1500 heavy half 14 bolt Qs:

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

83GMCK2500

I'm Awesome
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
505
Reaction score
209
Location
Western WA from Eastern WA, aka the wet side from
Okay, I hate to get snobby, but this thread is a little bit ridiculous. Do you know anything about the square body trucks? I would assume you do. You seem like a smart man. The "heavy half" trucks from the 80s, guess what their RPO code was? F44. Guess what it stood for? Heavy duty chassis. There was no RPO code that actually designated a truck a heavy half. That's the exact same as the GMT400s, so if they were heavy halves, so are any GMT400s with the F44 code.

And about your GVWR rules.. You're right, it doesn't make it a class 4 truck. But we've already determined that "heavy halves" don't exist, so anything with a higher GVWR than a 1/2 ton but lower than a 3/4 ton can be called whatever someone wants it to be. By the way, if you registered your truck for 20k GVWR - you'd have to follow all the same rules a class 4 truck does anyways.

Edit: Before someone says it, yes I know the heavy halves had different decals. That was just a marketing thing from GM and didn't even have an RPO code. It was literally an option when you ordered the truck, but you could only order it if you had the F44 RPO and it was included in that package.

If we're picking fly **** out of pepper...the "Heavy Half" was the marketing name for the GMC, "Big 10" is the Chevrolet equivalent, and it was offered in '76***-'80.

*** - The F44 package debuted on halftons in 1975 but neither marketing name was applied until 1976.

Some Big 10 history:

The Big 10 was promoted as a heavy duty two wheel drive half ton for the 1975 through 1980 model years. Although it offered truck buyers somewhat more load carrying ability than the standard C10 half tons, its real advantage- -and the motive behind its conception- -was that it provided buyers with the opportunity to purchase a half ton truck that was unencumbered by the dreaded catalytic converter, which was first introduced to a skeptical American car buying public just in time for the 1975 model year.

For several years prior to that time, all trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings of 6,000 lbs and below were forced to comply with the strict light duty emission standards that also affected passenger cars. The EPA's selection of the 6,000 lb. threshold likely reflected its awareness that that number had become the traditional de facto dividing line between half ton and three quarter ton trucks. And since the vast majority of trucks purchased by consumers were half tons, limiting the emission constraints to them probably seemed to be a reasonable compromise to the government, while avoiding potential protests about cost and implementation by the truck manufacturers- -and their commercial customers- -that might have occurred had the laws been expanded to the heavier vehicles.

Before the advent of the catalytic converter, the distinction between light- and heavy- duty emission controlled trucks was largely ignored by consumers. But the converter's introduction and it's nearly universal application in 1975 light duty emission vehicles changed things dramatically. Unlike the EGR and evaporative canister devices that preceded it, the converter had an exclusive appetite for expensive unleaded fuel which outraged truck buyers- -and especially fleet purchasers- -in a nation that still had access to relatively cheaper leaded fuel.

Recognizing a new marketing opportunity, or necessity, light truck makers made relatively minor spring, tire, and brake modifications to their existing half ton models to push GVWRs just over the 6,000 lb. threshold. Ford lead the way by introducing the heavy half ton F150 as an alternative to their traditional half ton F100, while Chevrolet introduced the F44 Heavy Duty Chassis package as an option for their C10 pickup.

These new-for-1975 models moved into the heavy duty emission classification enjoyed by three quarter ton and heavier rated models. This allowed the F44 equipped C10, later dubbed the Big 10 for market visibility, to comply with government emissions regulations using only a PCV valve, heat stove, and relatively loose controlled combustion system (CCS) tuning. In contrast, the 1975 light duty emission certified standard capacity C10 required a PCV valve, heat stove, stricter controlled combustion system (CCS) tuning, EGR, evaporative canisters, a vacuum activated early fuel evaporation (EFE heat riser) valve, special outside air ducting to the air cleaner, and a catalytic converter. But by 1979 the EPA- -following legislation enacted in California a year earlier- -raised the light duty/heavy duty emission dividing line from 6,000 to 8,500 lbs. GVWR which brought all heavy duty half ton and almost all three quarter ton pickups into the light duty emission fold. Following this legislation, consumer appreciation for the heavy duty half ton concept- -so gelded- -largely faded away.

A look at the chassis component differences that distinguish C10s, Big 10s, and C20s:

What does this have to do with hauling around cement blocks? Well, let's redirect the discussion to some component specifications for standard half ton C10s, heavy duty half ton Big 10s and three quarter ton C20s. Note that the following pertains only to two wheel drive vehicles.

A careful study of the 1975 Chevrolet Light Truck Data Book provides some insight here. Leading into 1975 the regular (i.e. not heavy duty) C10 pickup offered several different GVWR packages. Those ratings were 4,900, 5,300, 5,400, 5,600, and 6,000 lbs. Beyond this, the new F44 Heavy Duty Chassis package provided a 6,200 lb. GVWR. Mid way through the model year, Chevy broadened the F44's choices by adding a 6,050 rating option to the existing 6,200 lb package. This late-availability 6,050 pound option replaced the C10's 6,000 lb. package, which was cancelled.

All seven of these C10/ Big 10 GVWR packages used the same basic frame with a side rail width, depth, and thickness of 2.30", 5.92", and .156" respectively. The frame section modulus was 3.14. Also, all of these packages utilized the GM 12 bolt semi floating axle with a capacity of 3,750 lbs., and used a standard 15"x6" five lug wheel rim. Differences in GVWR were attributable to choices in spring and tire capacities, and brake system components. Some engine and transmission option recommendations/restrictions also accompanied different GVWR offerings.
 

MIHELA

1-5-6-3-4-2-7-8
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
1,367
Reaction score
1,596
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
1/2 tons with option code F44 OR C5Z had the 14SF. And the perch width is the same but the overall width is about an inch wider than with the 10 bolt.
 

DeucesAllin

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
87
Reaction score
11
Location
US
jesus this thread makes my head hurt.

Riddle me this:
Will a GT5/GT4 option code 6 lug semi float from an 89 2wd c2500 be the EXACT width as my 89 2wd 10 bolt???

Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
 

DeucesAllin

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
87
Reaction score
11
Location
US
* i say exact because im fitting 325/50r15 slicks and have the rim B.S. based off the 10 bolt.

Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
 

someotherguy

Truly Awesome
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
10,006
Reaction score
14,710
Location
Houston TX
jesus this thread makes my head hurt.
Mine, too. :mrgreen:

Riddle me this:
Will a GT5/GT4 option code 6 lug semi float from an 89 2wd c2500 be the EXACT width as my 89 2wd 10 bolt???

Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
GT5/GT4 are just gear ratio RPO's so that's not gonna tell you anything, unfortunately. On a SPID label/build list the only axle-related codes will be gear ratio, if it's got the locker, and the brake package (since that will let you know the size of the drums.) Of course RPO C5Z is somewhat useful as it's the 7200lb GVWR RPO.

I wish I still had WMS-to-WMS (wheel mounting surface) measurements that I took forever ago. According to 1Fastbrick in his 14 bolt thread, the "OBS" (GMT400) 9.5" 14 bolt -FROM A 4X4- is 67.5" WMS; the 4X2 should be narrower by a few inches, but sadly, I don't have the specific amount. :(

Totally anecdotal and non-measured at this point, possibly useful or maybe not: when I dropped my '94 C2500"LD" (7200 GVWR) I used the same rule of thumb on tire size/wheel backspacing that I would have on a 10 bolt-equipped truck. I had zero issue running a 295/40/20 out back on a 10" wheel with 6.25" backspace. Don't let the 5 lugs fool you; it's been re-drilled.

You must be registered for see images attach


Richard
 

DeucesAllin

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
87
Reaction score
11
Location
US
Mine, too. :mrgreen:

*smokin*
Sweet ride man.

The lugs dont scare me. and your 20s are a full 2"taller than my 325s...

All else being the same (C1500 2wd) anything +5.50" BS should be good?

If 6.25" works i may be able to keep it 6 lug. But the wheels i want only come in 5.5" bs... they are 5 lug.

Id prefer to keep a truck ralley rear, idc 6 lug or 5. but needs to be -$150 per wheel to make sense.

Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
 

someotherguy

Truly Awesome
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
10,006
Reaction score
14,710
Location
Houston TX
Thanks, yeah that's 6.25 on a 10" wheel in back. I ran it for years with 8.5" wheels with a 5.5" backspace, even when it was an inch or so lower all around, same size tires on rear.

You must be registered for see images attach


Richard
 

DeucesAllin

OBS Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
87
Reaction score
11
Location
US
1/2 tons with option code F44 OR C5Z had the 14SF. And the perch width is the same but the overall width is about an inch wider than with the 10 bolt.
...in what aplicarton?

Sent from my SM-J700P using Tapatalk
 

MIHELA

1-5-6-3-4-2-7-8
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
1,367
Reaction score
1,596
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
4WD is wider than 2WD. Use a 2WD axle on a 2WD truck and a 4WD axle on a 4WD truck and you will be fine.
 
Top