Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
3 members (carbking, 3B, BarryP),
99
guests, and
2
robots. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics128,134 Posts1,056,738 Members48,454 | | Most Online14,466 Apr 26th, 2026 | | AD Chevy Trucks Over 6,000 pictures Brad Allen has an awesome collection of Chevrolet factory pictures that he has set up from film strips. Check them out!
Lots of work on Brad's part ... pure enjoyment (and references) for you!
| | THANKS!
For helping keep this great
old truck web site
on the Internet for over 30 years! and not clogged down with Ads! Again, thanks! | | | | Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 32 Wrench Fetcher | | Wrench Fetcher Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 32 | I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what capacity dump truck I bought last week! Here are the facts: -There is no VIN tag on the door. -The title says it's a 52 Pickup. -Decoding the VIN on the TITLE (3KRC1896) tells me it's a 3/4 ton. -I've read that the 3/4 ton has a 125.25" wheelbase, but my truck measures 161". - I'm very confused Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Tim picture | | | | | Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 6,100 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 6,100 | Hy tpeerson, I decoded your serial number on American Classics website, it breaks down as follows model year 1952 [March] model 3600 manufactured in Detroit 1896 is the sequential number looking at your picture I would say someone has stretched the wheelbase of the truck, I believe the 3600s were all 125 1/4" wheelbase but I'm not positive about that,hope that helps. | | | | | Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 6,100 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 6,100 | Hy again tpeerson, I forgot to put in the GVW, which is what you really wanted to know, 5800Lbs. I believe, hope that helps. | | | | | Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 707 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 707 | That is a pretty slick lookin' unit. I believe that if you look at the frame closely, you'll see that it has been stretched. Look for two diagonal weld lines on the outer (vertical) faces of the frame, between the back of the cab and the spring anchors, forward of the rear axle. From here it looks like quality work.
A legal GVW on that chassis would have been 8,000# around here. 1951 3800 Be the change you want to see. -hotshoe
| | | | | Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 32 Wrench Fetcher | | Wrench Fetcher Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 32 | BINGO on the stretch! I never noticed, but here's the "patch panel". Fron the backside you can see the cuts. picture 1 That would also explain the three drive shafts. picture 2 OK, now how can I identify the rear end? I'm pretty sure it's not from the original 3/4 ton. The brake drum is 14" ID and the shoes are larger than those the parts store sold me for the 3/4 ton. picture 3 Thanks everyone! | | | | | Joined: Mar 2002 Posts: 9,115 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2002 Posts: 9,115 | That would be the correct drum size for the 1 Ton. I see that you have a set of those beautiful Huck brakes! I would guess that you are going to find a ratio of 5.14 for the rearend. | | | | | Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 32 Wrench Fetcher | | Wrench Fetcher Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 32 | Originally posted by truckernix: That would be the correct drum size for the 1 Ton. I see that you have a set of those beautiful Huck brakes! I would guess that you are going to find a ratio of 5.14 for the rearend. Thanks truckernix. So are Huck brakes a good thing? | | | | | Joined: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,893 Socket Breaker | | Socket Breaker Joined: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,893 | Whatever it is, it is cool!
We need more pictures!
-W | | | | | Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 707 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 707 | I don't want to discourage you in any way because I think the truck is cool, but I'm not nuts about the patch panel: Vertical welds on a frame are a bad idea. If it is going to be used occasionally and lightly then there might be no problem. But if, like me, you think a truck is for work, you might be inclined (again, like me) to brutally overload the poor girl from time to time. In that case you'd better keep a close eye on that stretch for stress cracks around the ends of that panel. It's not that big a deal, really, to do it over with a parallelogram shape to the patch panel, and 45* diagonal welds on the frame rails. Maybe not necessary, as I said, but something to watch. As to your diff, it looks like my old one, which would make truckernix right. My improved ratio is 4.10, from a '72. Spendy, but worth it! Finally, Huck brakes are bigger, therefore they run cooler, which is better. 1951 3800 Be the change you want to see. -hotshoe
| | | | | Joined: Mar 2002 Posts: 9,115 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2002 Posts: 9,115 | tp, the Huck brakes is what they used on the 1 Ton up to 53 and they seemed to do the job. Mine are Hucks but I haven't finished my project yet. I am sure that they will be very capable brakes. | | |
| |