Cheyenne W/T upgrade ideas

[HotWheelsBurban]

I didn't like the 400's when they first came out. I felt they were a sell out of what a real truck was.... narrower, IFS, rounded and more car like. A truck was a Sqaurebody or 67-72, to me. The 400's were what really propelled the 2wd custom truck craze. I'm not sure they really helped the 4x4s as much as that was already pretty big with the older trucks.

Ironically, I've never owned a Sqaurebody or a 67-72, only my 99 400 (and a 81 LUV, and 89 Comanche). My dad did get a 90 GMC 400, and then a 96 Chevy, bith 1/2 tons. The GMC was pretty basic, but I don't recall the trim level.... it wasn't a W/T, but did have the H6054 glass headlights.

Probably a Sierra then. GMC used to be Sierra, Sierra Grande, Sierra Classic. Like Chevy, Cheyenne, Scottsdale and Silverado.
Now they're all Sierra and Silverado with alphabet soup to differentiate the 7 or 8 trim levels. And they look like Transformers.....

 

[1997]

WT was techically the option. Bare bones so dealers could advertise low prices to real the customers in. The old bait and switch.
Cheyenne was the low end, option away, that inclued the grille etc. no power windows, no front bumper with the trim, thou, AC, side trim, power locks, different power trains, yes, at least in CDN.

having a 67 4x4, i can say the GMT400 was like driving a Cadillac, way more leg room etc, when they 1st came out, didn't take long for the "straight axels" to change teams

 

[454cid]

Probably a Sierra then. GMC used to be Sierra, Sierra Grande, Sierra Classic. Like Chevy, Cheyenne, Scottsdale and Silverado.
Now they're all Sierra and Silverado with alphabet soup to differentiate the 7 or 8 trim levels. And they look like Transformers.....

Taking a quick look at a brochure from 90, I think it was an SL.

 

[frito-bandito]

My first experience with GMT400s was when my grandpa bought a 88 ECLB C1500 (with the gaudy graphics) back around 93 or 94. Then of course, GMT400s were the new trucks offered when I hit driving age, I was hooked then, but didn’t buy my first one in 2001 (1994 SCLB)

 

[HotWheelsBurban]

Taking a quick look at a brochure from 90, I think it was an SL.

Yes I remember now, SL, SLX, and SLE. Soup can open sooner than I thought!

 

[TechNova]

WT was techically the option. Bare bones so dealers could advertise low prices to real the customers in. The old bait and switch.

Or because the bulk of truck sales were to farmers and businesses that did not want the "extra things to go wrong". No rear seats were needed because you didn't run the family farm with a crew. 2wd trucks were garden trucks owned by the florist and not taken seriously. The 400 series created or maybe answered the demand for trucks by people that didn't need them for work. We were told in body school in the early 80's that full frame vehicles would go away. I think the 400 series reversed that by being a vehicle the regular person would drive daily.

 

[454cid]

Or because the bulk of truck sales were to farmers and businesses that did not want the "extra things to go wrong". No rear seats were needed because you didn't run the family farm with a crew. 2wd trucks were garden trucks owned by the florist and not taken seriously. The 400 series created or maybe answered the demand for trucks by people that didn't need them for work. We were told in body school in the early 80's that full frame vehicles would go away. I think the 400 series reversed that by being a vehicle the regular person would drive daily.

I was just reading something on this the other day. Trucks aren't suited for unibody construction. They won't carry the load without flexing enough to start cracking. SUV's can get away with it because of the box shape, but truck beds are open. Even the Avalanche needed sail panels while being body on frame because of the one piece body. The Jeep Comanche was a unibody, but I expect that it was possible because a truck it's size would not be expected or rated to carry the weight a fullsize truck is.

I disagree that 2wd trucks were not taken seriously. There are a lot of 2wd trucks used for work out there.

 

[df2x4]

I disagree that 2wd trucks were not taken seriously. There are a lot of 2wd trucks used for work out there.

X2. My dad ordered my red truck ('97 C1500 single cab long bed, 4.3L, 3.42 gears) for work/DD. He runs a residential construction company. He didn't need power or towing capacity, just the ability to throw whatever he wanted in the bed and get decent gas mileage. He also wanted power everything because he was tired of leaning over to roll the passenger window up. Cloth bucket seats with a console and vinyl floors.

Granted that's probably not the most common scenario. According to CompNine's VIN lookup that truck is a 1 of 1 and based on what I've seen over the years I believe it.

 

[TechNova]

I was just reading something on this the other day. Trucks aren't suited for unibody construction. They won't carry the load without flexing enough to start cracking. SUV's can get away with it because of the box shape, but truck beds are open. Even the Avalanche needed sail panels while being body on frame because of the one piece body. The Jeep Comanche was a unibody, but I expect that it was possible because a truck it's size would not be expected or rated to carry the weight a fullsize truck is.

I disagree that 2wd trucks were not taken seriously. There are a lot of 2wd trucks used for work out there.

Not here, they were useless in the winter for a business that had to be able to go. We saw very few until the 400's made a truck a choice for the average family.

 

[509 Squats]

Its not a single lights setup but I'm very pleased with my custom grille and headlight combo

You must be registered for see images attach