These trucks are becoming a rarity given the low sales/production and that more often than not, I see them more in the yards than on the road.
Apart from a couple of battle scars, yours has survived remarkably well. I remember as a young lad that when a vehicle rolled over 100k miles, it was done. So much so that manufacturers didn't even bother adding a 6th digit. Nowadays, it's common to see double or even triple that and more.
And having had a hand into its design certainly makes it special for you personally and I don't blame you for wanting to keep it. Which part were you involved in? We complain about engineers for poor design choices (i.e. part A gets in the way of replacing part B) but I think that has more to do with the bean counters and lack of communication between departments.
As far as a sticky, we do have a Member Builds section which can be used for showcasing your particular truck even if you're not "building" or modding it. I have moved this thread there. I think all of our trucks are survivors until they do succumb to the ravages of time and wear. Having sent three to their graves, my '02 EXT, an '05 parts Saab and just recently, my '06 Saab, I know what that feels like.
Thanks Mooseman! For the GMT 305 I was involved from day 1 when they were taking it from an idea to a sketch. I still have copies of the different variant hand sketches the artist rendered based on the ideas that were generated. One concept had a canvas retractable top like a convertible. Another concept had a removable / storable roof panel.
I was able to be part of the entire project by being involved in Quality planning in the earliest stages and went into Manufacturing engineering as the concepts took shape in clay and we hammered out the details of design for manufacturability.
I had responsibility for the movable roof, interior trim in the cargo area, and the Butresses. Also some roles for the end gate and mid gate. In my view the mid gate and cargo trim were beautifully executed. The end gate was a mix of trade offs against the technical challenges of attempting to net locate a massive closure that interfaced with the roof, roof seals quarter panels, multiple hinges and striker points and finally the floor.
It never should have been designed as a net build. As a dropgate/ Swinggate, Each door should have been fixture set / fit to the body just like they did on the B body wagons. The net build was to save labor in the plant. Statistically it was possible. In reality it sucked.
Add class 2 electronics, solenoids, switches, relays and designs that were constrained by ergonomics in the factory and you had a nightmare that was pulled off, yet admittedly poorly executed.
Then there was the “Buttress”. It was the dream of the chief engineer to do that design. It was completely paralyzing to the engineers and the public, yet it went forward. I nearly lost my job over conflicts with the nitwit engineer that assured us that a large 2 piece chrome panel with 17 blind push in fasteners could be reliably snapped in place by an operator on a moving assembly line. I personally think the buttress was the death blow to the truck. It rendered the truck to looking like a tub from the rear.
None the less, I love the memories and that’s why it’s difficult to part with her.
Regarding serviceability. Blame GM not the engineers. The service engineers at the time were all contract employees, not permanent. Imagine that! No loyalty, came and went as they pleased, it was hard to say what got done, but it wasn’t in my area. Huge mistake that you pay the price for every time you spin a wrench.
