I have just bought a 1970 C1500 International truck. It has a 171 inch wheelbase, a 15ft tray and a GVW of 13,500lbs. My first question is. It has 20 inch wheels on the front and 17 inch on the rear. Would it have been built this way or has a previous owner changed it. If it has been altered should it have all 20 inch wheels or all 17 inch ?.
My second question. The truck is the usual International red of the time and the wheels are painted silver inside and outside. Would this be the original colour scheme or should the wheels be black ?.
We bought a C1500 new and it was on 17" wheels. 7.50-17's from memory.
All our C1600's were delivered new with 8.25-20 tyres on disc rims with the four slots cut out out near the rim bead.
All the rims were black when delivered.
GM Diesels - Converting diesel into noise since 1938.
Thank you to everyone for your replies. Whilst I realise bigger wheels on the back would give a higher road speed for the same engine rpm and perhaps a little better fuel economy, I don't expect to be doing a lot of kilometres so it's not that important. I think I will go for originality and put 17 inch on the front.
Another advantage of doing this is that I only have to buy two more wheels as the spare that came with the truck is 17 inch. If I went to 20 inch all round I would have to buy 5 more wheels, although I could "borrow" the ones off my AR160.
Basil. The wheels are as you describe, four slots cut out near the rim bead. I also think I will paint them black again for originality.
Although folk are advocating bigger wheels to get a higher speed you need to rember that there will be less brake effort (unless you fit bigger drums & shoes) and on inters where braking in modern traffic is already an issue it may end up being a bad choice.
I often wondered why the affiction truck makers had for 17 inch wheels, 1946 Ford and Chev had them on their 1 tonners, Ford used them rigth up until 68 on 250's,
my fathers dream truck, a 1966 AT4 475 which he bought when it was 11months old, 11000 miles on the clock, which cost him 1100 quid, had them, and they were an odd ball size back then,hard to get and expensive, Bedford even played with them on 8 stud wheels.
It used to roll arond like a drunken sailor, unfortunatly he got hit by a drunken driver in it in 69, took out the RH side pushing the car through a fence, on his wrong side of the road, what saved him manslaughter was a lady at the ponyclub do he just left saw he was on the right side of the road, yeah, he went for DD, no insurance.
I rebuilt it for him in 79 to80, new axle, steering box, guards, bonnet, stock crate just the way the wanted it, only he never got to drive it again, had a stroke at the dinner table after his weekly trip to the Toowoomba horse sales, i still have the rolling chassis under a van that houses my 65 chev bel air i made into a ute, and i still have the crate which i fitted to a D5N for my brother, also fitted a 453 to that, still have that too,
"originality" could also be taken too far. There would be many trucks converted to a more common size wheel/tyre combo within a short time of purchase. A modification from standard common to the era is IMHO as original in spirit, if not more so, than simply going blindly along with the specs page. Restorers (to my mind at least) have equal responsibility to the users of the vehicle as to the manufacturers, who, lets face it, built to a price. I think it likely that the makers who fitted the 17" wheels, did so because they were offered a batch by tyre companies for a shit hot price too good to turn down. The truck manufacturers often prove this by fitting a different size to the next model, and/or offering it as an option on the same model.
Be it firearms or V8 engines, the question is not "why should you have them?"
, but "who are you to demand that I justify them?"