Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
7 members (Buckeye998, tclederman, JoergK., Gray_Ghost, carbking, 32Fordpuchoptop, 1 invisible),
108
guests, and
1
robot. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics128,192 Posts1,057,358 Members48,469 | | 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: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 | Before you vote, you need some facts: The hoist is operational and lives on the back of a 1968 C60. The truck is in the cue for restoration. It will also go back to work when complete, (and probably before). The old guy needs a lot of love ... more on that later. When it goes back to work, it will be packing a ranch-style flatbed, something like this. I don't need another dump truck, since the Brigadier gets the job done, and its ahead of the restoration line. I am not sure if the hoist gear is era-correct. I'm sure someone will chime in on this. Here's a few pics: box tag cylinder link right link aft link left It would be nice to have a hoist under the flatbed, but it has issues: The bed will ride about 8" taller hoist frame At least one mounting gussett needs some loveYou have the facts now, so vote: A: Hoist the hoist over-board, deep-six it; matey B: Stop whining and build the bed on top of that fine hunk of iron C: Box it up and send it ot me D: Sell that POS before you regret itcast your vote now | | | | | Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 93 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 93 | Wish my hoist looked that nice instead of the cobbled together job I have. I'm going B. (I'd say C, but I think it'd take a bit of modifying to get it in my truck, which I might as well do on the old one to make it look nice) | | | | | Joined: Jun 2010 Posts: 384 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Jun 2010 Posts: 384 | I like the picture of the ranch style bed. And I think a bed like that needs to be put on a frame anyway? Or else the rear wheels will touch the bed even without load?
So why not use that extra piece of frame and let it work for you.
So I'd go for B My Chevy Viking 1959Ulf Hedlund. Eskilstuna. Sweden [email protected]Also: Ford Galaxie 4 dr 1959 Ford Custom 4 dr 1964 Ford Mustang GT 2005
| | | | | Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 438 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Nov 2001 Posts: 438 | If the hoist and is there and operational I choose B. If you go "A" some day you will have a heavy load and say If I only had some elevation I could unload this a heck of a lot easier 
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison Things may come to those who wait...but only the things left by those who hustle."-Abraham Lincoln
| | | | | Joined: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,068 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,068 | I've got a few flatbeds, one doesn't have a hoist. I wish it did even if it's just to unload some brush. So I opt for using the hoist, Scott | | | | | Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,963 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,963 | I would go with plan B. The hoist looks dry, and a hoist is always handy. However if you try to insure it and the insurance finds out that it dumps, it will make your rate a lot higher.. | | | | | Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 184 Wrench Fetcher | | Wrench Fetcher Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 184 | Given that you have another dump already I would say option A. If you will be keeping the other dump then why do you need two? If you ever regret the decision you can always add one back on later. You can probably sell the box and hoist together for more than just the box separately. There really aren't all that many things that I would put on a flatbed that I would need(or want to) dump off.
You mentioned the extra height, which will make loading a little harder, but you didn't mention the extra weight. Why pull all that extra weight around with you all the time if you aren't going to have a use for it. Also If insurance is a lot higher that is a factor as well. I would not play games with them by not telling them it is a dump truck, because you won't like how they play....by denying that you are covered. That's not something to find out after an accident.
Tad
1946 Chevy OS 1.5ton, 1955 GMC 3100, along with other various IH,Ford,Nash,MGB,.....
| | | | | Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 | Thanx everyone for your interest and votes. Please take time to look closely at the link aft photo. Specifically how the cantelever link is attached to the bed/box. I originally thought h3ll-yes! A FLATBED DUMP... 'til I started planing how to get the box off ... please correct me if I missed something... The box platform would have to stay and the sides would have to be cut into pieces. (since the cross-rails are welded to the link). No big-deal but it would limit my options on the type of bed. Having said all this, you probably know which way I would vote. But please, vote away ... ( a hanging chad vote can be modified) | | | | | Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,733 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,733 | If you keep the hoist it is going to put the floor of the flatbed at the same heigth as the dump body, i.e., way too high to be practical. The old subframe hoists of the cam & roller design sit much higher than todays hoists and the body sills of your dumpbox are probably 6" as opposed to 3"-4" on the ranch hand body. So as it now stands you'd need to use taller longsills on your flatbed than 99% of them have. It wouldn't be worth the effort. You also mention something about "period correctness". Well, cam & roller hoists were all but done by the mid sixties having been replaced by twin arm design which really did little if anything for the mounting heigth issue. They were first designed in the mid 30's. As I remember only Daybrook and Coverto were still making C & R designs by thje 60's. They were heavy as hell and very high cost to both manufacture and maintain. There were special low mount subframes made to use with platform bodies but were not very common. Occasionally still see one on an old Chevy or F*rd grain truck. They were unsteady and put a tremendous strain on the body at it's weakest area and far heavier than lightweight twin telescopics which took over the conversion hoist market by the mid fifties. They too are now history for the most part. So I believe your in for some major rebuilding of your platform body and would be very unhappy with it. Just simply isn't going to be satisfactory if used with your hoist. And then there is still the issue of the gooseneck hitch being waaaay too high if you intend to use it.
So no opinion or vote here, just sharing a lifetime of experience with you. | | | | | Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 | Thank you everyone for your time and thoughtful replies. Thank you very much Dave for the history lesson.
In the ol' days, a few of us would stand around a project like this and try to plan the best course-of-action. But that could be as few as 3 and as many as 16 (rare whole-shop meeting)
The beauty of this site is that the shop size is 1000's and you have extended your wealth of knowledge and I appreciate it.
So far the vote is 3 (hoist-the-hoist) to 5 (use the hoist) | | | | | Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 42 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Apr 2010 Posts: 42 | IMHO...I would keep the hoist and cut the sides of the bed. It is already setup and working. In my case I would add a dovetail to the end to use as a rollback that doesn't "roll". Moving around farm equipment and attachments, hay, whatever...etc...
I vote: Keep it! Motoswiz | | | | | Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 | OK, so most think 'we' should keep the hoist ... Now, should we: - Switch gears, (so as not to have two rock boxes) and put the flatbed on the Brigadier and restore the hoist AND box ? (since a proper restoration would have to include build-ups)
-or-
- Cut the box down to the platform and live with a tall flatbed on the C60 ?
thanx for taking time to look at this job -Hd | | | | | Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 184 Wrench Fetcher | | Wrench Fetcher Joined: Aug 2009 Posts: 184 | What is your intended use for each? I would leave the dump box on the heaviest rated truck so you would not loose any capacity on your dump.
Cutting down the box on the C60 would be the simplest way to get a flatbed. It doesn't seem like it should be that tough to cut the sides off either. If you were careful and cared you could probably remove it well enough that you could hang on to it for a bit in case you changed your mind and be able to reattach it. I does not look like the bed on the Brigadier would be as easy to cut down.
If you don't like the height of the C60 with the hoist under it you can always remove it at a later date.
Tad
1946 Chevy OS 1.5ton, 1955 GMC 3100, along with other various IH,Ford,Nash,MGB,.....
| | | | | Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 New Guy | | New Guy Joined: Feb 2011 Posts: 14 | What is your intended use for each? The box carries rock/sand/gravel The flatbed will carry loaded pallets, equipment, etc. does not look like the bed on the Brigadier would be as easy to cut down. You're right, if the box comes off the Brigadier, (36,000lb GVW), everything has to go If you don't like the height of the C60 with the hoist under it you can always remove it at a later date Good point, well taken thanx | | |
| |