Welcome to your mid-week Shitbox Showdown! Today we have two vehicles with manual transmissions, built for different purposes, but both no-frills workhorses. We’ll look at them in a second, after we tally yesterday’s score:
Interesting; based on the comments I was expecting the Chevy to win. And speaking of the comments, man, you guys are a tough crowd. I post two project cars; they’re too scary. I post two good cheap commuters like these; they’re too boring. I post anything at all; they’re too expensive. (Can’t do much about that last one.)
Today, because I didn’t have anything already in mind, I tried something a bit different: I pulled up the big Craigslist site map, closed my eyes, clicked on two cities at random, and from each chose the first cheap stickshift vehicle that looked interesting and ran well. As luck would have it, we got a one-ton flatbed truck and a work van. No comfy or quiet rides today, I’m afraid. Let’s check them out.
1973 GMC C3500 flatbed – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 350 cubic inch overhead valve V8, three-speed manual, RWD
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Odometer reading: 123,000 miles (or could be unknown; does it matter with a truck this age?)
Runs/drives? “Real good”
Old stickshift trucks are a favorite among Autopian writers, from Jason’s infamous “Marshal” Ford F-150, to David’s honeymoon-wrecking Jeep J10, to my own ex-Forest Service Chevy K1500. But those are all standard consumer-grade half-ton pickups. What we’re looking at today is completely different, even though it may look the same. This is a one-ton dually, probably sold as a cab and chassis originally, now sporting a stake-side flatbed. The orange color and the lights on the roof make me suspect it was once a Highway Department truck.
Powering this old brute is a tried-and-true Chevy small-block 350, backed by a three-speed manual transmission. There’s a good chance its transmission may have a “granny” low gear as well, like my truck does – the fabled Saginaw-Muncie SM465, which is technically a four-speed, but the gears are labeled L, 1, 2, and 3. The seller says it runs and drives great, and clarifies that “its [sic] a work truck.” You don’t say. I mean, you could do a grocery store run in it, and it would be hilarious to pull up to a valet parking stand at a fancy restaurant in this; the look on the valet’s face would be priceless.
It’s in good shape for the price; the desert air has been kind to it and kept it from rusting too badly, though the orange paint is probably beyond any efforts at polishing. You’d want to check out the underside carefully; this truck is built extra-beefy, but you have no way of knowing how it has been treated over the past fifty years.
This truck is overkill for most people’s around-the-house needs, and it’ll rattle the fillings out of your teeth if you drive it around empty, but if you need to haul big heavy stuff around regularly, there’s nothing better. It’s cheap, it’s tough, it’s a stickshift, and it’s orange. What more could you ask?
1986 Dodge Mini Ram Van – $2,400
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Baldwin, WI
Odometer reading: 68,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep
If you’re after something a little less heavy-duty, and perhaps with some covered cargo space, allow me to present the 1986 Dodge Mini Ram Van. This is a first-generation Dodge Caravan, minus the rear windows and every stitch of interior aft of the front seats. Built for tradespeople, these little vans were popular with plumbers and electricians and anyone else whose job typically involved carrying around a lot of small stuff.
This one is powered by Chrysler’s 2.2 liter K-car engine, driving the front wheels through a five-speed manual. If you’ve never driven one of these, I can tell you it’s awkward – the gearshift is a standard K-car unit, and the top of the knob is barely as high as the seat bolsters – but surprisingly fun. A carbureted 2.2 is nobody’s idea of a high-performance engine, but compared to other small vans of the era, these handle pretty well, ar least. This one runs and drives fine, and shows 68,000 miles on the odometer, though it could have rolled over.
Also note the “Fuel Pacer” light in the spot where the PRNDL would be on an automatic Caravan. I’m assuming this is an upshift-indicator light, to tell you when to shift for best fuel economy. I’m not a fan of these; at best they’re irritating, and at worst they confuse drivers who don’t know what they’re really for. I once had to convince a friend that she didn’t have to shift her Pontiac Sunbird right when the upshift light came on; she complained about the car having no power, when it kept telling her to upshift at 2000 RPM.
This van is refreshingly rust-free for a western Wisconsin vehicle, which lends credence to the low indicated mileage. We don’t get any good views of the cab area, but the cargo area looks nicely seasoned with dings and scrapes. It has done some work over the years, but it looks ready to do plenty more.
Obviously, it’s hard to draw a direct comparison between these two, because of their wildly different layouts and capacities. So factor in your own use-case for them: you need a utilitarian vehicle to do… something. Which one of these suits your purposes better?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
One of the few times I would not pick a square body; that thing being manual already means it is begging to be made a GLHT van…
I don’t know why I voted for the Ram Van — David Tracy’s probably on his way to ‘Sconnie now to snap it up. But I did.
Either really
I think this 3500 is nicer:
https://classiccarcity.com/vdp/20242644/Used-1974-Chevrolet-C30-Dually-for-sale-in-Park-City-IL-60085
That is awesome!
The van wins as the perfect option for my friend’s traveling candy sample business.
Gotta be the GMC, becuase the interior(well, ous was in much nicer condition) looks just like my dad’s tow truck that I learned to drive on. And scare the crap outa my friends by parking outside their house with the spiny lights on.
I see I’m not the only one voting Ram Van out of either perversity, fascination, or square body overload
I love the Ram Van if I were keeping it. However, the GMC would be an easy flip since those square bodies are in high demand now.
I’d gladly throw down the cash for either of these. Great finds!
I learned to drive on my parents 1986 Mini Ram conversion van. It had captain’s chairs in the second row, bench in the back, and curtains on the windows. Super fancy for 1986, especially coming from my parents other cars with vinyl seats and no A/C.
As stupid teen, loading it up with all my friends, I discovered that it needed new shocks, struts and an oil pan every 30,000 miles. The oil pan sits just in front of the axel at just the right geometry to hit the road when you come out of a driveway too fast and the wheels drop in the gutter. I only had to do oil pans twice, the third time the shocks/struts went bad, I replaced them in time. I can learn, after while.
I’d try out that Mini van…I seem to recall the 0 to 60 runs around the next year range but still could be fun.
Is both an option? The Mini Ram Van is my favorite configuration of the 1st gen Caravans, and I’d use that Ol’ Jimmy every single day at the farm. Would gladly have either.
If the van’s mileage is correct, it’s a pretty good deal. If it’s rolled over, harder to say. These are both decent but vary by use case. If you need to haul large machinery or whatever, the GMC would be better. The van would also work as a band hauler, and the panel sides are begging for a custom mural.
I’m always going to vote for the running, driving squarebody, especially ones with rocker panels and cab corners. Bonus points for this being a first year.
The Mini Ram van is the logical choice for me. It will haul everything I need for the dump and home depot runs. It would be more comfortable and get better gas mileage. However, I voted for the big orange truck because I would rather have it for no logical reason other than it is a big orange truck and I think it is cool.
I’ll take the big ol’ awesome orange truck! Which should be winning
If i were going to a black-tie gala for some reason I would 100% choose the C3500 to show up in. But otherwise, the Ram Van is perfect. Like a Transit Connect, but without the weird driver packaging.
I think this “GMC” is actually a Chevy that at some point had its grill replaced with a GMC one. The door badge indicates it’s a “30” series, but GMCs used a 15/25/35 designation, there looks like a Bowtie in the middle of the steering wheel, and that front GMC grill has a “292” badge, indicating the Turbo Thrift I-6, not the 350 small block.
Now these are some beaters worth considering. The cars from the last two showdowns were all too expensive to be beater meh cars. If I’m gonna have a beater it will at least be an interesting one.
Mini Ram Van is the easy pick for me. Way nicer to drive, a more useful (for my purposes) van body, far more fuel efficient and has fuel injection (I hate carbs).
As the former owner of a stick shift Sunbird…
With 96hp, it really didn’t matter _what_ RPM you shifted it at.
My dad had a pair of chrysler work vans, but stayed at work. One of those then a second generation passenger van – because in the early 90s, the college couldn’t get a work van with a FM radio! Chrysler only put AM radios in the work van (could have been a tape deck, it was 30-ish years ago).
Still would take the 3500, cause the van can’t tow anything. If it were an Astro work van, different story.
That Ram Van would be sweet to own, honestly.
I went GMC, just because I have a sienna that can do van things with the seats down/out. I have had many times a truck would be useful, though this is massively overkill for my needs, I would get some ramps somehow and a winch so I could move my broken cars around.
the square body has loads more flip potential and parts availability, but I don’t really want to put the time and effort into it. so long as the gas has not made the free candy van useless in that little carb, the manual delivery van gets my vote. but I would not pay that much for it, and if I got it, I know it would just sit around and never get driven anyway, so I would actually pass on both.