These Chevy Loadmaster trucks are the greatest trucks ever made! Am I biased? Damn straight. How could I not be, when it come to my all-time favorite truck ever (CC here). It’s even in blue, and I am decidedly and unabashedly biased towards that color. Yes, this is the greatest truck ever. And I’ll try to explain my bias. But if you disagree, help yourself, and call me out. It would be a dull and dreary place if you didn’t.
I can’t go into a full-blown Ode to the Loadmaster today (having done it in the CC), but there’s something so powerfully elemental about them that has moved me since I had my first deep immersion to them as a kid in Iowa in the sixties, when they were everywhere; the personification of the truck. They reflect that confidence that so epitomized the era shortly after WW2. Everything GM learned from building some of the greatest trucks of the war are encompassed in that smiling, gentle face. There’s a reason why trucks look so mean and angry today. And there wasn’t in 1949.
When you are the undisputed king of the world, and are looking at a bright and optimistic future, there’s no need for this.
The Loadmaster Chevys appeared in 1949, that watershed year of new products from the Big Three. And I don’t have the statistics handy, but I have to assume they outsold Ford by a healthy margin, never mind Dodge. Well, that’s my biased opinion based on how many there were always still around, whether it was 1960 or today. Yes, there are some F-1 around (CC here), but Dodges are and were always scarce. I could point out a dozen Loadmasters sitting around here in a short drive. OK, that’s hardly objective; but what is?
Built until 1955 1/2, when the handsome new Task Force trucks appeared (maybe my second favorite truck ever), Chevy (along with GMC’s version) must have built a good couple million Loadmasters style trucks. They were everywhere, and their shadow side was of course that they were directly responsible for the decline of the independents, like the Reo, Diamond T, Studebaker and others. GM’s ability to spread development costs over such large volume made it impossible for the small guys to survive. GM couldn’t really stop its war machine, and the fifties were the final rout of the runts.
But everyone likes a winner, and this Chevy certainly is that. It was built during GM’s great golden years of the early-mid fifties, when for the most part their products were highly rational as well as stylish. And well built, too. These trucks were (are, actually) about as indestructible as mass-produced products get. Thick sheet metal; no thin skins here. And durable components that can be relied on for their unwavering constancy. Chevy couldn’t just win the truck wars with fins or gimmicks; these were the real thing.
Of course, the heart of a truck lies under the hood, and here’s the Chevy’s: the venerable Blue Flame six, although I’m not sure that’s what it was being called just then (GM’s Marketing/Naming Dept. was being kept busy). It came in 216 and 235 cubic inch sizes, and a highly-sought long-stroke 261 CID version also joined the Blue Flame party sometime along the way, nearer to the end of the Loadmaster’s run. That’s the one to have!
Here’s the port side of the OHV six, which dates back to 1937. Look, this one has been updated with an alternator too! It’s ready to get back to work, and when it does, it won’t be rushed. These old Chevys have a most pleasant moan under load; well, moan is not exactly the right word. I’ve been struggling to find the right way to express in words how a Chevy six at full chat sounds for decades; but it’s a reassuring sound, like being sung into your ear “we’ll always get there, eventually, and no; I won’t let you down”.
Well, time to get some other real work done. But I’d love to take this Chevy out for spin today, though. It would be nice to hear some of its reassuring thick-skinned self-confidence.
My wife has expressed a surprising interest in this era of trucks to her eyes this Chev/GMC is the best of the lot. Something about the style and it having eyes. While there isn’t room in the garage right now I suspect I’ll have one of these or perhaps a Dodge/Fargo in the not too distant future. I certainly won’t be disappointed – she might on the first drive. I wonder what should go from my fleet – Ford Falcon or Mazda 808 …
Hey it’s Tow Mater! It’s even the right shade of blue and almost as much “patina”.
Haha! +1
Naw; that was a newer Task Master (1955 1/2 on):
Okay Paul, the body of the newer truck looks more like Mater from the sides, but it doesn’t have the grinning grille, and has been doctored to make it look like Mater. This one’s the “real deal” ratty old work truck.
Where my dad worked they had a blue A3 bedford tow truck this Chevs twin
First off, I will freely acknowledge that the ruggedly handsom looks of this truck made it the best looking truck made in the first decade after the war.
But otherwise, you sure are biased. But that’s ok because I am biased too. Here’s my take.
The Blue Flame 6 (1937 is the first year) was a great engine – if you like splash lubrication and burned valves. The benefit of these is that dealers and parts were everywhere, which created kind of a self-perpetuating critical mass that kept these things going for a long, long time.
I am not going to go into a Ford truck defense here, the flathead V8 was not really the greatest truck engine. I have to nominate the old Dodge pickup, or the Studebaker truck that was under the skin of yesterday’s Champ, particularly with the old Commander 6. These engines were more durable and the trucks themselves were no less tough. I have read that during the war, the GMCs spent a lot more time in the motor pools getting repairs while the Dodges and Studebakers were out at work. But Dodge and Studebaker never had the dealer network or market penetration that GMC and Chevrolet could do, particularly in rural areas. Ford had the dealer network, but not the product.
So, General Motors turned out a good (but not the best) product, made them really good looking, and sold them everywhere, causing them to stay around forever because of familiarity and plentiful parts. Isn’t this the history of postwar GM in a nutshell? The funny thing is that just the looks of this truck make me want one. Years ago, my brother in law had one sitting out somewhere around his farm. Wonder if it’s still there – - -
You’re right. I was really just trolling, as usual. But I won’t ban you for calling me out
There’s no doubt that the Chrysler sixes were tops for ruggedness. I’m not as familiar with the Stude big six, but don’t doubt your assessment.
I do have a strong bias in favor of the Chevy six over the Ford Flathead V8, which was a fundamentally flawed design. And correct me if I’m wrong, but the Chevy six did get proper oiling with the 235, no?
Dodge pickups of the fifties were scarcer than hen’s teeth, so maybe it’s kind of a moot point. All of my second-hand experience with the Chevy 235 has been quite positive; I knew folks who had passels of them, and swore by ‘em. But they were biased, undoubtedly.
I’m glad that we can both have some fun with our respective biases.
I think you are right on the 235′s oiling. Something else occurs to me, though. I have never driven any of the trucks of this era. It is entirely possible that the Chevy/GMC was just more pleasant to drive. I know that this was true in the 60s and 70s, so it would not surprise me if it were true in the 40s as well. A guy can forgive a lot of faults in his truck if it doesn’t beat him to death every day.
The harder you work a flathead Ford the faster it boils
Note to the Knockers me included, Ive been reading the 1937 Chevrolet car sales data booklet I have. Chevrolet were very proud of thier oiling system and in the durabilitry chapter expound the “Durability of Efficient oiling” and go on to explain why some of the engine is on full pressure lubrication drip lube low pressure and at idle speeds dippers but at higher engine speeds the rod bearings have oil forced into them by the exclusive pressure stream system. Later I have heard my father defend Chevys oiling system as he said we overhauled an awful lot of Chev 6s and engines were rebored but bottom ends rarely required major work my dad did the books he KNEW what parts went in from the invoices so no matter our predudices on dippers they worked ok in service
I see what you did there!
Out of all of the current trucks out there I’d have to say that the Dodge has the prettiest “face”. Though I’m a bit biased being the owner of a 97 Ram..
I’d say that GM from the 40s through the mid 90s had the most consistantly attractive trucks. If my Cherkee wasn’t sucking my wallet dry right now I’d probably try to find a “driver” project.
I can already picture my Black lab lounging in the bed on the way to the hardware store..
Chevrolet, this was the template GM UK used to build Bedford trucks that flooded our market right thru till the Japanese invasion in the 80s We got Bedford petrol& diesel trucks in all sizes shapes and configurations but underneath theyre a Chevy like the post One major difference Bedford all the way back to 1931 used a pressure fed Crank like GMC this was the big difference GMC and Bedford were considered Heavy duty, Chevy light duty ,those oil dippers held Chevrolet back people didnt trust em I got my heavy truck licence in a 5 ton Bedford that you would recognize Paul it looked like a load master but diesel slow as but it could pull anything just dont be in a rush. At the time our heavy vehicle and trailer tow speed limit was 70kmh so fast was not allowed its only 90kms now but on our roads thats ok we got no freeways we got steep hills instead. I like a lot of Kiwis cut my teeth in a Bedford no power steer no power engine but gobs of torque I used to pedal a TK around Northland 5 speed with Eaton axle yep a monkey on a pole Ive been overtaken by a jogger one morning groaning uphill overloaded you always got there though.
Speaking of bias, I’m glad you’re doing these trucks, so I don’t have to! People keep asking me when I’m going to write about this or that truck on Ate Up With Motor, and my response is, “Uh, never…” I can’t abide trucks, although I might make very grudging exceptions for:
1) The original Range Rover
2) The first Jeep Grand Wagoneer
3) The Jeepster.
THose are not trucks Aaron just pose mobiles trucks have a load bed and work hard and get parked wet
That’s sort of the point.
I always loved trucks as a kid, as much as any vehicle. And I used to drive them. So I can’t stay away. And I might overlap with you on those three choices of yours. Do you mean the original Jeepster, Mk. 2, or both?
If I happen upon a Jeepster (either an original or a sixties Mk. 2) and get pictures of it, I might do one story covering both. Brooks Stevens, etc., etc.
I actually dislike SUVs a lot more than I dislike work trucks, but the historical significance of the Grand Wagoneer and Range Rover (and their impact on the automotive market) is hard to avoid.
Wagoneer 63-84
Grand Wagoneer 84-91
And they are Station Wagons thanks!
If any of these (my original shots) are any use to you, let me know.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cc-1966-and-1971-jeepster-commando-jeep-strikes-out/
A lot of good comments here.
I am not really a fan of these trucks. I have had exposure…in the late 1970s, I worked for a small-town DPW; we had a 1949 and 1951. One was a flatbed; the other rigged with a crude box on the back…we used it as a leaf-sucking truck; had a blow-vac unit welded to the front on frame extenders. Long vacuum chute off the blower…we called the rig “The Pachyderm.”
Point is, BOTH those rigs, although both were under 25 years old…BOTH of them were falling apart. On one, the two-speed axle was stuck in Low. On the other, it wouldn’t start under its own power…had a 6V system; but we jumped it all the time to a 12-volt storage battery; only way to make it crank. Probably the starter windings were burnt out; as well as the voltage regulator and maybe the generator..
But they were clunky, dirty (with interior patina) unattractive inside (that all-purpose silver paint GM was so fond of in trucks and locomotives) and zero fun to operate.
New in our motor pool was a 1974 C-65 dump truck…now THAT was a nice truck. AM-FM, A/C; a bench seat but comfortable. Steering wheel set in a position fit for a human. I think back…that truck would be one-and-a-half times as old now, as those old Chevys were then.
I can’t know, but I think if they still have it, it’s aged better than those early postwar Chevys.
You sure left your rose-colored (or is it patina-colored?) glasses off today! Seriously, yes there is such a thing as progress. I might like to take a spin in an old Loadmaster, but it would probably be a short one. I can’t even imagine driving my ’66 on long trips anymore; all the window seals are gone, and it’s noisy and rattly as hell.
I went back to driving after many years out of trucks my god the progress no more wrestling some gutless dunger up hills plenty of horse power jakes power everything more comfort than any car I like conventional US heavy trucks I was in a Navistar for ages loved it then got put in a new European IVECO and given a bullet run a fast trip home every morning used to drive on the rev limiter on a great twisty road had low light weight trailers 500hp 16 speed auto shift carting parcel post ;little packages in cages out corner cars in that but that is progress for some one who kicked off their career in a TK Bedford
Perhaps it’s the ubiquity, but I’ve never been particularly attracted to any of the old round nose Chevy/GMC trucks. Now that Diamond-T from a couple of days ago… THERE’S one I’d like to have as a workhorse. Problem is, I don’t need a big workhorse right now, I need a small one. I’m hoping I can somehow stumble into a last-generation El Camino, or maybe one of the older truly small utilitarian compact pickups.
I could’a sworn Tow Mater was a Dodge
Which year? This International is also a good candidate. Actually, a better one than the 56 Chevy.
Ah, the Eye-Haych. That same DPW had a 1959 IH ladder truck…not a cherry picker (which they also had, a 1960 International) but a ladder truck.
I remember being struck with how modern the interior was, compared to Fords and Chevys of the era – even more “modern” looking than later IH pickups.. We had a 1966 and 1973; the ’66 had a dashboard that looked like a Stewart-Warner centerfold; or a Checker. Round-generic gauges all…the 1959 had a Bakelite instrument pod that rose up from the dash, looked contemporary.
Anyway, the 1959 IH always fascinated me – probably because of the 1959 IH/Wayne school bus I rode when I was a kid. The quad-light 1960s were more common; and the Loadstars and GMCs were stealing the school-bus show…but the browed, humble 1959 hit me as needing love.
When I saw a pickup that looked JUST LIKE THE FRONT CLIP OF MY BUS, I knew I had to have one. And later…hey, they came in station-wagons, too!
Unfortunately for little first-grade me, my old man was working toward other cars. In a few years, would come the Wagoneer…no 1959 Travelall for me.
I would say……1961 ?
mater only got single lights but the buck teeth are good
Aside from the 67-72 Chevies, these are my all-time favorite. They’ve come to symbolize “truck” almost in a generic sense. They’ve appeared in many music videos and album covers – especially in Country Music.
A recent example: The JaneDear Girls “Wildflower”. Since this one has no vent windows but appears to have a series designation below the Chevrolet lettering on the side of the hood, and lever door handles, I’m going to call it a 1950 assuming a correct restoration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC0IhlquYlI
BTW the blonde is Danelle, the brunette is Susie, and the truck appears for the first time at 0:10.
We can forgive them for the “rusted-out” reference in the first verse.
Guess my bias is showing. Glad I can still say that word here….
What a fun read. Keep ‘em coming Paul. I’m biased in favor of your writing
.
mmmm ? I signed up here months ago, and then kind’a of forgot about it. I’m thinking ,a may stick around for awhile.
Welcome Mikey. A lot of us ex-pats from the other site have taken up residence here!
Now all we need here are occasional pieces about the business of automaking, past and present, and this would be the only auto site I need
.
Hmm; I’ve been thinking all afternoon about expanding our product offering…
Oh no, don’t do that, then EVERYONE will want to join… Historical sketches of the automakers are good, but if you get too current, the discussions will get all political and you’ll have to spend more time moderating the posts. I’m sure you’d rather be outside building a house than moderating posts, Paul.
That’s what she said last night too. Not now, anyway.
BOC, excellent insight.
Probably one of the reasons it’s so much more pleasant here, is that it’s relatively politics-free…part of it is that we’re talking about historical autos; but another part, the REASON we would devolve into political sniping, is that the industry itself has become a function of politics.
And therein lies the danger. From a basic, commonsense question over safety of automobiles, we’ve devolved into an elaborate regulatory structure that decrees size, seats, restraints, fuel mileage…soon, even color.
And none of it at the request or behest of the consumer. And much of it contrary to the buyer’s wishes.
POLITICAL questions are settled on the streets…with harsh words and fisticuffs. CONSUMER questions are, or should be, settled with a purchase order or market survey.
When we confuse the two, we have trouble. Deep trouble.
I would agree with BOC and Just Passin, let’s stay away from the current nonsense from other sites. I enjoy this site, because seeing these old cars is like seeing old friends. When I see my friends, we discuss probably everything else in the world but politics.
I came here because of Paul’s work at TTAC. But if some of TTAC’s characteristics show up here, I may not be long for the door, metaphorically.
I really like this site because it is so low key, and everyone’s opinion seems reasonable, even when Paul jokes about his ‘bias’. I can’t say that introducing that whole can of worms here would do the site any good.
And since my post has now turned into a critique, the addition of a few of the other former posters/now writers to the masthead and complimentary comments from so-called competing website publishers have only enhanced this site.
You may have had a happy accident with the way things turned out, but keep up the good work!
Agreed. I would like to have the time to branch out a bit further, but I’m absolutely not interested in getting into TTAC’s specialty of current automotive affairs and the resultant politics.
Add another vote for staying out of current policies/politics.
TTAC is more about the Auto Industry and Auto Politics these days. While those are worthy topics, there’s very little there about CARS. It’s reached the point where a name change is in order.
Keep doing what you’re doing right now, Paul, it works and I enjoy it very much!
I have some interesting magazines that trace the motor manufacturing industry Ive got non sequential mags fom the 50s-60 The magazine is called Motor industry and they are NOT retail publications theywere a trade mag I salvaged these 30 plus years ago and IVE never seen other copies and Ive looked These are English and dwell on their cars primarily but cover industry advances on all makes model countries road tests etc disasters the lot I have a scanner Paul would you like a look cant think of anyone else who would appreciate the info they contain either you or Aaron or both let me know I grew up around the car industry my dad knew the car game backwards especially GM he worked at a GM dealer from the 40s onwards Vauxhall Bedford Chevrolet & Holden I have a bias it how I was brought up the Rootes dealer lived across the street from us and the Simca dealer over the back fence These mags are from old Tom Orourke the Hillman dealer there were hundreds of them literally 1 every month sinceWW2 He even still had Hillman promotional films going back to the 30s but I missed those anyhow if my scavanging is useable Im sure I can transmit it
Bryce, Thanks for the generous offer. It sounds like the kind of thing I could have spent days holed up with as a kid. Now finding time is a bit more challenging…But what I suggest is maybe for you to pick one or two particularly interesting articles, scan them, and e-mail them to me, and I’ll put them up and see how they fly.
Or I could tech you to do it yourself! You might have to go back to using some punctuation, though
That sounds like a priceless historical resource. It’s unlikely that many of those magazines survived. You might look into finding an Auto museum which would want to add them to their research library.
You are right I have the surviving magazines Ive got a sales data GM salesmans handbook basicly an office in your pocket all set out finance section it covers the 1936and 37 Chevrolet all the tech data every damn thing you could know abouthose two models and the new improvements a walking advertisement its un used my dad kept it from work his 1st car was a 37 Master and Mum learned to drive in a 36 coupe,
Different generation of Chevy truck, but these CCs always remind me of my dad’s ’60 Apache 10 Stepside, black, with the venerable six, three-on-the-tree, bench seat with no belts, no radio, no working speedo, and “2-40″ (two windows open at 40 mph) air conditioning. By any modern measure, an antiquated, uncomfortable, even dangerous (especially for a little kid riding in that all-metal cab) vehicle. God, how I miss it (and so does Dad).
What a wonderful site where even a bias discussion stays nice. My bias is that I love trucks and believe nearly all of the American made full size one’s were pretty decent and each had their pros and cons. I wouldn’t kick one of them out of my garadge but I’ve already got a truck and I’m a one truck (at a time) man.
My bias is Volvos, Porsche 356s, Cadillac Broughams and Town Cars. Love them all! It’s too bad the 2011 Town Car, the Last Great American Sedan, wraps up production in about a month. The last real Lincoln. A Fusion with extra gingerbread is not a Lincoln.
I think that one of the factors behind the ubiquity of these trucks, particularly the pickups, was that they were just so easy to drive. They didn’t steer or shift hard, even the one with a 4-speed granny box I drove once. In the early 50′s we knew one couple in their 60′s and another my parents’ age who used them as personal transportation well ahead of that curve.
I’ll chip in another plug for the old Studebaker truck engine too. My father had a Stude dump truck that had been an army truck – lord knows who all had owned it before we got it in the late 1950′s or early 60′s. It always started, had plenty of power, and never gave us any problem whatsoever – that’s all I really remember about it.
I spotted this one a while ago here in Olympia. It had a fresh load of fire wood and was still earning its keep. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGi9iNXdJn4
Nice! Several still on the road here too.
Saw a very similar truck to this last weekend – a longer wheelbase flatbed, but it had the same hood-slightly-open pose. Sitting in an industrial yard on the side of a highway of a small rural town, it looked like it was not in service but perhaps open to offers.
I photographed one of these trucks several years ago. It looked a little rough, and there was a faded sign on the door from a garage in Georgia (we live in Toronto). It was parked on a side street underneath a “No Parking” sign, and the truck immediately took on a personality for me. I took several photos of it, including one I titled “Old Soldier”. I figured that any old truck that was still running could park anywhere it damned well pleased. Over the years, I saw it driving around with a coat of gray primer, but the same license plate wired to the grille. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s still on the road and still earning its keep. Great trucks.