Destroyed, or beautified GMT400?

[delta_p]

definitely destroyed it.

 

[454cid]

Like already said, if it had a stepside bed, or better yet, an old stepside bed, it would help some, but I don't think it would make it "good looking"

Reminds me of the Studebaker/S10 kit you could buy, back in the day. Except the S10 version looks a little better. https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/0602st-1939-studebaker-truck-kit/

That looks pretty good. I don't remember it, but I do remember another one that was for the S10 chassis that was a little funky looking, but I think got pretty good reviews.

I wish I could find something for my 69 Electra...... GM C body, but that's masically wishing for the moon. I don't think anything is made for the B-body, or even the Ford Panther (Crown Vic).

 

[Hipster]

Another thing that stands out BIG TIME is the mismatch in wheel openings. The soft-squared GMT400 bed wheel opening vs. completely round front fender opening are glaring mismatches, impossible to ignore.

As 454 mentioned, the cab/bed body line mismatch is almost surely rusted cab mounts.

The grille work is very poorly executed and amateurish, as is the front "bumper" area. Can't see any hood line so I'll assume it's a tilt front end, which explains why we don't see any pictures straight on from the sides, or hard angle from the front, because tilt front ends rarely fit well/look good at the lower fender area where they depart.

It's a junk pile I would be hard-pressed to pay part-out prices for, because nothing on the body has any value to me.

Richard

The grill surround looks like chrome stick-on bodyside molding to me. I you can't figure out a clean way to mount the hood or clean looking hardware make a finish panel or cover. The grill surround and headlight trim rings are the only brightwork on this thing.

Art has been mentioned and I literally fell into sculpting bondo from sculpting clay. In art you commonly use the rule of 3 whether it's colors/patterns, styling, design cues or all of the above. You aim for the same elements in 3 places sometimes more. With colors 3 is usually max. Most people deem it more aesthetically pleasing as it creates balance and uniformity and you see it in multiple industries from interior design, commercial signage and company logos, certain types of architecture, countless other things where aesthetics are important, and still prevalent in current automotive styling trends.

This truck, all 4 fenders swoopy, this way you have a swoopy hood, fenders, and part of the roof line(3), But it's still screaming for some swoopy on the back like a swoopy roll pan with a faux bright finish panel that matches the one that was put on the front to add uniformity.(+1 swoopy) How about Cadillac lights with the chrome bezels and a bright strip down the side even if it's at rocker level. Bright work front, rear, and sides(4) Will it solve it all, no, but it would look more "together". Your now looking at swoopy, some hard angularity, and some bright work on every side. If you want monochromatic with just black trim then stick to that.

The first time I saw one one of these 40's style front end grafts/hoods it was circa mid 70's and it was on a Vw Bug. I thought it was hideous and have seen multiple iterations on multiple different vehicles since. This kind of stuff, for me, kind of falls into the same category as the Excalibers and the other Duesenberg look a likes built on Caddy Biarritz, Cougars, and T-birds that were around for a while. An amalgamation of body styles that are just different enough that the end result, no matter how well it's pulled off you just can't get there from here. The end result is not one or the other.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there may people out there that dig this. Just not me. It still looks like gmt400 but it's having a delusional identity crisis. lol

 

[someotherguy]

I'm the guy that even thinks the GMT400 stepside bed transplanted onto a 60-66 or 67-72 truck looks awful, so I'm pretty damn picky about the mix-and-match. But some people really love that swap.

Richard

 

[618 Syndicate]

Not a fan. At all.

 

[Erik the Awful]

And I'm surprised. I figured more folks would approve than disapprove. I was wrong.

So... we have a better sense of style than you expected?

The faux grill is ill proportioned and poorly executed. It needs a front bumper. The cab mounts need to be repaired. The wheel arches don't match. The back end of the hood looks too wide, but exaggerating the hood crease would probably help. The tailgate needs something, even if it's just a *****-stamp pinstripe job. It also needs a rear bumper instead of a roll pan.

 

[Hipster]

I'm the guy that even thinks the GMT400 stepside bed transplanted onto a 60-66 or 67-72 truck looks awful, so I'm pretty damn picky about the mix-and-match. But some people really love that swap.

Richard

Yeah, have quite a few of those too on 67-72's. Not my thing either.

 

[LVJJJ]

Missed the mark, shoulda used an HHR front end to give it that '50's vibe. The '40's Ford vibe is not good on a Chevy

 

[ThreeD]

As ugly as that is, it is still miles better than that ‘squatted’ SH*T!

 

[Erik the Awful]

My wife and I took a vacation to South Carolina last week, and leaving the airport we saw a "Carolina squat" pulling away from the intersection. I had to explain to my wife why I was snickering.