge’s technology from those years” do you prefer? Flat heads vs. ohv? Other than that, I’d be hard pressed to know what differences there was in the technologies of pickups from this era.
The GMC ohv six had an absolutely sterling reputation, having more than proved itself in millions of 6×6 trucks in WW2, and it was a popular basis for some very powerful hot rods. As much as I respect the flathead Chrysler sixes, I’ll take a Jimmy six any day.
Plus as you said, they look so much better. 🙂
Not to mention a 4 speed Hydra-Matic became a GMC option in 1953.
The rugged reputation of the Dodge drivetrain (compared to Chevy, not sure about GMC) combined with its better maneuverability and more responsive steering due to the setback front axle. Not necessarily better, just a personal preference based only on reading and on talking with a couple of old farmers in my youth. Those flatheads were said to be nearly indestructible under hard use. I was under the impression that the Dodge’s brakes were also more effective, though they were all awful by today’s standards. None of this was groundbreaking or anything, it just had a reputation for working well back in the day in our neck of the woods.
The few people I knew back in the day who had used Advanced Look Chevys didn’t have much good to say about them and were surprised that I was attracted to them. Of course, they were using them at 20+ years of age, so they may have just been wishing for something newer and faster. One guy in particular tried really hard to get me to pay more attention to 1960s Ford pickups instead. That was what he had replaced his old Chevy with. He was a hot rodder and Model A collector, but couldn’t find any beauty in those trucks after having lived with one for a few years.
As they say, YMMV.
Is it just me, or the bed is ludicrously small & narrow for a truck of this size ?
Of course I understand, it is all about the compromise between bed dimensions, loading height, etc.
But I still find the idea of having separate fenders on a pickup truck quite… wasteful. Don’t find it especially attractive either, more like crude and completely dissonant with the cab, both proportions and styling wise.
Probably the owners just didn’t need more space ?
IMO, the Japanese came up with a much better solution at the same time
http://myautoworld.com/nissan/cars/history/history-trucks/No.226__Datsun_Truck.jpg
It’s all relative … the GMC’s bed is massive compared to an American pickup truck from the 1920’s. And while it’s narrow, it’s still longer than the 5’ or 1.5 meter beds so common on double cab Japanese or Chinese pickups throughout the world.
Actually the bed on a Model A wasn’t much smaller than the typical 6.5′ 1/2 ton beds in the 50s and 60s. This pickup is a 3/4 tonner with an 8′ bed, which was a lot less common back then than the 1/2 ton with the short bed.
If height was a problem these typically had holes in the edges of the box for mounting wooden members for supporting some side extensions. Or there was the stake bed (like below) if you wanted a wide, flat load floor. You could then build your own enclosure, whether with slats or with solid sides.
This is just how American pickup trucks developed from the days of the Ford Model T in the 20s. The modern wide box did not appear until the mid 50s.
And how big is that Datsun truck?
It’s kind of like asking “why didn’t they use overhead cam engines?” The answer is because they weren’t used widespread yet. The fleetside bed debuted in 58, and almost immediately sent this style bed with separate fenders into a smaller specialty niche.
But there are benefits, there are no wheel tubs to interfere with your loads and having separate fenders allowed the use of runningboards(hence *step*side) which allows easier access to the front of the bed as opposed to fleetsides.
No it’s not, given that it’s a pickup. American pickups, like American cars, were never about maximizing their space utilization, since if one needed a bigger truck, one bough a…bigger truck, with a flatbed.
In Europe and Japan, where vehicles cost more and were smaller to start with, small truck beds were designed to be more space efficient. That Japanese Datusn is a much smaller truck to start with.
The reason these step-side beds were so common for so long is two reasons: it allowed the floor of the bed to be relatively low, unlike the typical small trucks in Europe, whose beds usually were flat but above the tops of the wheels. And the floor had no obstructions, from the wheel wells intruding. Which means one could slide in lumber, barrels, crates, etc, all the way from back to front.
The truth is that the later wide beds didn’t have all that much more practical cargo space, since the areas just in front and behind the wheel well is actually pretty short. You can load in some small loose items, but that space is useless for hauling most larger items.
It suited Americans just fine. The wider beds really only came along as a stylistic thing, and many buyers kept buying the stepside beds for decades yet.
Keep in mid that pickups are not used commercially for hauling really. There’s much larger van body trucks and flatbeds for that.
Of course, these ’50s trucks were certainly used for commercial hauling. And the low load floor was part of both the purpose and name of a “pick-up truck”; it was meant to be loaded and unloaded from street level (curbside, to turn a phrase) without a loading dock.
And it didn’t really have much less floor length x width in a given wheelbase and tonnage bracket than a panel van of the same era.
I meant to say “not used exclusively for commercial use”.
No Stanislav, it’s not just you. The low bed sides in particular look funny.
Here in Australia these GMC and Chevrolet trucks (along with their Ford, Dodge and International counterparts) were all sold with a much deeper-sided bed, which in some cases was integral with the cab in true Aussie ute fashion. Here’s a pic of a ‘Holden-bodied ’40 GMC ute. Even when the bed was separate, the bed sides would be level with the window sills, for greater carrying capacity.
Let me guess: they were high because sheep were a common cargo?
The low sides make loading easier. It just depends what one is hauling.
I think maybe kangaroos? They would jump out….
Dodge and Ford used taller bedsides on their stepsides, GMC and Chevy were kind of outliers with the low ones. But like Paul said, all around access for loading and unloading is excellent.
Aside from what everyone else has already said, it bears mentioning that GM’s long bed of the time wasn’t a full 8′, but somewhere around 7.25′. The ’55+ trucks upped it to 7.5′, and it stayed there even though the new full-width ’58 Fleetside/Wideside bed was 8′. The Stepside/Fenderside didn’t become a full 8′ until the first-gen C/K Series in 1960. Similarly, Dodge’s Utiline (narrow) bed was 7.5′ even after the 8′ Sweptline was introduced in 1958, and didn’t become 8′ until 1965.
What GM did do before everyone else was make a long bed 1/2-ton (the 3200 model between the short bed 3100 and the 3/4 ton 3600). To the best of my knowledge, Ford didn’t have a long bed F-1(00) until 1953, and Dodge not until ’54.
I have been messing with old Jag’s since the 1960’s and have seen too many Jag’s with a Chevy engine. I’d like to have one of these with a Jag 4.2 6cyl, with a fuel injection head, but dual carbs. Back it up with a 350 TH.
Didn’t Dick O’Kane have a story about a Jaguar mechanic who put the OHC Jaguar 6 + Moss gearbox in his American pickup truck? The engine ran a lot cooler with an adequate radiator & the Moss box shifted fine with a longer gear lever.
I know the “Sanford and Son” truck was a Ford, but every time I look at this faded red early 1950s pickup I hear the theme song in my head.
Wonderfully intact truck. All the bezels and rubber moldings are present and smooth, only a little rust on edges. Indy is a rusty place, so this truck must have been stored for a good long time, or perhaps kept on a farm and used only seasonally.
This looks to be in GREAT shape for being 65-66 years old!
So very alike:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bedford_light_truck_mid_1950s.JPG
Bedfords were what we got but wellsides were rare a dropside flat deck was usually fitted by buyers, good trucks the 214 cube moters were just a full pressure Chevrolet (Maple Leaf) clone and run forever.
Very advanced, they even had push button start.
You know, it really doesn’t matter who built those early 1950s trucks, GM, Ford or Dodge, it’s the timeless design that almost everyone associates with the phrase “pickup truck”!
Although I prefer the design details of the Chevy to the GMC, I’ll take this one, too!
In addition to the timeless design of the “Advanced Design” Chevy and GMC pickups, these workhorses are hard to kill. During the summer months in WNY, I see one of these at least once a week or so. Many of them have been restored to perfection or rodded, but a number of them resemble the condition of the vehicle shown in this CC. I can’t say the same about either Ford or Dodge pickups of the era. I rarely see an old “Bonus Built” F1, not to mention the old Dodge trucks, which are about as common as Bugatti Royales in my part of the country.
One of the guys in town has a 56 Dodge. He swapped in a 318 as the original flathead was beyond repair. I’m not sure about the trans other than it is a manual. It’s a neat truck.
The biggest advantage of the GMC truck was its 261 CID six cylinder engine, as apposed the Chevrolet splash oiler. A Paul mentioned, this engine powered millions of World War 2 era vehicles and earned a reputation of being very strong. It was so strong that it was used in Canadian Pontiac models right up to 1963 or thereabouts.
Now someone needs to do an article about the Canadian Military Programme trucks, CMP.
The GMC didn’t use the Chevy 261 six or any Chevy six; they had their own unique GMC big six, which back then came in 248 and 270 sizes, there was also a 302. That’s the engine used in all of those GMC 6×6 trucks.
Did Canadian GMC pickups use the Chevy six? Maybe.
They used the 261. We never got the V-6’s either.
And for this reason, I, as well as a few other Canadians, assumed the 261 was a GMC motor.
I like this generation…but once I watched Bridges of Madison County with Clint Eastwood in the ’61 model, Advanced Design/New Design was dead to me.
In regard to alternatives to the standard pickup bed, all of the big 3 offered a factory flatbed, with the option of factory (removable) sideboards and tailgate. These were metal framed, wood floored bodies with sideboards made up of steel stakes with wood slats, in sections which hooked together with special hardware where they joined. The tailgate was made up of two similar panels, removable separately to access the cargo. One problem with this set-up was that the headboard often ended up leaning against the back of the cab if the first sideboard panel wasn’t left in place on each side to stabilize the headboard. Ford’s flatbed/rack body was especially nice in that it had the Ford script pressed into the rear crossmember. Some of these also had the sills under the body set up so the spare tire could slide underneath the floor above the actual truck frame. Alternatively, the space between the sills and above the truck frame was sometimes used to store a couple of planks to use as loading ramps. My first “paying” job at the age of about twelve was driving a 1951 Chevy 3/4 ton truck with a factory rack body, sideboards removed, in the hayfields of a local farmer while he walked along loading small square bales. My presence made it so he didn’t have to climb in and out of the cab for every bale or two. He was very tall and the truck cab was not generously sized for someone of his height, so I covered a lot of ground for a few summers, mostly in first (creeper) gear. Trucks were made for work back then, as these factory flatbeds (and the cab and chassis versions of all these trucks, too) testify.
I have a 1949 gmc and I want to do a brake conversion kit on my front end and also a suspension update, since it’s a gmc will it need different things from an advanced body design? I’ve been told a few front clips can work, like a mustang ii front end, a gbody front end, and I even saw one on Instagram that was bagged and had a 78 camaro front end, I have like no idea what to even do to do for the conversions, does anybody know anything about it? I don’t want to buy the wrong parts and waste money on it. If you can message me on Instagram @crayon_eater_69_420