The fact that men, particularly blue collar workers, have suffered disproportionately in America’s changing economy of the past few decades is hard to argue against. And no where is it more apparent in the external symbols of virility that truck manufacturers apparently feel men need in order to compensate for their reduced status, real or imagined. Fifty years ago, men were apparently secure enough in their manhood to drive what has to be the most feminine of trucks ever. And today?
Well, if the highly-educated high-earning career woman wants to buy her boy-toy a truck to play with, I guess it better look butch.
Although a giant chromed exhaust stack standing erect behind the cab might be called for to make sure that everyone really gets the picture.
Enough. But the all-new Ford trucks that appeared for 1961 were the lowest and sleekest trucks Ford would ever make, marking what must have been perhaps a high point in the collective male testosterone levels. Well confident and optimistic American men were riding off to space sitting on top of giant rockets, so maybe… Anyway, the new lineup included the very unusual “uni-body” Styleside version, which featured an integrated bed and cab, like a Ranchero.
Now the Styleside was just one of three bed options available on these trucks. Of course, the traditional Flareside bed was still available. But because the Styleside didn’t lend itself well to the twisting and flexing a truck gets in heavy-duty use, the Styleside was not available on 4x4s and the F350 (yellow). That separate cab and bed version was also available on the F-100 and F-250, and it was an awkward combination: the new ’61 cab married to the old previous-generation bed. That used to really throw me when I was a kid.
And Ford had to tool up two separate door outer skins in order for the respective side moldings to integrate (or not) into that sweeping side accent line on the Styleside.
It’s well known that I drive a ’66 F-100. But I will let you in on a secret: I would never have bought one of these Ford “slicks”, as much as I appreciate them for their daring metrosexuality. I guess it was just a bit to feminine even for me. Or maybe it was just that I didn’t think this bed design was a practical or rugged as the later separate version that became standard in 1964.
Actually, my favorite year for this series is undoubtedly the ’65. It’s front grille design is by far the best of the bunch. And the major mechanical changes that started with the ’65, including the new I-Beam front end and the new Big-Six engines were a substantial improvement. And the new rear bed now really works, having lost those very curvaceous flared rear wheel openings . Looking just a bit more butch already, eh?
I know lots of folks bitch about the Twin I-Beam front end, but it’s a much nicer riding and handling affair than the crude solid beam axle on its predecessor, like this 1962. Even the steering wheel had a better angle in the later versions. Other than that, this interior looks mighty familiar.
As much as I appreciate the slick’s quirky rear end styling, it wasn’t what I had in mind at the time: maximum utility and ruggedness. And its two-handle tailgate latches seem a bit tedious. Amazingly enough, my battered tailgate still works and latches. The ’64 and up bed looks a bit more solid to me, or maybe it’s just my imagination.
But I admit to having a soft spot for that giant rear window, which the non-unibody trucks never had. And I’ve always wondered, did Ford spend the money to have this big piece of glass tooled up, or is it a leftover windshield or rear window from a previous car? Does anybody recognize it?
The engines available in this ’62 were Ford’s old but quite adequate 223 cubic inch “Mileage Maker” six, or the less-than-admirable 292 CID Y-block 292 V8, not known for its efficiency. The 262 CID version of the six was also in the mix, and would be my choice (obviously). From the emblem on the hood, this one is graced with a six, and a four-speed granny-gear manual.
Somehow, the loads that needed to be hauled in 1962 were done so, even if it was with a pathetic little 114 hp six and a sleek and feminine low-rider body.
Dad had maybe a ’65 or ’66 with a V8 and a 3 on the tree in the early ’80s. It was rough, but with those ’70′s mag wheels, it looked and sounded kinda stout.
Before that he had a late ’50s Chevy pickup that I remember as being cool, but he never talks about either truck ever. I think he saw them as symbols of being broke and not of being hip, which for him is probably true. They were bought because that is what he could afford, not because he would enjoy a truck he could afford.
The only 2 trucks he talks about fondly of the many he had are an ’86 Bronco II and an ’87 Mitsubishi Mighty Max, both 4x4s. The Bronco because it had an extremely tight turning radius even though it almost killed us twice and in spite of cracked heads which caused its sale, and the Mits because it had a limited slip rear and was an absolute goat. He was an avid duck hunter at the time and both attributes figured into getting the boat and trailer into (and back out of) the water greatly.
Today, he has tons of disposable income and drives an ’08 F150 optioned very nicely, but doesn’t have much of an opinion of it. I drove it quite a bit and was impressed with the steering accuracy and how stiff the entire truck is, but he had never noticed either.
And so I say all that to say this: Are we the weird ones for looking back on past cars and trucks with fondness, or is he for not doing so?
Good question. No doubt having the freedom to chose your cars and trucks, including old ones as “toys” changes ones perspective from having to drive beaters as a result of being being economically constrained. Anti-consumerism is usually advocated by those that can afford it.
Ha, never heard that one before but it’s so true. I’m a bit of an anti-consumerist and frequently notice how amazingly expensive it can be to not be wasteful and especially to avoid buying what is essentially just landfill. Even after 3 years of working at it, the organic honey we collect from our bees costs easily five times what we could buy organic honey for at the store.
I don’t tend to care about the expense very much, but that’s a luxury I couldn’t afford most of my life (not that I’m wealthy now).
But back to that truck: Seems I always know at least one person with one of those ’60s Ford trucks, and always thought they were very pretty, especially the unibody models with that cool back window. Could that back window have come from a Galaxy or T-bird circa ’59? It does look familiar since you brought it up…
“And so I say all that to say this: Are we the weird ones for looking back on past cars and trucks with fondness, or is he for not doing so?”
I don’t know that “weird” is the term I’d use. Many of my old cars were beaters I bought because I was broke; but for some of them, I had a deep affection I still have.
I recounted my Postal Jeep history elsewhere…now, that car was so outrageous, so impractical, so redolent of poverty and abject lack of good sense…it made being broke FUN. Then there was Blazing Saddles, my Texas Pinto Squire wagon…it avoided most of the rust that tended to kill the breed; but had mos of its quirks.
Now, imagine being 22, broke, unemployed, and using a Pinto Squire, with faded applique wood-grain all over it, to go on a date? It really DID bolster self-confidence. I HAD to not give a damn what people thought.
And for all that, it was a reasonable car in the way Pintos were good. The German four was a smooth, strong (for the era) runner; the four-speed would snick into gears like a sports car. Gas mileage approached 26; which matters when you’re broke, no matter the price of a gallon.
Point of it is, that car, which should have embarrassed me to tears…I remember fondly. Not so much my later Escort or even my Nissan King Cab 4×4 truck.
I think it was because that Pinto, with that Jeep, with a few other beaters…they took care of me when I needed it most.
Yes the modern truck does look girly lots of shiny chrome big bling wheels what a childish POS thre old 62 looks good it has a OZ style ute bed I dont ever remember seeing that model none were imported here and i cant recall any that shape in OZ.
“Childish” is a good adjective for the modern style in trucks. They look a great deal like the Tonka Toys that belong to 6-year-olds. Marketing genius though, I must admit…
Yes!…that’s been hammering in the back of my mind, every time I see one of these off-putting, ungainly, garish new trucks.
Childish. Tonka truck. PERFECT description.
Give me a MANLY truck…a 1964-66 GMC with the V-6 and a manual; or – dare I say it – a Jeep J-20 or earlier J-2000? Something designed to WORK, not shimmer and shine and look pretty…pretty gaudy.
Something with NO CHROME. Even the vent-window divider-channel blacked out. Something…with a VENT WINDOW.
To keep the wind from the open window from blowing my hair into my eyes. When I open the window.
Because it has no air conditioning. Like it has no velour. Like its carpeting is made of rubber.
A man-truck.
Wind blowing hair in your eyes? Now who’s dreaming in technicolor?
Well, I don’t necessarily want a “man truck” as you call it. At my age (any age in GA, really) one appreciates AC, PS, and PB. That and the stereo does it for me.
Can’t help but notice our ’90 F150 is looking pretty classic compared to the modern Tonka Toy style though…
I have always admired the looks of these trucks. The ultimate problem, I think, is that Ford was targeting a market that did not really exist. Those who appreciated the sleek beauty of these vehicles were most likely those who had bought the 57-59 Rancheros, which were basically cars and which were very pleasant to drive.
Unfortunately, these single I-beam axle trucks with their twin leaf springs were just miserable to drive. These were built for working. I owned a 63 F-100 with this suspension setup, and I’m here to tell you: Anyone who put in an 8 hour day driving one of these trucks really earned his paycheck. I found mine fun in short doses, but driving it for any length of time became a lot of work.
So, buyers who wanted looks were run off by the driving characteristics that appealed to he-man farmers and dockworkers, while those looking for utility were put off by the lack of practicality of this body. You could not remove or swap beds for different uses or after an accident. I also understand that this body suffered from nasty torquing when the bed was really loaded up then driven over uneven surfaces.
But it sure is pretty. And I had never noticed the different door skins between this one and the Flareside.
If you’re in the market for one of these and you plan on hot rodding it at all look into a 65-66. I learned the hard way that the frames were redesigned for 65 and the earlier versions weren’t up to the torque output of the later engines.
My 63 F 350 had the 223/4 speed and 5.32 gears! No joke, it topped out at 45mph.. And she was screaming doing it.
It was a farm truck all it’s life but i’m guessing it was a dairy or hobby farm as the bed had almost no damage and there was no rust through. It did have rust, it was a black truck that was peppered with surface rust to the point of looking purple-ish from a distance. It was a styleside long bed, a bit of an odd duck as the long bed itself was the same dating back to the 1957 trucks. I may be wrong but I remember reading that Ford didn’t have a dedicated long bed for these until 64?
(I forgot my login for flickr, but I think I had a pic of my 63 up there)
Some 8 years back I found a Slick sitting behind a gas station for $1000.. Shoulda bought that thing right then and there.. But my better half at the time put her foot down on that idea.
I love the style of the ’62. (The clean face of the ’61 model looked even better, IMO.) The later models with separate cargo boxes and Twin I-Beam suspension were better trucks, but weren’t nearly as sleek. And the ’11, with stilt-like proportions and a toaster-size badge on the front? Not at all.
Yes sir. i have a 1962 ford pick-up with a 351 engine in it. This truck has been in the family for at least 30 years.It also only has 48,000 original miles on it but, the engine is not original. my grandfather installed this engine 15 years ago. I would like to sell it for $ 1800 to the first buyer. Thanks, Demetrius 678-853-3022
Well, now.. This gives me a chance to post a pic of what I think is the most beautifully truck ever. Sometime between 1965 and 1973 Ford made an optional 9′ step side. To me the combination of the 60′s era cab and the step-side long bed is somehow irresistible. If I ever saw one I would have to buy it.
Yes, my dream truck: ’65 F250/350, that 9′ bed with a dump lift, 300 six, and a modern six-speed tranny (low first, four intermediate gears, overdrive top).
You nailed it
Surely that configuration cant be impossible to find even just a driving chassis then junkyard the rest of it, We have nearly none of the US fords they simply were not imported The local equivalent was by Bedford of England in a whole range of lengths and carrying capacities real 50s trucks right thru till the end beam front axle 4 speed 6cyl Chevvy engine drum brakes flat bed either tipping or not tick the box you want. All gone now swapt away with the tidal wave of Japanease imports which are much netter engineered and built modern turbo diesel engines modern cabs COE design such a major improve ment over the old bangers and far more useful than the glitter shitboxes currently available from the big 3,
I have a 62 with a 9ft stepside. Needs some work on carb,brakes,doors but the body is good and the V8 runs. Any idea what it may be worth?
Man, that smooth-skin Ford brings back memories…1990, my first trip out West…camping and photographing a number of places.
It seemed those Styleside Fords were EVERYWHERE. I had never seen one before; they would have all dissolved into rust out East long before I would have noted such things. But in the West…it seemed, at that time 1990, it was the truck for the young bucks down on the farm, or ranch, without means, to have.
I think Ford, like others, were flailing around trying to figure out what the recreational-truck market would look like. Was it the Ranchero? Didn’t seem so. Was it the traditional step-side truck? Not likely. That market was likely saturated. Chevy’s smooth, sculpted-side truck seemed to bring in new customers. So, what if they tried a blend of the two? Truck body, styled sides, one unit?
Which brings me to a question: WERE those trucks unibody, under all that; or did they share a frame, even if they didn’t have separate body and frame mountings?
Those truck do have a real full frame.
Our next-door neighbor when we lived in the St. Louis area had one of these – red and white and cute as a button all over – until it was wrecked – hit by another car and subsequently junked.
The real find would be to locate one of those late 60′s – early 70′s styling odd-ball Dodge pickups with the dip line along the sides and goofy-shaped cab! Those would really be a conversation piece now – a kind of life-sized coffee table book with a story all its own!
There’s plenty of those old Dodges here. We’ll have to do a CC sometime soon.
I will never understand how there could be so many slick Mopars of the ’60s and….that truck. I don’t mean to dump on anyones favorite ride, but man, those things were hideous…
Now now, be tactful…
Those Dodges had their crude charms.
Easy.
Those things weren’t sold on their appearances. Remember, they were made alongside the old Power Wagons…which hadn’t changed a bit, appearance-wise, since the war.
It was probably newbie-duty, working on the Dodge pickup line. Put a dip in the stiffening ridge along the side of the body – just like Ford did. Put chrome headlight bezels on it…like other companies. Hang some brightwork on there; square off the back of the cab a little bit…
What, it looks gaudy? Goofy? Who cares? It’s a DODGE, fer chrissakes…they aren’t buying it for the STYLE….
When I was a kid, there was a old man living next to the Post Office who had one of these, I believe short wheelbase. He was an eccentric old devil who apparently ran a freelance scrapmetal business out of his yard…or maybe he was early into Industrial Art. Whichever, his truck was painted gray primer (brush finish) with his name handwritten (maybe fingerwritten) on the doors. I’d always see it loaded with scrap metal in his yard.
One day I found that the Ford had joined the rest of the scrap in his yard–it was cut up in little tiny pieces and scattered all over the place. The old boy was a fiend with an acetylene torch–he did the same thing with an early ’50s F-1 too.
I happened to see this CC come up in the rotation on the home page, and then recalled I had actually seen one of these this past Saturday at our local weekend farmers’ market, still in use as a produce hauler. In a similar color scheme to the CC truck, actually. I was struck by how diminutive it was in comparison to modern trucks–even a standard, not-radically-jacked-up Toyota Tacoma seems larger, let alone a Tundra.
Old trucks rule. I picked this one up a few years ago for a song. Original paint, 70k miles, farm truck from GA.
It has a (rather thirsty) 390 2V with 3-speed auto. It is slowly rusting away in our humid ocean air, but I enjoy the heck out of it. My wife and most friends don’t get my attraction to it, but it’s just such an honest truck. The slot mags were scored from a pick and pull yard locally and polished in my garage. Tires had to be larger in back to get that ‘South GA Rake’ that is essential to any old, 2WD truck here.
I wouldn’t call the 1961-62 feminine or metrosexual and in fact I think you’re an asshole for doing so. These trucks had graceful lines that were a tasteful reflection of the times and probably the pinnicle of American styling. The tailgate script and tail light configuration is clearly more imaginative and striking. Up front, the ’65 looks much too busy when comapared to the minimalist all in one grille of the 61-62. Additionally, the uni-body’s lack of gap between bed and cab promotes a continuity between panels that 50 years of abuse on a ’63 or later would render. It also creates a dramatic line across the whole vehicle that the later years simply can not touch.
I think you took me too seriously! Ever heard of the expression “tongue-in-cheek”?
Hi Paul. I have a 62 F-100 big rear window ford next to my barn, It was here when we bought the property, and my son, second one that is, at 15 years old wants to restore it. I love the look of the rig, and consider it art in a way. A look back at a time past but not forgotten. Hope all is well with you and yours. Is that a pic of Doc Rankins old Cadillac at the top of this page? Sure looks like it. I sold a 1958 Chevy Cameo to buy this place bout 12 years ago. I miss that pickup. But both have big back windows. CLASSIC AMERICANA my friend, classic.
I remember my college room-mate (at the time, the proud owner of a ’61 Chevy 235 step-side) talking about the early 60′s Styleside. He said the issue was that, with the twisting and flexing a work truck had to do, the lovely back window would pop out! He said the truck had a terrible reputation because of that. Never saw an example of that, but I was around many mid-60′s Ford wide-beds (with the separate bed) growing up on an Arkansas hill farm. Riding in the bed over a rough field hauling hay, you could see the cab constantly going one lateral direction and the bed shifting another. The chassis seemed pretty flexy, even by a 13 year-old’s standards. This was a white ’65 with a 352 and about 275,000 miles, purchased for $300 in about 1973. Loosest steering I’ve ever driven, like helming the Queen Mary.
Down here, where people have always loved trucks, you almost never see the unit cab/bed version still on the road, while there are plenty of the flare-sides and the ones using the old round tail-light wide-bed from the ’50′s (which I also found confusing as a kid).
I too, now have an 08 F150 (six, stick, rubber floor mats — probably in deference to those old farm trucks of my youth) and you really notice the stiff chassis compared to those old ones and even the mid-90′s Mazda-Ranger-clone that this truck replaced.
I have a1963 step side pick up with a263 motor in and i have yet to see another one like it with a 8 foot bed it was been in the family seen 1964 if there any more out there i would like to now please get me no