Hot Rods Which C-10 Chevy Truck to Buy

I've been wanting a C-10 Chevy truck but am not sure which one to buy.

This first one is a 1963 Chevy C-10 Shortbed with a 327 motor, and a 700r transmission. 22" Strada rims. Tires are about 90% Flow master pipes. I went and saw it in person and it was nice to drive but had a little rust by the windshield where water might get in. No power steering and that thing was a beast to turn. None of the gauges are hooked up at all.

 

A friend of mine told me about this 1964 C-10 but I haven't gone to see it yet.

It runs and drives but it needs a carburetor. It has a 350 motor and a 3 speed trans on the floor, mostly new white walls, new exhaust gl*** packs, and no rust issues (supposedly). It was lowered but I'm not sure how. The paint is primer it seems.

 

I can get the 1963 C-10 for $400 cheaper than the 1964 C-10 but am not sure which one is a better buy. I like the lower stance on the 1964 and it would be some work to get the 63 lowered and rims changed out.

Am I making a mistake turning down the 63 and getting the 1964 (if its in ok condition)? I'm not sure if the 63 shortbed is rarer and worth more. The 63 C-10 is local for me, the 1964 is 70 mi drive for me.

 

63 does have the advantage of sellabilty of those wheels for a decent amount, it should be fairly easy to find something more traditional to run on there. But seems like it needs more ****ing around to drive it. Probably a toss up.

 

Don't like the "knee knocker" doors on the 63, or the dash. But the short bed and drivetrain sell me on it. Sell the goofy wheels and tires, put normal wheels on it, and it will steer a lot better.

 

Great points thank you. The 63 also doesn't have handles or door poppers so the guy told me the only way to get in is through the corner window and pulling the handle manually.

I like the 63 because it's a shortbed but not sure how hard it is to lower it. I definitely want it to ride at the same height as the 1964 especially if I change the wheels but not sure if that is an expensive thing to do.

I will drive the truck 2-3 times a week to work which is 15 mi away so the 63 drive train seems much better, however I'm embarr***ed but don't know how to drive a stick so the 64 could be a good way to force me to learn.

 

The 63 looks so much better lowered, regardless what wheels are on it. I photoshopped these two photos to see what it would look like lowered.

 

Whichever one has the legitimately rust free roof and windshield frame.

 

No kidding Gimpy! I genuine rust blister that you are worried will let water in around a windshield frame on a painted truck is an almost definite "p***" in my book. Judging by the pictures of both trucks I would spend some quality time under BOTH of them looking at floor boards for signs of patches and replacements. But ya, windshield frame and roof rust is a no go every time.

 

The white one reminds me of a lowrider truck I bought. It was shiny and white in the right places , with many simple problems. Wasn't,t hard to fix it enough to resell, but there was a reason that it was white.

 

The 63 looks like a longbed also thats been photoshoped into a shortbed in the pics but I would still choose it either way (If those 2 were the only ones I had to choose from) I like the wraparound windshield on the 63 better and its just a better lookin truck "judging from what I can see".

 

They both look like decent drivers to me, and I know you asked an opinion between the two, but mine is to keep looking till you find "THE" pickup you are looking for. A 64-66 short box is hard to beat and still fairly affordable. A long bed can look good, but the resale on a short bed is higher. If I had to choose,it would be the 64 hands down.

 

I'd want to look at the 64 a little better.
If all the lowering work was done well that would be the one I'd choose. It seems a Bit more honest to me but that's just from pictures.

 

I say go with the '64, sits a lot better and I like the general look. The bed on the '63 does look like it was bobbed in the back, you would have to look close at how well it was done.

Either way, go over each for a good rust examination. Look at the cab corners, especially under the carpet by the kick panels and up under the dash since you've seen the rust in the '63 already.

 

They both look like long beds, so the biggest difference I see is the cab and doors. Dash style is different too, but both appear to be uncut.

I like the lowered look of the 64 personally but that's my tastes. The 63 could be made to look very much the same without too much expense.

Roof rust above the windshield - inside and out is a major pain to deal with. Front fenders go in the back at the bottom by the inner brace (dirt trap), cabs at the kick panels, DS floor, cab corners and rockers all favorite places for rust on these pearls.

Getting the 63 a bit lower with cutting a ring off the front coils and blocking the back ( or drop coils) gets you a mild static drop on the cheap. Sell the dubs if you want and get some money to deal with the mechanical issues - also fairly easy power steering upgrades out there should you decide to go that route.

Too close to call without seeing and driving these girls around to be sure but it looks like their fairly close as far as basic overall condition, costs and logistics.

Good luck and let us know which way you go.
Peace, rg

 

That itty bitty steering wheel in the 63 isn't making steering any easier

 

Don't get the 63 it looks like a cut down long bed and not done correctly without major work( cutting rear cross member out and locate the rear forward more and then cut an move the rear wheel openings to match) it'll alway look goofy if you don't the other truck looks more honest but primer hides alot good thing about these is they make almost everything for them and suspension parts aren't to expensive if it is lowered wrong

 

I wouldn't want anyone to see me driving the 63 with those refugly clown wheels, not even one time.

 

keep looking...there might be a good truck around somewhere...

 

With three stake pockets in the bed rails, that 63 is not a shortbed.

 

Go find a near stock one.the 64 looks wavy,the front fender looks to be rusted out then packed with mud,the 63 looks ghetto and if the windsheild leaks, the water goes to the floor footwells and thats a problem on these trucks.keep looking.whats the price of these trucks?If there cheap enough it might be worth it.Im thinking 3500.00 to 4000.00 but with those wheels im thinking he wants more for the glitter.and to sell that glitter its gonna be hard as they are six lugs.

 

Of the two I would go with the 63. Lose the wheels go with some 15" supreme wheels and skinny whitewalls. Flake the top and a set of drop springs and it would look pretty cool. I think the picture just makes the bed look bad, if the OP seen it in person then he should know if it looks wrong. I don't think either one is that bad, they both have potential.

 

I prefer the wrap-around windshields on the 60-63's... don't get me wrong I like all 60-66's.. we have a '62 and a '65. But if had to choose between the two.. I'd get the '63... and of course... get those wheels on Craigslist ASAP...

 

Thanks for all the advice guys.

I have a low spending budget because I already have a different toy car in my garage but I want something I can drive around and not freak out each time it gets a dent, etc.

The owner of the 64 would take $3800. The owner of the 63 would take $3400.

I live in a region where it doesn't rain very much so I'm not sure on the rust thing on the roof above the windshield. The guy said he doesn't think it would leak and I haven't seen the truck in over a month so I forgot exactly where I saw the holes.

Basically, I think it's a shortbed when I had seen it. The first 3 images of the 63 are from Google maps (I had to get creative to show you pictures haha) so they may be slightly warped looking. MklofMnM said with three stakepockets its not a shortbed. So it was cut down?

The guy selling the 63 isn't hiding anything, he just doesn't know much about the truck and bought it as is and wants to get rid of it because he wants a 63 belair (or something like that)

 

yes, it was cut down. The short bed trucks had only two stake pockets at the ends, long beds had another in the middle. The wheelbase is different between long and short, look at the distance between the cab and the rear wheel, it looks the same on both of the trucks you are looking at, eh? then look at pics of short bed trucks.

also the VIN will be different...short bed is 1C14... long bed is 1C15....

 

I'd p*** on both and find one that hasn't been ****ed around with. buy one from an old guy who has had it for 20 years.

give me some worn out parts and rust any day over a car with some idiots "repairs" done to it.

 

Thanks that is good advice! I was thinking, spend $4,000 on some truck and just drive it around for a couple years and unload it for similar price. This is why I looked at these two trucks.

So the 64 isn't a great buy for $3800?

 

It's possible the bed wasn't cut at all and it just looks shorter from the Google captured images. It's obvious it's a long bed. In that case is it still worth $3400 and is the 64 better for $3800? I looked underneath and didn't see much rust or any leaks from the motor or trans.

It seems the 64 is a better buy from what others have said but I also am starting think maybe neither of them are worth it. I have to drive an hour and a half to look at the 64. Maybe 2 and a half hours with traffic.

 

The google maps images can look a little distorted at different angles. I'm guessing the bed was not hacked up and it is a long bed but not sure how to get an accurate view of the truck.

 

3400 around here is not over the top, but they are still plentiful and repo panels and parts are easy to get. just a thought, you can find a swb stepside pretty easy and build a fleetside for it.