88-98 stepside on 73-87 shortbed - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

slammed_82 · 10-09-2004, 01:16 PM

does anybody have pictures of an 88-98 chevy stepside on a 73-87 short anything will help im trying to debait about getting one thanks

C&C Chevy · 10-09-2004, 02:13 PM

JMO, but that would look ugly. Probably not alot of pics of that.

cliffsta · 10-09-2004, 05:29 PM

it probably would look better than that F150 bed someone had slapped onto that truck. (cue for someone to repost / link that)

Slonaker · 10-09-2004, 05:40 PM

This question comes up once or twice a year. Every time a pic is posted, people are disappointed with the way it looks. I have seen one in person locally, and the lines just did not line up well at all. I have also seen one of those beds on a 67-72, and it actually looked pretty good.

Slonaker

**Palf70Step** · 10-09-2004, 06:00 PM

I think they look better on these year trucks than on the 67-72. here is the only shots I can quickly find.

Jonboy · 10-09-2004, 06:10 PM

That really doesn't look as bad as I thought it might. I do think that bed looks really nice on a 67-72.

cliffsta · 10-09-2004, 08:18 PM

from those 2 pics, the only thing that doesn't line up half decently is the top of the fender to the body line of the cab, which is pretty much the biggest thing that doesn't line up and makes it look bugghhh

**N2TRUX** · 10-09-2004, 09:02 PM

That's not too bad. In case you didn't notice the rear step is shaved on that bed so it helps. It would look better if the upper body line (actually a seam) were shaved. I have seen it done before and it helped quit a bit.

I can't tell from this pic, but they may have modded the front step too. The shape of the cab and the step normally don't match that great.

Another thing I noticed is the fender opening matches the 73-87 better than it does on a 67-72 truck....

PRUNEDA · 10-09-2004, 07:12 PM

I don't think it looks bad at all, but i wouldn't do it to any of mine personally

Tom · 10-08-2004, 10:39 PM

It looks like crap IMO. I see one every day where I work. Why anyone would want mis-matched body lines and a square front but a rounded rear section I cannot understand.....

EDIT: How the heck did my reply become the first post, and why didn't it bump this post up to the top of the page? This is weird...

**swervin ervin** · 10-09-2004, 11:39 AM

I have seen both body styles, 73-87 and 67-72, with these beds on them. I don't care for the look myself. To me, updating the look of older trucks with new style body parts is just wrong.

Edit: Tom, my reply is right under yours. Something is wrong with the boards.

76cheyenne · 10-09-2004, 08:04 PM

Ya that looks pretty cool. Now someone has to find a 73-87 truck with a 88-98 bed bagged.

76cheyenne · 10-14-2004, 08:41 PM

Hey I just found this on ebay today. It has the 88-98 step side bed on it.

**N2TRUX** · 10-14-2004, 10:15 PM

You can see what I was talking about in this pic. Look at the lower corner of the bed. It doesn't follow the shape of the cab. I think the blue one in the first pic has corrected this problem....

**swervin ervin** · 10-14-2004, 10:18 PM

Man, it's just wrong to do this to a nice truck. Why do folks feel the need to put newer body style parts on older trucks?? If you want a new truck, buy one.

*1FaastC10* · 10-14-2004, 10:25 PM

Ken, your refrence to the upper body line on the 88-98 trucks is incorrect. i remember ordering 88-98 bedsides when i was working at the dealership, and remember clearly pulling them out of the boxes to inspect for damage, and seeing that body line. i just went out and looked at my 91 just to be sure, the seam is actually inside the bed.

as for the bed on a 73-87, looks like total crap in stock form. the pictures posted above do it no justice as to how the body lines dont match up. the 67-72 trucks, the rocker radius is almost identical, and the upper line lines up with the upper line in the older cab.

**N2TRUX** · 10-15-2004, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1FaastC10

Ken, your refrence to the upper body line on the 88-98 trucks is incorrect.....

Hmmm? Don't know why I had it in my head that was a seam. Thanks for setting me straight though.

Like I said above if that body line which is "not" a seam is filled it really helps make the bed look like it belongs. It's still on ill fitting mess unless you rework the steps.

obsesive23 you did a great job of mating the old with the new. Too bad the shape of the wheel well openings don't match. It would make a huge difference. Regardless of that I still like the way your truck looks....

obsesive23 · 10-14-2004, 10:27 PM

I put a 95 step side bed on my 68 and it was a lot of work to make it fit right. It wasn't my first choice but considering that my truck had a 300 gallon water tank on it and I got my bed for 400.00 out of the same junk yard, well you can see how it ended and it's kinda growing on me.

Prerunner1982 · 10-15-2004, 11:47 AM

saw a 67-72 with a brand new stepside bed on it just a few minutes ago...again something didnt look right.. the bed way too rounded for the cab...

10-09-2004, 01:16 PM	#1
slammed_82 Ground Pounder Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Yankton SD Posts: 54	88-98 stepside on 73-87 shortbed does anybody have pictures of an 88-98 chevy stepside on a 73-87 short anything will help im trying to debait about getting one thanks __________________ 82 swb

10-09-2004, 02:13 PM	#2
C&C Chevy Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Midwest City, OK Posts: 1,001	JMO, but that would look ugly. Probably not alot of pics of that. __________________ Robert Current: 1986 SWB Silverado 4.3 / TH400 Past: 1985 SWB Silverado 305 / TH350 - sold 1995 1987 1/2 ton Silverado - FI 350 / 700R4 sold 2007

10-09-2004, 05:29 PM	#3
cliffsta Stepsides RULE Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Pineville, LA Posts: 1,921	it probably would look better than that F150 bed someone had slapped onto that truck. (cue for someone to repost / link that) __________________ 1981 Chevy C10 Custom Deluxe Stepside 350 V8, headers, side exhausts, 3-speed auto SOLD 1980 Chevy C10 Custum Deluxe Stepside 305 V8, Edelbrock Performer Intake, Edelbrock 1406 600CFM 4-barrel, TH350C. Bent rod. SOLD 1984 GMC Sierra Classic Longbed 6.2L Diesel SOLD 2009 Kawasaki KLX-250S too many mods for this signature 1999 Honda Accord EX 4-cylinder, 17" Motegi Wheels 215/45/17 Sumitomo tires, Tein S-Tech lowering springs, KYB GR2 shocks, Acura TL 20mm rear swaybar, debadged, blackhoused headlights, Short-Ram Intake Cardomain of the Accord

10-09-2004, 05:40 PM	#4
Slonaker Insert Witty Text Here Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 3,415	This question comes up once or twice a year. Every time a pic is posted, people are disappointed with the way it looks. I have seen one in person locally, and the lines just did not line up well at all. I have also seen one of those beds on a 67-72, and it actually looked pretty good. Slonaker __________________ '86 Chevy C10 (Sold 04/19/13 ) Stock '01 Silverado

10-09-2004, 06:00 PM	#5
Palf70Step State of Confusion! Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gulfport, MS USA Posts: 47,226	I think they look better on these year trucks than on the 67-72. here is the only shots I can quickly find. Attached Images __________________ Bill 1970 Chevy Custom/10 LWB Fleetside 2010 Toyota Tacoma PreRunner SR5 Double Cab - DD Member of Louisiana Classic Truck Club (LCTC) Bill's Gallery Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift. Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God!

10-09-2004, 06:10 PM	#6
Jonboy Slots go on anything! Join Date: May 2003 Location: Richardson, TX Posts: 5,957	That really doesn't look as bad as I thought it might. I do think that bed looks really nice on a 67-72. __________________ 1974 Jimmy- 5.3/4L80e/NP241

10-09-2004, 08:18 PM	#7
cliffsta Stepsides RULE Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Pineville, LA Posts: 1,921	from those 2 pics, the only thing that doesn't line up half decently is the top of the fender to the body line of the cab, which is pretty much the biggest thing that doesn't line up and makes it look bugghhh __________________ 1981 Chevy C10 Custom Deluxe Stepside 350 V8, headers, side exhausts, 3-speed auto SOLD 1980 Chevy C10 Custum Deluxe Stepside 305 V8, Edelbrock Performer Intake, Edelbrock 1406 600CFM 4-barrel, TH350C. Bent rod. SOLD 1984 GMC Sierra Classic Longbed 6.2L Diesel SOLD 2009 Kawasaki KLX-250S too many mods for this signature 1999 Honda Accord EX 4-cylinder, 17" Motegi Wheels 215/45/17 Sumitomo tires, Tein S-Tech lowering springs, KYB GR2 shocks, Acura TL 20mm rear swaybar, debadged, blackhoused headlights, Short-Ram Intake Cardomain of the Accord

10-09-2004, 09:02 PM	#8
N2TRUX Happy to be here Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Cypress, TX Posts: 39,021	That's not too bad. In case you didn't notice the rear step is shaved on that bed so it helps. It would look better if the upper body line (actually a seam) were shaved. I have seen it done before and it helped quit a bit. I can't tell from this pic, but they may have modded the front step too. The shape of the cab and the step normally don't match that great. Another thing I noticed is the fender opening matches the 73-87 better than it does on a 67-72 truck.... __________________ Follow me on Facebook and Instagram @N2trux.com Articles- "Jake" the 84 to 74 crewcab "Elwood" the77_Remix 85 GMC Sierra "Scarlett" "Refining Sierra"

10-09-2004, 07:12 PM	#9
PRUNEDA '87 Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Katy, TX Posts: 632	I don't think it looks bad at all, but i wouldn't do it to any of mine personally

10-08-2004, 10:39 PM	#10
Tom driving is in my blood Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Mesa AZ Posts: 5,748	88-98 stepside on 73-87 shortbed It looks like crap IMO. I see one every day where I work. Why anyone would want mis-matched body lines and a square front but a rounded rear section I cannot understand..... EDIT: How the heck did my reply become the first post, and why didn't it bump this post up to the top of the page? This is weird... __________________ -78 c10 short/step: 388cid, M20, 5/5 drop, lots more. Playtoy and first vehicle. -98 c1500 x-cab: 5.7L, 17" rims, 5/6 drop, flowmaster, helper bags,NBS rear disk brakes. -02 Suburban 4x4: leveled front -CBR600F4i, CBR600RR, CBR1000RR, and standup skis DISCLAIMER: I cant spell for the life of me. Last edited by Tom; 10-08-2004 at 10:41 PM.

10-09-2004, 11:39 AM	#11
swervin ervin You get what you pay for Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Cherryville, NC Posts: 4,798	I have seen both body styles, 73-87 and 67-72, with these beds on them. I don't care for the look myself. To me, updating the look of older trucks with new style body parts is just wrong. Edit: Tom, my reply is right under yours. Something is wrong with the boards. __________________ Mike 1985 Chevy C-10

10-09-2004, 08:04 PM	#12
76cheyenne No more Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Nebraska Posts: 134	Ya that looks pretty cool. Now someone has to find a 73-87 truck with a 88-98 bed bagged. __________________ 1976 Chevy K10 CheyenneTrue Duals with glasspacks and cutouts, Blacked out tails, Rockford Fosgate H/U with 2 Sony Xplode 6x9s and 2 8" MTX Subs with a Alpine Amp. New front clip in primer. For Sale $2000 obo

10-14-2004, 08:41 PM	#13
76cheyenne No more Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Nebraska Posts: 134	Hey I just found this on ebay today. It has the 88-98 step side bed on it. Attached Images __________________ 1976 Chevy K10 CheyenneTrue Duals with glasspacks and cutouts, Blacked out tails, Rockford Fosgate H/U with 2 Sony Xplode 6x9s and 2 8" MTX Subs with a Alpine Amp. New front clip in primer. For Sale $2000 obo

10-14-2004, 10:15 PM	#14
N2TRUX Happy to be here Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Cypress, TX Posts: 39,021	You can see what I was talking about in this pic. Look at the lower corner of the bed. It doesn't follow the shape of the cab. I think the blue one in the first pic has corrected this problem.... Last edited by N2TRUX; 02-05-2006 at 05:32 PM.

10-14-2004, 10:18 PM	#15
swervin ervin You get what you pay for Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Cherryville, NC Posts: 4,798	Man, it's just wrong to do this to a nice truck. Why do folks feel the need to put newer body style parts on older trucks?? If you want a new truck, buy one. __________________ Mike 1985 Chevy C-10



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

10-14-2004, 10:25 PM	#16
1FaastC10 Account Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Elkhart, IN Posts: 6,399	Ken, your refrence to the upper body line on the 88-98 trucks is incorrect. i remember ordering 88-98 bedsides when i was working at the dealership, and remember clearly pulling them out of the boxes to inspect for damage, and seeing that body line. i just went out and looked at my 91 just to be sure, the seam is actually inside the bed. as for the bed on a 73-87, looks like total crap in stock form. the pictures posted above do it no justice as to how the body lines dont match up. the 67-72 trucks, the rocker radius is almost identical, and the upper line lines up with the upper line in the older cab.

10-14-2004, 10:27 PM	#18
obsesive23 Who me? Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Bothell WA Posts: 640	I put a 95 step side bed on my 68 and it was a lot of work to make it fit right. It wasn't my first choice but considering that my truck had a 300 gallon water tank on it and I got my bed for 400.00 out of the same junk yard, well you can see how it ended and it's kinda growing on me. __________________ Living the dream 72 2WD Blazer, under going porter built surgery 67 GT Mustang fastback 67 Mustang coupe C/S clone 64 Falcon sprint hardtop

10-15-2004, 11:47 AM	#19
Prerunner1982 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Edmond, OK Posts: 5,904	saw a 67-72 with a brand new stepside bed on it just a few minutes ago...again something didnt look right.. the bed way too rounded for the cab...

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.