Chuck a few live chickens around? Run the 1/4 against a Ford Econoline? See why the 1981 Chevy Vans are the superior choice for utility, economy and performance. Digitized from laserdisc GM200; enhanced audio.
@@P71ScrewHead Those vans were the bomb ... My Dad had a late 80s Early 90s Econoline With the big extended roof ... It was basically almost a small RV. Travel van they called them. I loved that van so much. He would load it up with tools all the time and mom would get pissed because it was a travel van not a work van. I dont blame him tho. It was a mini house on wheels 😂. I wish I could find one just like it. It had a 5.0 302 in it and a C6 transmission in it
@@-fuk57 all good questions between the wheel bearings and low tire pressure how about just applying slight brake pressure on the Ford Van LOL in the end it was a fun prom video to watch
4:50 160 hp out of a 5.0 liter 302 engine... A Ford Coyote 5.0 V8 is making over 400 horsepower from the same size engine nowadays, while getting better mileage and putting out less emissions. This shows what computerization, fuel injection, and higher compression with catalytic converters will do. These engines were choked to control emissions back then.
It’s amazing the effort they use to put in to get someone to buy a car. Nowadays they just show them driving through a mud puddle and tell you that the starting MSRP is $80,000
"How do we sell our cars?" "Drifting seems to be cool these days, we should record our cars drifting somehow." "But all we sell are front wheel drive and/or automatic cars, they are incapable of drifting!" "Who cares, put them on dirt and make them slide."
Dodge must have felt genuinely honored to be disparaged in an official GM comparison film. 😂 I hope this guy does not start attacking these vans with a sledge hammer like he did in the El Camino video. 😁
GM is the only manufacturer still offering the US style van, Ford went foreign on us with the transit and twin turbo v6 RAMaster went with front wheel drive, gladly GM stayed with the V8 and diesel.
@@RamYRN in terms of loading capacity and probably economy? yes, for style and toughness plus options for diesel and towing?... classic American design anytime.
I had a 92 g20 with a 5.7 and 4.10s when I was in high-school, those were the good Ole days it was passed down from my dad and all my older brothers had 250,000 miles and still ran like a raped ape all the way up to 90mph. Good memories, that's what these vans were good for.
I had an 89 g20 5.7 bought it off my friends family for 250 bucks his grandma bought it new in 89. I drove the hell out of it till I sold it for the engine someone wanted. The van had over 270,000 miles on it when I sold it.
"Cause like a picture She was layin' there. Moonlight dancin' off her hair. She woke up & took me by the hand. She's gonna love me in my Chevy Van And that's all right with me."
Chevy Van; thanks to new low rolling resistance technologies is now easier to push to the gas station. To the mechanic's. To the Ford dealer. Even off the side of a cliff! See the USA while pushing your Chevrolet.
My high school uses a blue Chevy van to haul around track and field supplies between the school and the track and some meets. The van is from 1982 I believe. No idea how many miles. It’s been outside it’s whole life and is a total rust bucket.
@@chaseteter I wonder how many Of your classmates we're probably conceived with cheerleaders and the high school football team in the back of thatv... or the coaches
Not a word about the 305's light weight casting or how the rear camshaft journal webbing would be exiting out the rear of the engine. Countless 305s did exactly that when put in heavy vehicles(loads) or loaned to your nephew for the weekend. What you thought you were going to save in gas should have been put towards the 350 engine. My machinist loved that 305 engine. Put his kids through school with the warantee work. Malcolm Ottawa Valley
Interesting. Why woould a 305 have a cam issue but not a 350? It's basically the same engine with different cylinder bore castings. Or did they produce a super light weight version of the 305 like they did with the later Olds low deck engines?
@@geoffmooregm the casting was so light around the rear most cam journal webbing, on those 305s, that any undue strain on the stock valve train caused the back of the block to crack off, usually breaking the cam too. Like I said, in the hands of your old uncle they might last 250,000 miles. Loan it to your nephew for the weekend or the 18 year old furniture delivery part timers and they shat the bed. It wasn't just a common problem, it was epidemic. Can't say I ever heard it happening to a 350. Their problem was wiping their cam lobes flat back around then. Malcolm Ottawa Valley
Fake news! They didn't cast a different block specifically for the 305! Matter of fact they are basically all the same other than bore size and the high nickel ones and very early small journal crank. So nope, you're totally wrong
@@shawnsatterlee6035 Fake news is spread by people who weren't there.....I was. All through the 80s machine shops and stealerships across North America were filled with 305s with the same problem. The rear of the block casting, around the rearmost cam bearing would break off, usually with the rear camshaft bearing still in it and usually snapping the last 8" of the camshaft off too. My machinist handled dozens of them. Several garages I go to had the exact same work to do on 305s. My brother was that part time furniture delivery guy and it happened to the replacement engine in the cube van a second time. Several 5.0 liter Mustang guys I knew witnessed 305 IROCs lunch their engines the same way, right in front of them. Ask people who were around back then. Malcolm Ottawa Valley
@@malcolmhamilton5200 You are wrong. It's the same block. In fact the only difference is bore size. A 305 is a 3.74" bore and a 350 is a 4 inch bore with identical stroke in THE SAME BLOCK. I've worked on hundreds of them. I also have a family member that ran 305's in NHRA Super Stock in a 84 Firebird. Rules stated stock blocks and heads. They would yank the front tires off the ground when built right. He won many class championships running 305's. This isn't the hill to die on because you are wrong. The worst thing stock 305's did in the early 80's is spark knock like crazy with cheap gas.
Love the fuel efficiency comparisons from time where a gallon was like... 50 cents? 😀 Epic nostalgia hit. I was thinking about "The A-Team" all throught this video. Thanks for sharing.
It was around a 1.50, which equates to roughly for 4.50 per gallon in today's money with inflation. That's why fuel economy was so important in that era.
I drove a 1980 Chevrolet van in early 80’s with the inline 6 that thing was plenty powerful I should have bought it from my employer when the company closed in late 80’s. Super reliable and decent gas mileage and power when needed
The old straight six Chevy engines were bullet proof. They were also so narrow that there was tons of room to work on them if you ever needed to. My old man and I swap an old straight six 250 out of a rotted out Nova into a 79 Pontiac Catalina and it had plenty of power to move that old tank. The good ol’ days….
@@occckid123 All that may be true but the simplicity of the older engines allow for average people with a handful of tools to keep their vehicle running. Good luck repairing any of these new cars. You need a degree in computer science to do anything with them.
@@byronn.2885 that's true but in the 400k miles I had my nissan altima it hasn't had any super big issues that anyone else couldn't figure out with a code reader and has never broken down on me. I wouldn't expect these old reliable engines to still be working at 400k miles or they are so bad you wish you weren't driving it. Modern engines can still do good!
There are not many instances where I won't condone wearing a helmet in a safety sensitive scenario, but drag racing 1981 full size vans is probably not one of these scenarios.
My grandparents had a Chevy van they used when they had there Dutch Grocery store, they loaded that thing to the hilt a few times a week and it never failed them.
The Ford always outsold the Chevy / GMC and Dodge vans, so none of this proved anything to the consumer, anyway. The guys with the GMs always told their buddies about the rear doors not lining up due to body flex, which I'm sure sold a lot of Fords.
All these American vans were cool back in the day but having talked to many old timers who weren't that old back then, Dodge had the best vans in the late 70's & early 80's. I believe them because they were absolutely everywhere!
@@rogerstlaurent8704 well the Ford Vans were the heaviest as they have the thickest frame. The Dodge either have the 2.73 or 3.21 rear end, The Chevy a 3.08 or 3.42. Not sure what rear end ratios were available for the Ford, maybe a 3.25 not sure.
@@ChillkootMarkowee to me all 3 vans the Chevy Ford or the Dodge where just about the same one might be bigger than the other or had more HP all had just about the same mechanical issues but one thing all 3 vans shared was they all died from body rot if you lived in the northeast and bought a new van in 1981 in about 2 yrs or so the body would of stared to show signs of rotting out by year 4 if you still owned the van you either had to replaced the van or do a lot of body work to repair all the body rot
@@rogerstlaurent8704 yeah the good old rust belt, I'm from BC, Canada not any better! I always remembered the Dodge Vans always had none existing rocker panels by the time they were 10 - 20 years old! I own a 1980 Dodge B300 MaxiVan from the island and it's got a few holes in the rocker and floors. I've scrapped a 1987 GMC Vandura G2500 with 323 000kms (6 digit odometer) and it's got far less rust than my Dodge Van with an estimated 1 83 000kms! (5 digit odometer). Yeah the Dodge Vans burnt valves, the Fords blew transmissions and the Chevy ate cams and cracked heads haha!!!
"...which weighs as much as this stack of cabbage." ah yes the good old "stack of cabbage" measurement system... brings me back to the days where we would drag race our full sized vans with chickens in the back
Chevy with that yellow van and some chickens in the back. All we needed was some white dots all over the van and Fastest Chicken in the South on the rear quarter and we'd have ourselves a Clyde Torkal Special!
I drove a 1979 Chevy Van as a delivery driver back then with the 305 V8 auto trans. P/S & P/B. I loved driving that thing. It was a very smooth driving vehicle.
All 3 vans lost to rust. I remember the 1990 G20 Gladiator conversion my parents owned when i was a teen. Southern Texas van and rust all around the roofline even before it was 10 yrs old
I had a 76 chevy van with a 350 and Quadrajet carb. it was a blast to floor it and hear the engine scream with that Quadrajet howling a foot away with the engine sitting in the front between you and your passenger !
I bought a brand new 1981 GMC High Sierra Pick Up with a 305 V8 four barrel Rochester...I put a performance intake manifold & bigger carburetor & put headers with California turbo mufflers i added 40 more hp with this mod..
when you are the main target to your competition, then you must be doing something right. It's apparently obviously gm felt that ford was a much bigger threat than Chrysler was in this video.
I had an '84 Chevrolet 20 van with the 5.0 engine. It was overall a nice van, drove nice, ran well (when new), but after a year that micky mouse 5.0 had more problems than I could even believe. Would stall out constantly, a thing the dealership called "vapor lock" which I came to understand was a code word for, P.O.S. Engine. Had that same problem with a truck I had with the very same engine. Stopped buying those crappy underpowered engines and never had that problem again with the 5.8, 350. Now they are trying to get us to "buy" into these 6 cyl engines with toy turbo crap installed. I am STILL in love with my 8 cyl engine and as long as they make one, I WON'T drive a turbo toy ever. I buy a truck to make me money, NOT spend it's time going back and forth to the dealer.
3 years prior you got a 1978 Trans Am getting almost 12 if your lucky highway, crazy to think the 1981 G-10 gets double the MPG city as a 1978 Trans Am with the actual Pontiac 400
I had a friend that wanted a mobile candy shop because he couldn't afford his own store so this was the better option he had it painted white with candy decals He drove up and down parks and school zones. I still don't know why he kept getting approached by cops.
I learned to drive in my late Grandfather's old 85 Chevy van. It was Ohio state Red and silver/gray. It was given to my Father in 2001 about 3 yrs after my grandfather passed from cancer. I can say this much, that van withstood horrid abuse and that 350 was put through hell on a daily basis it kept running for another decade and my Father loved it so much he bought a newer one just like it. We used to take it out in the country pop it into nuetral and shut it off, pump the gas 3 times and turn the ignition and 💥 BOOM! 💥 It sounded like someone let off a 12 gauge. Met some nice city police officers and sheriff's that way lol 😆
I can’t believe I actually watched this entire video Let’s face it these vans are all almost equal in reliability power and popularity Buying one came down to what your friends snd family bought
GM's 5.7 v8 and Ford's 300 six are both legendary engines in their own right, Chrysler's 5.2/5.9 Magnum series motors are also long lived motors. But, I would say, based on my experience in service, the 300 six from Ford is about as tough as they come. Change the oil + filter on timely basis, I ve seen many of these live almost as long as some well known pickup diesel motors. And, I have mainly owned Dodge trucks due to circumstances.
Wow, the Marketing was strong on this one. Crazy how far vans have come. Now we have Mercedes Sprinter vans that will sit in the outside lane of the highway doing 120+ mph.
3.18 you say? 🤔 Almost positive you are full of shit seeing how 3.18 has never been a gearing opinion on anything GM... Probably thinking you actually had a dodge van with a 318 V8 which is a turd....
I can't believe I'm watching this on a Saturday night. Really on a Saturday night. Where did my life go wrong? If I make it to the end of this video hit me in the back of the head with a shovel because I deserve it.
You would need a team of the world's smartest scientist to produce such little horsepower from 5 liter engines today I'm actually amazed it was possible at all
i learned how to drive in one, it was in such bad shape it shouldn't have been on the road, but it was still safe, ish.... the universal was missing and duct-taped in place. it had such bad steering linkage you had to turn the wheel a quarter turn just to move the wheels. and the automatic was replaced with a manual though the auto column shifter that made it look like you were fighting it (which isnt far off) to shift moving it multiple times to get it to shift, and a rod sticking up through the floor for a clutch. I was 12! now im a 26 year UPS employee with 22 years safe driving at UPS, and the funny thing is, im still driving a GM. the old ones had the 4.3, the current ones the 6.0.... the latter's 500 cubic foot one drives like a sports car (does have single leaf suspension from the donor C6 Z02 Vette drive train.) but on propane.
@@biffwellington1782 folks don’t realize GM made many versions of the 305, even just in the F-body chassis, from the economy LG4 and L03 lackluster versions to the more powerful L69 H.O and LB9 TPI performance versions. The L69 H.O 4-barrel from 83-86 was a decent runner for its time, but the more powerful 230hp LB9 Tuned Port engine when coupled to the 5-speed manual T5 transmission got the more aggressive .430 cam and they gave Ford’s 5.0 Mustangs a lot of trouble. Ford’s 5.0 had a larger bore but GM’s 5.0 had the longer stroke. GM’s 305 was almost a perfectly square/balanced engine (equal bore x stroke) Ford offered a factory tubular header and H-pipe design whereas GM offered a more restrictive cast exhaust manifold and Y-pipe design. Ford offered the same 225hp 5.0 H.O across entire line of V8 equipped GT and LX Mustangs. GM did not do this unfortunately. GM offered multiple versions of their 5.0 engine in the F-body that ranged in power from the weak 170hp on up to the hotter 230hp example in the 5-speed models. Those G92 and 1LE optioned 5.0 cars would flat out run in their day. They would run low 14 second times and Motorweek actually clocked a 1LE model at 13.9 which was a damn fine time in the ‘80s.
i have old blue 88 Chevy 5.0 G20 that is exactly like that one. they crushed all the ford vans without hesitation..they got bad gas milage with V8.. you still see a lot of those long 12-14ft dodge vans.. people love those
