Learn me tow vehicles - short wheelbase edition

I have recently come to the conclusion that I need a truck-like thing in my life for various house hold chores and general tom foolery.  I have a particular fondness for chrome and carburetors so that generally puts me in the pre bumperageddon of 1975.  Because I will be doing some occasional towing of a car hauler (hopefully with some type of race car on it) I want to make sure that it has power disc brakes and enough power to do the job (even though i love mini trucks, they are right out).

The obvious solution seems to be a 1970-72 C10 and I certainly may end up going that route but I dont really like driving trucks and the whole point of having a bitchin classic is to get it on the road and enjoy it.  If I had a C10 I would certainly want to lower it and I am too poor for airbags and worry that the trailer and load would be detrimental to handling and the rear suspension.

In a perfect world the vehicle in mind would be a Ranchero or El Camino but I am ignorant of their tow abilities.  Also in contention are things that have tops that pop off for summer cruising: FJs, Early Broncos, Scouts, Blazer, etc.  Which brings me to the title... how do those short wheel base rigs handle a load? Am I being too picky in wanting a vehicle that can is a jack of all trades?

Go with a '67 to '72 GM half ton.  Long bed.  Because cheap.  There was a video a short while back where Mobile Tech Lucky and the swarthy guy (whose name escapes me) shortened one with a kit.   Someone link it please.  

Edit: I'm probably alone in this but I think long bed 4x2's look more proportioned than SWB's.  They're only very slightly heavier and a ton more utilitarian.

Found it:

https://youtu.be/Um9r63QxV0c

I did plenty of truck stuff with my 64 al Camino.  Lowered itg a little too far for good payload capacity though. A set of air helper bags were on the short list when it was totalled.

Pulled a pretty loaded 5x10 open landscape trailer with ease.

I had an '81 Chev with chrome bumpers and most definitely a carburetor.  I towed with it but not often, and not more than about 4800 lbs.  It pulled fine.  Had an older 350 (I want to say I took it out of a '73 that was rotting on my friends farm ). Freshened it up with a mild cam and 9:1 pistons, well worn and sloppy TH350.  Stock everything else.  I really liked that truck.  I'd like to build another one some day.

1967-72 2WD Chevy trucks have really good rear suspension for towing. They have a ladder bar suspension that is more resistant to tail wagging by a trailer than the leaf spring suspension of the later trucks. You have to stick with the 2wd because the 4wd (like my K20 Suburban) have leaf springs and they tend to have lots of side to side movement, which can be frightening with a trailer.  Get an equalizer hitch with anti-sway system, it will make a word of difference when towing with a short wheelbase truck. I had a 2005 Ram regular cab, short box and almost got flipped over by a death wobbling trailer but an equalizer hitch and anti-sway cured it. 

I've got (well it's my father's) a '74 half ton.  4 x 2.  I wish it had the earlier coil sprung rear.  Nothing wrong with the way it is now but coils would be better.  This one has zero power accessories.  None.  Front dIsc brakes but not power disc brakes.  That's something I didn't even know existed until dad brought this one home in '96.  We upgraded it with an HEI, an electric fan, and a single Flowmaster exiting just behind the cab.  It runs a 350, a smallish Rochester Dual-Jet, and a 3 speed column.  I believe it's a 3.42 gear but since its never had a tach hooked up I can't tell.  For what it is, that thing will absolutely haul a$$.  4100 lbs. according to the trash dump scales.  I use it as an example for my 'power under the curve' arguments.  I had a friend with a similarly spec'd truck but a high compression small block and wicked cam.  I believe he was handicapped in the gear department with 3.07s.  He couldn't understand why he couldn't pull away from dad's on the on ramps.  I mean he had the dyno sheet to prove the big numbers!  LOL.  Some will never understand. 

The '67 to '72 has been sought after since the '80's.  The '73 to '87 is starting to build steam in that regard too these days.  

In reply to Pattyo :

An El Camino is just a Chevelle  station wagon with the roof cut off.  I’ve owned two new and one used. Keep loads down and they are fine.  

My choice would be a Blazer because it’s a real truck frame  and 1/2 ton suspension. The shortness is a blessing. Easier to park, store, maneuver, hook up to trailer, etc. 

towing capability is good. Only downside and it’s a tiny downside is the ride is a little more choppy than a long wheelbase. But given the advantages it has every other way I’d choose that.  

A lower truck requires a much different tactic for loading a car on a trailer as the ramp angle will be much different. I have to back my truck onto ramps to pitch the trailer nose up high enough for the car's exhaust to clear on the dovetail. I also found that the car needs to be much farther forward on the trailer for the weight to be proportioned correctly to avoid tail-wag.

The short bed I have now is a bit more frustrating to load than the massive full size bed I had previously. I wind up carrying a lot more stuff inside the car now.

You can tow with any truck. I did it for years with a mostly stock '65 F100. However, at a certain point in life the charm is eclipsed by the desire to have power steering, brakes, air conditioning, cruise control and a seat that is comfortable for more than an hour.

Also, when you get into the 1970s the HP and torque ratings drop drastically due to emissions. The less power they make the harder they have to work and the more fuel they use.  Sure, you can 'build' an engine in those things and tune to your desire but do you really want your tow vehicle to be another project?

I bought a '93 Lightning. 240 hp, nice seats, all the luxury items, no rust for $3500. Would I rather have an extended cab that is quieter and even more comfortable? Sure I would. But I don't want ten or twenty or thirty grand tied up in something I only use a few times a year.

loosecannon said:

1967-72 2WD Chevy trucks have really good rear suspension for towing. They have a ladder bar suspension that is more resistant to tail wagging by a trailer than the leaf spring suspension of the later trucks. You have to stick with the 2wd because the 4wd (like my K20 Suburban) have leaf springs and they tend to have lots of side to side movement, which can be frightening with a trailer.  Get an equalizer hitch with anti-sway system, it will make a word of difference when towing with a short wheelbase truck. I had a 2005 Ram regular cab, short box and almost got flipped over by a death wobbling trailer but an equalizer hitch and anti-sway cured it. 

Careful! They were available with a leaf or a truck arm suspension. Crawl under to check, but generally the GMCs had leafs even though the truck was the same otherwise.

The El Camino that was based on the Chevelle has a 116" wheelbase. A 2-door Blazer (of late-70s vintage) is only 106.5" by comparison. Looks like the C10 was between 115 and 133" based on how it was ordered.

The 115-116" numbers are squarely in Tahoe, Cayenne, Range Rover territory and if you get into 122ish" WB, you are roughly the same wheelbase as a modern Suburban. All of the newer vehicles I listed will tow an open trailer very well and can handle a small enclosed if you set it up right (WD hitch, watch your tongue weight, etc).

I suspect any of the older trucks you list would be fine from a wheelbase perspective - although avoid that K5 Blazer if you want an enclosed, it'd do an open fine - but you absolutely would want to go through every balljoint/bushing, get it set up with 4-wheel discs and ideally ABS. Even then, do you want to be towing with an old 3-speed (maybe 4-speed if you're lucky) automatic that has gigantic gaps between ratios? How's the engine doing on power and where does it make that power/torque? You're still dealing with that era of crash safety and very few amenities.

I've desperately wanted to use either a 70s-era C20 or late-80s Grand Wagoneer as a tow vehicle, but the cost and level of farting around to make it tow as well as a used, modern, $20k *whatever* is too much IMO. I'd end up building a new truck under the old body when it was all said and done. Call me a princess but I really like towing with comfortable, heated bucket seats, great AC and a solid sound system - on top of many airbags, good crash scores, modern fuel injection, etc etc.

TLDR: Wheelbase isn't your issue, many other things may be.

There's no question that newer trucks are more comfortable places to spend time than old ones and that towing capabilities have improved with the new trucks but, there's no reason that an older truck can't make a cool, safe tow vehicle. 

A friend of mine towed with a late '70s Bronco for decades.  In fact, he may still be using that truck.  I, personally towed many miles with my '78 C10 Heavy Half. 

The rules are the same for old trucks as new ones.  Know what the truck is rated for, stay under the limit and load the trailer correctly.

Short wheel base trucks do tend to be more sensitive to cross winds and improperly loaded trailers but if you load the trailer correctly and use a weight distributing hitch with sway control you'll be fine.

I just got this for towing purposes. It's taking over for my 302/e4od/4wd/3.55:1 F-150. 

It's got a 400 (400 ft-lbs@2200 rpm), a C6, and a 9" with 2.75:1 gears. I did the math, and it has 50 ft-lbs more torque at the wheel in first, 100 more in second, and 110 more in third. And, it has the ability to go over 70 in second, if necessary. I have high hopes for the 3-link/Panhard rear suspension, especially after I add some air bags to the rear coils. 

In reply to snailmont5oh :

Those are just the numbers you get from simple ratio math.  With a non locked torque converter those numbers will go even higher as the engine spins faster in a given gear.  Probably wouldn't hurt to add a big aux trans cooler to that since you've got plenty of room and 2.75 just about guarantees plenty of slip with a trailer hooked up.

Does it have a 9"?  I thought that would be a given but when I robbed some Jeep parts off a '72 LTD (starter) I discovered it had something else.  

snailmont5oh said:

I just got this for towing purposes. It's taking over for my 302/e4od/4wd/3.55:1 F-150. 

It's got a 400 (400 ft-lbs@2200 rpm), a C6, and a 9" with 2.75:1 gears. I did the math, and it has 50 ft-lbs more torque at the wheel in first, 100 more in second, and 110 more in third. And, it has the ability to go over 70 in second, if necessary. I have high hopes for the 3-link/Panhard rear suspension, especially after I add some air bags to the rear coils. 

Ooo I am JEALOUS!  Build thread?

snailmont5oh said:

I just got this for towing purposes. It's taking over for my 302/e4od/4wd/3.55:1 F-150. 

It's got a 400 (400 ft-lbs@2200 rpm), a C6, and a 9" with 2.75:1 gears. I did the math, and it has 50 ft-lbs more torque at the wheel in first, 100 more in second, and 110 more in third. And, it has the ability to go over 70 in second, if necessary. I have high hopes for the 3-link/Panhard rear suspension, especially after I add some air bags to the rear coils. 

Well that's effin cool, I've thought a wagon as a tow rig would be super fun for a while. Any idea how many revs it'll be turning in 3rd at highway speeds?

...Or a hearse...

I would also add that I would recommend that LWB > SWB for towing.

@A 401 CJ: The seller actually tossed in a 12"x10" plate cooler, so I'll be putting that in. The VIN says it has 2.75s, and 2.75s are a 9" ratio. The other rear would be a 2.73:1. I don't think you could get a wagon without a 9". My uncle had a '73 LTD sedan that had what looked like an 8.8" with 2.73s.  

@FIYAPOWA: I suppose a build thread might not be a bad idea, but I'm terrible at taking pics while I work. I have already replaced the points with an ACCEL points eliminator kit. 

@Brake_L8:  On math, it should be doing 2300 RPM at 70 (right on the torque peak!), with the tires that are on it now. I hope to get a set of 17x8" wheels so that I can use some extra 225/55-17s that my father-in-law bought and never used. They'll be a little shorter. Also, there's converter slip.

[\hijack]

Thanks for all the replies (and education)! How does everyone feel about scout IIs for this kinda work?

And that wagon is amazing!

Pattyo said:

Thanks for all the replies (and education)! How does everyone feel about scout IIs for this kinda work?

And that wagon is amazing!

I don't know how it would be any different than a K5 type Blazer.  I haven't driven one but legend says 345 > 350 and 392 is about as strong as a 454.  You won't find a stock Scout with a 392 or a stock Blazer with a 454 but both swap over and have been swapped over hundreds of times.

You'll need to do some research.  My recollection is that the Scout II had a fairly low trailer weight rating.