These shots by Jon O’Grady posted at the Cohort are terrific: the two long-running COE (Cab Over Engine) tilt cab trucks from Ford and Chevy, side by side and in the same livery. The near-immortal Ford C-series is the more common of the two, having been built for a whopping 33 years, from 1957 through 1990. We’ve paid tribute to it here, as well as several other posts. The Chevy tilt cab was obviously a response to the Ford, arriving three years later, in 1960. And although it was reasonably popular, it never achieved the overwhelming success of the Ford. Why exactly, I can’t say, as Chevy trucks were very dominant up to this time. The Chevy tilt cab lasted through the 1970s.
COE trucks had been a staple for decades, offering more payload space for a given wheelbase. But White redefined that genre in 1949 with its new 3000 series tilt cab COE, which placed the cab much further forward for even better space utilization. And the tilting cab gave unparalleled access to the engine and other mechanical components. The White 3000 was hugely popular, and used in a wide range of applications from local delivery to over-the-road transport with a sleeper cab attached. Its influence cannot be overstated. International followed suit, and then Ford plunged in, with its boxy C series in 1957.
Like the White 3000, the Ford found itself adapted to a very wide range of applications, but was perhaps most dominant in urban settings for curbside garbage hauling, utility service, and other fleet applications, along with beverage delivery and so many other roles where its tighter turning radius was advantageous.
Chevrolet had the time to improve on the C-Series, at least in its styling. In typical GM style, it was more sophisticated than the Tonka-truck boxy Ford. And that applied to its independent front suspension too, which was the big new thing on 1960 Chevy and GMC trucks. That turned out to be a costly mistake, as higher maintenance costs and other issues. By 1963, solid axles were back, but that detour may well have cost Chevrolet (and GMC) a substantial chunk of their market share, and likely contributed to the tilt-cab’s weak start that it never quite overcame.
Like the Ford, the Chevy came with a wide range of engines, starting with the 250 and 292 sixes and small block V8s for the lower end. The big block V8s (348, 366, 427) were next, as well as the HD GMC V6s, in 401 and 478 CID versions. Diesels came with either the more expensive 4-53 or 6-32 DD two-strokes, or the unfortunate Toro-Flow 4 cycle diesels, related to the GMC gas V6 engines. There might have been others too. A zoom in on the Chevy shows a 427 badge on its side; in truck tune it was rated at 260 hp. As a kid, it was kind of a big deal to see one of these with the 427 badge, given the status that engine had in the late ’60s. And it sounded mighty good at full chat.
The Ford also came with a variety of six and V8 gas engines, as well as Cat, DD, Cummins and other diesels. Given its 33 year lifespan, the engines covered numerous generations of engine families. Here’s a comment about C Series engine left at a previous post by Bob B.:
Some of the early ones had ‘truck’ versions Ford of Lincoln and Ford Y-blocks before the common ‘FT’ (truck version of the FE) V-8’s. Super Duty V-8’s were offered in the heavy 800 and 900 models, and various Ford 6’s in the 500-600 versions. As for diesels, a few used the British Dagenham 6 cylinder in the 60’s but the Caterpillar small V-8’s (1100 and later 3208) were the most common I saw. I never saw a Cummins V-6 or V-8 in one, but I believe they were yet another option. A few had Detroit 6V-53’s. Starting in the late 70’s, the FT’s were replaced by the Lima 370 and 429, the Super Duty V-8’s were dropped, and the Detroit 8.2L added. 1986 was the last year the C was built with a gasoline engine (my company bought one of the last ones) and from that point on it was 3208 Cat or 8.2L Detroit only. The end came in 1990 when neither of those engines could meet emissions regulations. Due to the design of the cab floor, the truck could not accommodate any of the then-new Cummins or Caterpillar turbocharged aftercooled in-line 6 diesels.
Both of these cabs were also offered in raised versions; a true tall over-the-road Ford, and a slightly raised Chevy/GMC, as they also had their own big COE trucks for that role. Here’s your chance to own a matching set. They’re sporting BC plates, but no exact location was given.
Jon O’Grady got quite the score with this sighting. In the North American truck world, it’s hard to get any more competitive than seeing these two beside each other.
Both of these old trucks look like they are ready for many more years of service.
what Cummins engines did the Ford offer? I’ve only seen ones with 3208 Cats and the miserable 8.2 Detroit.
555 Cummins
Cab over engine designs are extinct in north america now while theyre still the standard in europe. Why is that?
I’m not the expert on all the details, but for long haul use the short answer is Federal deregulation of length restrictions. Conventional (“long nose”) are more aerodynamic (fuel economy) and cheaper to service.
Also long nose big rigs are much better for the roads, as their weight is distributed over the whole lenghts of the truck, which means that road surface will last longer. European 40 ton cabover rigs are reason why many bridges in Europe have to be replaced after 30 years.
Regardless of tractor design, axle weights are regulated by law. Every tractor design allows the maximum legal payload weight on the drive axles, and puts the rest of the tractor weight on the front axles. US 40 ton regulations allow a combined 34K lbs on the tandem trailer axles and combined 34K lbs on the tandem tractor drive axles. Thus, both conventional and cabover tractors are manufactured and adjusted to put about 12K lbs on the front axles regardless of wheelbase or cab design. The only difference is whether the 12K weight is 13ft or 16ft from the 34K weight. Either way, the 12K weight is so far from the 34K weight that the forces are carried through separate load paths.
Europeans replace bridges because they aren’t idiots who think bridges last forever. Americans think bridges and sewers were put there a long time ago by a mystical force and therefore are timeless.
No thats where 8 wheelers come into play twin steer trucks are kinder to the roads with better weight distribution
Overall length restrictions in Europe (especially for big rigs), plus the advantage of a shorter turning radius/better maneuverability for the cabover, especially with a set-back front axle (shorter overall length & shorter wheelbase at a given truck bed length), which also leads to another weight distribution, as more weight rests on the front axle.
It’s all about length restrictions, which are much more severe in Europe. And they used to be here too, especially on the Eastern half of the country. The West Coast was always more liberal with lengths, hence the popularity of the conventional tractors out here, which then spread eastwards.
Here’s a CC article on the subject: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-coe-semi-tractor/
You’ve also got better visibility at junctions with COE forward control and delivery this side of the pond involves a greater proportion of town driving.
Thanks for all the replies. It explains alot. I always saw rhe advantage of COE but never fully knew rhe drawbacks. Now it makes sense. Thx
In the u.k, you may have to drive through towns first built in medieval times- length restrictions are strict. You can have a conventional bonneted truck if you like, but it needs to have a correspondingly shorter trailer (like a bulk tipper or tanker) to stay within the overall length limit. I did drive a bonneted Scania artic in the late ‘90s, it was ok with the shorter trailer but it did illustrate some of the shortcomings of the extra length tractor. European cabovers tend to have air spring cabs, ride quality is as good as anything else.
Quite right, Owen.
If you insist, you can still have a bonneted Scania (https://www.vlastuin-truckopbouw.nl/en/scania-torpedo/) or Iveco (https://www.strator.nl/home-en), but not from the factory. These are conversions, done by specialists. But as you say, they can only be combined with a short (semi-)trailer.
The only factory nose-job in Europe is the Mercedes-Benz Zetros. But that’s a king-size Unimog, not a highway-tractor.
You cannot see a damn thing from the cab of a US conventional truck there is a blind spot across the entire front of them due to the engine hood never mind intersections they are really bad just driving along a straight road the only advantage used to be a nice ride because you sit between the axles not on top of the steerers, That is no longer the case and European cabovers are far more comfortable to drive than any US built truck there is NO noise or vibration that you get in something like a Kenworth that noise is fatigue inducing and distracting While a two stroke DD might sound cool being driven hard as it goes past its bloody awful after four or five hours of it roaring in your ears, having driven both types extensively on very poor roads I prefer cabovers and given a choice European cabovers for the comfort levels a Cadillac cant come close to.
interesting view point. however much of your information is off. a Mann cant compare in quality to the American peterbuilt which still brings 45k us at auction with over a million miles on it. And a 2 stroke Detroit hasn’t been manufactured in 30 years. European trucks are under built, underpowered, and designed to retire at 750k miles. Idk about your whole visibility thing, if you cant drive a conventional without hitting stuff, you aint much of a driver. cabovers are more maneuverable and allow for more freight with less length, on those points I agree.
The owner of Allmetal (scrap yard) in Seattle has quite few of the old Fords kicking around, I’ve been watching them for years.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5517392,-122.3194345,3a,37.5y,294.58h,87.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMPtEpWFTvPpnPams3EQZIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
He has an old Loadstar cabover hiding in there. You can see it if you move down the street to the corner and look behind the C cabs.
I never knew these had IFS like the pickups. I had always wondered why the Fords were so much more popular, and I bet that gave Ford a head start that GM could never recover from. I’ve always liked the C Series but you gotta admit that it is homely compared to the GM.
Only for three years (1960-1962), as did all GM trucks. Even the biggest over-the-road GMC “crackerbox”. It was a dead end, at least at the time.
I cant think of anything other than Tatra that has independant suspension in the heavy truck line now days full air suspension is common but IFS nope.
Volvo offers IFS on the FH, see below. Other than Tatra and Volvo, I can’t think of any other heavy truck with IFS.
Very nice and welcome, an article like this. Both Ford and GM (through Bedford) did very well here in the sixties and seventies with their tilt-cab chassis in this weight-segment, respectively with the Ford D-series and the Bedford TK-series.
That White 3000 ad did ring a bell. I got this 1993 book on the shelf, “De historie van de Amerikaanse truck” by author Niels Jansen.
I took a picture of a picture from said book, showing a White 3000 at the 1950 BedrijfsautoRai in Amsterdam, a big biyearly exhibition for commercial vehicles.
The truck was owned by the Bols distillery, also from Amsterdam. Bols was a loyal White customer, with a business-relation going back to 1920.
On the White’s bumper it says “Elken dag een glaasje!”, a nip every day…
In the book it also says this White 3000 was the first chassis that rolled off the Cleveland line.
Picture was too large, here it is:
Going further back in history, from the same book, an American White ad from the forties, featuring a Bols truck:
There’s a 1920 photo in the ad above, referring to the long lasting White-Bols relation. This photo:
Bedford cabs didnt tilt the TK series was a lifty off for major engine repairs the D series Fords tilted which gave them an advantage for servicing but the Bedfords of the 60s had flaps that lifted behind the doors for engine access. TKs did have a good ride for such a basic truck I began in one of those no pwr steer no power under the cab hill climbing was slow
Thanks Bryce, mixing up a cabover with a tilt cab there. Was the TK-cab not tiltable throughout its entire lifespan? As Bernard points out below, it was built for a very long time.
They pretty much faded away here, once the seventies were over.
Our last gasp of Bedfords was a badge to help sell Japanese Isuzus they called them Isuzu Bedfords briefly in the 80s then the brand sank from view, yes the TK cab in all variations didnt tilt you could drop the front axle and lower the engine out that way most places lifted the cab off and pulled it out the top at one stage when I was driving one for Anchor Farm products every town had a GM deal;ler and all of them had one of our trucks with the engine out spare trucks for Northland were sent from Auckland where they ran around the city at low speed short haul we did long trips lots of steep climbs over loads and we killed them one after the other, our maintenance bill looked awful, Aucklands looked great we were repairing their trucks, devious bastards. That was in 82 my truck was a 81 model 300 cube petrol 6 mpg average the diesels could manage 8mpg 330 cube six.
I remember these being everywhere growing up in the 70’s and 80’s. The Ford more than the Chevy, but I remember both for sure. Seems like I recall more of the pickup cab medium duty Chevys.
The ’67-72s were relatively short-lived compared to the ’73 models which lasted until 1990 with only one tiny external appearance change (the side emblems, in 1980). There was one exception; the flat-cowl chassis kept the 1967 look until the early/mid ’80s. Given that 90% of those are school buses and most of the rest are armored trucks, you think there’d be some buyer resistance to looking like they were carrying people’s kids or money around in an “old” truck.
Were these trucks designed by the same person? I remember I had a diecast GMC version of this truck when I was a child, and I currently have a C600 stake bed in my model kit collection.
According to the CC on the Ford C Series linked to in this article, the cabs were designed by Ford but build by Budd, who sold them to other OEMs with Ford’s permission. I’m a bit surprised Ford would give permission for Budd to sell them to their rival GM, but it looks like that’s what happened. The windows and wheel arches look identical.
Windows and arches are not the same, granted, very similar. I’m familiar with both cabs and would say confidently that they don’t share any common lineage. For an obvious difference look at the lower outside corner of windshields – Ford-C has gentle radius, GM L/T/W is almost square.
The Chevy and GMC ‘Steel Tilts’ as they were known actually lasted until 1980, but were only offered in gasoline engined medium duty models after the mid-70’s:
http://www.2040-parts.com/1980-chevy-tilt-cab-truck-brochure-chevy-tilt-cab-i1627390/
The GM tilt cabs were replaced by a range of Isuzu sourced medium duty tilt cabs, still offered today by Chevy commercial truck dealers:
https://www.gmfleet.com/trucks/chevrolet-low-cab-forward-trucks
Going back the ‘classic’ models, I’ll say the Chevy was better for one reason- the manual transmission shift linkage protruded through the cab floor and came up between and behind the seats, connected directly to the transmission. When the cab was tilted it stayed in place. The Ford C had a Rube Goldberg shift linkage comprising of a collection of shafts and U-joints. Though the shift lever was in the conventional location on the floor ahead of the seat, it was prone to long loose throws and constantly needing adjustment. Had a lot of zerk fittings too. I distinctly remember slugging the steel dash of Ford C series trucks trying to find 1st.. The C series with an Allison automatic was a fine truck by all accounts and much and less painful!
I agree completely. The Fords were a bear to shift and the GM’s were slick as a button.
The last C-Series Ford I drove was thankfully, an automatic with the 3208 Cat.
I’ll second Bob’s “Rube Goldberg” assessment of the Ford shift linkage. What a
maintenance headache. To boot, there were many versions of the linkage.
But… whatever points GM gained for the all-in-one fixed control pod, they lost with their power-steering arrangement.
There was something “problemish” about the GM Steel-Tilt’s hydraulic clutch arrangement too, but right now I don’t recall exactly what.
I seem to remember the clutch master was under the dash mounted vertically, hard to fill and bleed but I don’t remember it being a problem otherwise.
Some of GM’s Saginaw truck power steering systems were a bit over-engineered. I remember the systems on some of the short-nose conventionals had a lot of moving parts and potential leak points. But, they felt nice and light and had excellent turning radiuses.
The fourth image, showing the “Sears and Roebuck” green tractor-trailer…
For those not familiar, the red “straddle tank” bridged the frame with about a 10″ structural fuel-holding “tunnel” over the frame, and there was another identical fuel tank on the driver’s side, all supported by the tunnel.
Even that much gasoline capacity wasn’t enough to keep a
GMC V6 (let alone V12) satisfied all day. They were THIRSTY.
Ooos – I meant to comment on artists’ license to clean up details such as the unsightly, unfinished looking lower door hinge, but got side-tracked by the fuel tank.
Interesting to see that both have spilt screens – presumably a bit of cost saving by both.
And in Ford’s case, very vulnerable indicators to support spares business.
I can see a definite resemblance to the European Ford D series and Bedford TK.
Both long-lived, but in this case the GM/Bedford lasted much longer(1959 to at least 1992, perhaps as late as1998) than the Ford (1965 to 1981).
Incidentally, Bedford could easily qualify as another GM deadly sin.
In 1981, the Ford D-series was replaced by the Cargo.
Look, still fresh and modern (the truck I mean). It aged really well after 40 years. The same applies to the contemporary Granada Mk2.
That being said, the Cargo never caught on in the US the way the GM-Isuzu tilt cabs did. Ford went from owning the market to GM owning the market.
Five years after the introduction of the Cargo, Iveco took over Ford’s European truck division. So essentially, they’ve owned nothing here either from that moment onwards (besides the Transit range, of course).
Note there’s a Ford plant in Turkey, Ford Otosan, that builds heavy trucks and tractors for that market and the surrounding regions.
Bedford is a brand CC has barely touched on Roger very common in New Zealand thats what we had in all sizes for 50 years or so, someone should do a history on the brand.
Was there a Dodge equivalent?
Maybe the Dodge L Series. It served the same medium duty market.
Sort of. Dodge cobbled the “control room” of their small A-van into the cab of a medium/heavy tilt cab.
CC here,
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-sighting-dodge-l700-tilt-cab-the-big-boy-a100/
Dodge rebadged Commers were common here after Chrysler bought Rootes but I guess they duidnt hit the US market.
I had some experience with one of those C Fords years ago. In the summer of 1967 I worked for the Gulf Oil jobber in Vincennes, Indiana. During that time Gulf Oil shipped a Ford C fuel tanker truck for use at the University airport. We had to flush out the tank and all the lines, then change all the filters so that we could fill it with avgas. I got to drive it a little. The view from the cab was great. I had driven trucks since I had gotten my license, but this cabover was a whole different experience. I can still remember what the cab interior smelled like and the sound of the V8 gas engine. Ironically, my boss’ truck that I also drove sometimes was an Econoline pickup.
I don’t recall ever seeing a matching set of these before.
I recently learned that Autocar is building a cabover truck for specialty applications. One of their plants is not terribly far from me in Hagerstown, Indiana.
Is that still the same old White Xpeditor cab?
If so, it must be the new longevity champ!
I worked for GM Truck and Coach Division fro 1978 to 1987. The cabovers were really a pile of junk. We used to refer to the shifter to a stick in a bowl of rocks. Wiggle it around and see what gear you could find. The Isuzu’s were a huge improvement, quality parts, quality built. The Isuzu’s did have a few problems to get sorted out, but a huge improvement over the GMC/Chevy/Ford tilt cabs. Cab overs did not ride as well as a conventional. work comp cases caused some fleets to quit purchasing them. I had to drive a concrete pumper a couple of times and that was a prime example of a rolling workers comp case. It had an air ride seat. I am 5′ 9″ and I was either hitting my head on the roof or crashing into the floor. Either way my neck and back were getting hammered. Found the solution was let all the air out of the seat and cinch the seat belts and seat restraint belts down as tight as you could stand and just ride withe the beast. This was a twin steer five axle rig. What a beast.
Both those trucks for sale in BC have Tembec stickers on the side. Tembec is a pulp and paper company. A quick google says they have three mills in BC, in Cranbrook, Parson, and Canal Flats. They recently sold a mill in Skookumchuck, so it could be there, too.
Just in case anyone need to buy one. Or two. 🙂
your information is wrong. the chevy tilt cab series was built into the 80’s it did not end in 73 like your article claims. Ive got one that a 75 , but ive seen them as new as 1980
I’ve come to realize that since writing that. I will amend the text.
49.502192,-115.792864 the trucks are located here, just across from the Fiorentino Bros yard in Cranbrook for anybody wondering