All photos courtesy Bring A Trailer
I gotta admit, I fell off my chair when I saw the result of this auction for a 1980 Ford F-250 over at Bring A Trailer the other day. $97,000! This must be some sort of record for an original condition, unmodified pickup truck.
Other than its absurdly low mileage and commensurate condition (although the bed is somewhat scratched up), there is little special about this particular 1980 F-250 with a standard cab. Options are pretty much limited to the 5.8L V8, 3-speed automatic transmission, a tachometer, and an AM Radio. Indeed, the auction listing has to resort to mentioning features such as a coat hook and the glove box in order to pad out the copy. Still, this is how most pickups used to be sold, and how some buyers swear they would still equip their trucks today (although no one actually does).
I can’t help but compare this F-250 to the matched pair of new 1979 Lincolns that went up for auction last month, and that I wrote about last week. Both Lincolns failed to meet reserve, with the Mark V getting bid up to $33,000, and the Continental reaching just $27,000.
Only one model year separates those two Lincolns from this F-250, but clearly an ocean separates them in terms of desirability. Granted, the two Lincolns represented the tail end of the malaise/brougham epoch, while the F-250 represents the dawn of the seventh-generation F-150 Ford pickup trucks, the first all-new Ford pickup since 1965.
Don’t get too comfortable.
I must confess that I too have a soft spot for this generation of Ford trucks: My dad owned a roofing company back in the ’80s, and he owned a small fleet of Ford pickups (one even in this exact color combo), so this auction brings back a lot of memories: The 3/4 length molded door panels, the window cranks with exposed screw heads, the glovebox made of fiberboard, the dashboard that screams “CUSTOM” and the long line of warning lights and knockout blanks across the top of the dashboard all send me back to an earlier time.
As originally found condition – not nearly as impressive looking!
So is this auction an outlier, or does it represent a larger shift in the collector market from cars to trucks? With the ongoing shift of the new vehicle market from cars to light trucks, it seems inevitable that the collector car market would follow suit. Still, given the choice between an F-250 and one of the 1979 Lincolns, I would take the Lincoln in a heartbeat, but then I may not be completely unbiased.
To pay this kind of money for something because of the “perceived” quality of its low mileage is insane. Any additional mileage added via usage voids the exclusiveness, so where’s the value? Cars in this condition usually end up as “static displays” in museums, or doomed for the rest of their existence to being trailered around, and never driven as intended. Just my $0.02 worth! YMMV! 🙂
One BAT commenter said it all on the price of this truck: “Rosebud”.
This truck must have really meant something to the buyer, taking him back decades to a formative time in his life. The rest of us simply aren’t going to get it.
Trying to think of an equivalent in my life; perhaps the 79 Saab Turbo 5-door my dad drove when I was a kid. I’d listen in the evening for the distinct turbo whine as it approached. If I had the means to feed, care, and store one properly, I could see paying a nostalgia premium for one.
Perhaps someone cashed out their Gamestop stock at the right time last week…
It was well worth it not just to the buyer, but also to the next highest person, right? It takes two to bid it up.
It wouldn’t be an F250 for me, but given the storage space, cash pile in hand (i.e. an amount many multiples above my needs), etc I could see bidding a lot of money for various cars from my high school and college years.
The second, losing bidder running the price up was my first thought, as well.
As bizarre as it may seem, this is likely the next, big, used vehicle bubble with brand-new trucks eclipsing the six figure mark. Think about how you can either buy a modern, brand-new, hot ponycar, or pay the same amount for an old, classic, restored one. There are plenty of people buying the latter.
So, the logic applies to trucks, too (I guess). But if I were in the market for a light pickup, there’s no way in hell I’d pay the same money for an old one, no matter how good the condition.
What’s next? $100,00 slant-six, sixties’ Valiant strippo sedans?
I am consistently surprised by some of the sale prices on BaT. I’ve heard a lot of Barrett-Jackson “Syndrome” jokes over the last decade or so, but I think BaT is emerging as a rival…Keyboarding under the influence? The strong results are too consistent, however, to narrow it down to a couple of pride-fueled bidders – I’ve noticed (anecdotally) that asking prices are up for old cars in general over the last year. Hey, if someone has the money to spend on a 97-mile truck, have at it! I’d rather see prices come down a little, because I’m always looking to buy things.
Ludicrous money.
But let’s think about it…
Finding a low mileage Lincoln of that vintage isn’t impossible. They are not necessarily that plentiful, but they exist.
On the other hand, how many low mileage F-250 4x4s of this vintage are floating around? Likely just this one. It’s not like somebody paid that much for a 2005 F-250. This example is over 40 years old.
But $97k is still crazy money for this.
The sad part is that the buyer of those Lincolns probably could have brought six or seven of the F-250’s instead and had a much larger return on investment.
Little did anybody realize back then how dramatic taste and preferences would change away from brougham and toward utility.
Regarding the subject vehicle, one word comes to mind… “BIGFOOT.”
Back when monster trucks weren’t all built in the same shop to a specific CAD formula and were not intended to be intentionally “flipped.”
It took real American ingenuity to build these “Monster Trucks.” There was a brief era in the 80’s when Monster Trucks were “The New NASCAR,” real trucks such as the one above were heavily modified and turned into a “Monster Truck.”
Like NASCAR in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, the era of those type of monster trucks of the 80’s was a glorious time to be a fan and watch every builder try to develop a “better mouse trap” during an era where the rule books were thin and sponsorships were fat.
Now that this has one sold for close to six figures, I think forty year old pickups with delivery mileage will start coming out of the woodwork. If not delivery mileage, then suddenly people will be rotisserie restoring their rusty snow plows with perfect beds and four thousand miles accumulated without driving on public highways.
Already happening.
https://www.mecum.com/lots/FA0820-433106/1989-jeep-wagoneer-hellwagon/
Sold for 115,000 in the early stages of a pandemic. Would have gotten close to 200,000 in “normal times.”
Not that the chassis was even remotely designed for 700 HP but hey, you only live once.
I would have brought the OEM Durango Hellcat with my money though.
Jason, I’m sorry to hear that apparently Scoutdude outbid you for the truck. Both of you attend auctions and have properties seemingly filled with Fords, so who else could it be – Ed Snitkoff already bagged his ride last year. Yes, that extra $100 he bid did drive it into the “ludicrous money” category, I agree, but as long as he’s happy with it…. 🙂
Even if I won the lottery for $50m plus I just don’t think I could pay any serious money for this truck. The Bull Nose trucks are one of my least favorite Ford trucks at least regarding the looks and since this is destined to be a static display I’d prefer a Dentside. Even then I’m still not paying near $100k for a display. Now there are some old trucks I’d pay serious money for but it would need a badge with a Man on the Tractor instead of an oval. Of course that means $25k is all the money in the world so I could buy 4 instead of 1.
That’s not to say I don’t like the Bull Nose for doing actual work and in fact an 84 2wd F-350 Crew Cab was the pickup that did the heavy lifting for me while I was building out my portfolio. I really should have kept track of how many tons of gravel, dirt, demolition debris and junk left behind by tenants it hauled over the years. Not to mention the building materials that didn’t cross a scale.
I quit bidding at $47.3k. A person has to draw the line somewhere.
Well, my current fleet is only 50% Blue Oval, and, like Scoutdude, these aren’t my favorite Ford pickups. I truly struggle to see how this particular pickup could have brought half (40%, 1/3, 1/4) what it did. But to each his own.
Well, I got curious. As suspected, I could buy a new 3/4 ton 4×4, somewhat comparably equipped, for way less than half.
Note I spec’d this one with the Godzilla 7.3. For 1980, I believe a 351 was the biggest displacement engine available, so I tried to keep the same thought process. With the standard 6.2, which has more beans than this 351 ever dreamed of having, scrub $2k off the price.
Well, the picture won’t attach, but I spec’d one for just over $40k sticker price. And it has a warranty.
And you won’t feel bad having a load of gravel dropped in the new one.
400ci gas V-8 available on the F-250 that year. Modern engine still outperforms it by far.
I kind of agree with Jason’s comment on how many low/no mileage F250’s there are out there versus similar cars.
Also look at the fact that nowadays one can load up a new pickup and take a serious run at that $97000 figure. Then you end up with an expensive truck that in theory anyone can duplicate.
Odds are this is one of a kind. If you have that money to spend why not be unique about it?
Following BAT for a while most prices are up, but trucks are having a really good time the last 3-4 years. In fact I’m pretty sure Tom is correct Trucks are indeed now more collectible in general then cars.
I’m dying to hear the story of how it ended up sitting in storage unused for 40 years.
I think it was in this video that they said the guy bought it for his business and around the time it was supposed to be delivered 2 of his employees let a big spool of wire run into another truck, he was so mad about it that he parked the new truck in the warehouse and never used it.
“[This] F-250 represents the dawn of the seventh-generation F-150 Ford pickup trucks, the first all-new Ford pickup since 1965.”
I thought we just covered this? Many seem to think the 1973 models were “all new.”
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/curbside-classic-1973-ford-f-100-ranger-xlt-a-better-mousetrap/
It depends on the definition of “all-new”. Legally, “all-new” denotes a new generation with significant changes, but it doesn’t require the underlying platform be changed. The F-Series had received new generations in 1967 and 1973, so they could be called all-new, but both were still utilizing the upgraded frame introduced in 1965 (with Twin I-Beam front suspension). A more recent example might be the 2009 F-150, which was “all-new” but still used many parts from the 2004. The 1980 generation was the first clean-sheet redesign, most notably using the new Twin-Traction Beam on 4WDs rather than a solid axle.
Exactly…one could argue all day about which generation is more “all new” than another, except that’s kind of an oxymoron. The truth is there is almost never an entirely “all new” vehicle. Engines, transmissions, suspension components…you can nearly always find something carried over. So maybe we should stop using the term altogether? It’s basically just marketing.
My 1980 7th F100 has the king-pin version of the twin-I-beam front end, mechanical clutch linkage, 9″ rear end and several other major items carried over from the previous generation.
This is gonna be the next vehicle bubble. Say goodbye to affordable 80s trucks, guys. Everyone with a ‘ran when parked’ is gonna want stupid money now.
Imagine what those two Broncos that Paul posted yesterday are now worth in just 24 hours…LOL! People!
There’s always some carryover.
Really all-new, do we have to go back to ’28?
While we’re picking the nits… let’s discuss the term “generation.”
I usually don’t care to think so hard about a subject vehicle. Just mention the model year, or for the generation something like ’80-on, or “new for ’70” is a lot quicker to grasp. The term “# generation” needs thinking through, especially if the model in question has not yet been clarified or if it’s not a vehicle one follows too closely.
Good points. I think the usage of strictly defined “generations” is basically a result of the internet and modern resources such as Wikipedia. Before that, I think most people considered the various “generations” in the 1980-1996 range to really be evolutions even though Ford pitched some updates as making the truck “all new.”
Anyway, before the internet standardized things people just called them by various nicknames like “Dentside” or “Bumpside” or “Bullnose”, but now it’s all been rationalized and made official.
I use generation because the rest of the internet does, but I basically agree, and I think Henry is right about Wikipedia’s role in shifting the vocabulary. I never understood why the Fox is an all encompassing single generation of Mustang from 79-93 while the F-series has three generations from 80-96.
Fox? Heck even the original “1st” Generation Mustangs are that way, Matt.
There’s the Mustang, ’65 thru ’68 (sorry fellow enthusiasts, I still refuse to use the term ’64-1/2 )……
The Warhorse if you will, ’69 & ’70…
And then there are the Clydesdales, ’71 thru ’73.
How are all of these the same generation again?
I’d rather go by platform designations than generation where applicable, generation too often boils down to minutiae or styling alone which would be the case with 65-73 Mustangs if you split them like that given they all used the same floorpan and suspension design(“Falcon platform”). Otherwise I don’t see what’s wrong with simply going by year ranges without successive categorization, especially on the internet where it’s less typing to say “79-93” than “third generation”. A laymen can understand year ranges, as much as an expert. Heck, I am an expert and I couldn’t tell you what official “generation” of Cougar my 94 is without looking it up (to me it’s probably fourth, but then some might separate early box Fox from aero Fox making mine fifth?)
And +1, I don’t use 64-1/2 either, I’ll sooner say “the early 65s used generators” when talking about them.
I too find platform designations much easier. For GM trucks it’s especially easy what with GMT400, GMT800, etc. Unfortunately there aren’t any such codes for Ford trucks In common use and the “generations” seem extremely arbitrary. So we’re back to year ranges! 🤷🏼♂️
I know they are the same platform, but the later ones are a lot different than the ’65-’68 in concept. Although the size isn’t much different, the ’71-’73s look huge compared to the earlier ones.
By the way, I don’t use the term ‘641/2 either. I don’t know how many times people have used that term to me. I don’t correct them unless they are a friend and then I tell them that a lot of people use that term but they were all titled as ’65’s. One of my friends nearly got into a fight with someone over this.
“Generation” is a word I just tune out, as in co-workers who can’t complete a sentence without dropping the F-bomb every other word.
Some of my other tune out words or phrases?
“Poverty” or “dog dish”,
“an all original, fully restored car”,
“freeze plugs”
“all the hard work is done”. That’s enough for now! 😉
Why he parked it: took a short drive in the empty truck on a bumpy road.
In around 1980 at the tv station we bought a new Chevy 3/4 ton 4×4 pickup with extra high capacity springs to haul distilled water up to the transmitter. It was ok with a full load, but empty that thing was absolutely atrocious, in terms of its ride, even on the freeway.
Agree 100%. When I was working as an engineering co-op in the late ’70’s, my employer had a couple of slightly older Ford F250 4 X 4 trucks that were used primarily to deliver metal castings to local customers. I was occasionally recruited to help make deliveries when the regular drivers were unavailable or fell behind. With a full load of castings, the trucks rode reasonably well. But empty — they were virtually uncontrollable, especially on bumpy roads or riding over railroad crossings.
Inconceivable! I cannot IMAGINE paying that sort of money for this. And let me point out: low mileage is not the same thing as a new car, and low mileage means more often than not that none of the parts which wear out with age have been replaced and every single thing that would normally have broken on this car in the last 40 years will now break.
As has been pointed out, what do you DO with a vehicle with mileage this low? You don’t really want to drive it. . . and I cannot think that this would be that great to drive anyway. I’m sure for 20K you could buy a decently used but well cared for example, have it fully restored to 2021 functionality, and enjoy whatever nostalgia kicks you may enjoy from it. i cannot imagine that a 40 year old truck from the era when trucks were spartan utility vehicles would be fun to drive anyway.
Just wow. And in the world of FoMoCo vehicles from 1985, a 5.8 with the 3 speed auto would be a pretty sweet powertrain.
As noted above, this absolutely shouldn’t exist, but it does. Great Aunt Mabel has been known to keep Uncle Fred’s new sedan in the garage because he died before he could pick it up, but Aunt Mable and Uncle Fred did not buy F-250s. I love that this exists, but as others have said, I would let someone else pay the big bucks for it.
There was a “My Classic Car” episode that kind of touched on what your talking about here.They mentioned that people back then didn’t buy trucks to daily drive and keep nice; they were used as tools.
Dennis took two low mileage pretty much original trucks (a ’70 Ford F100 with 29 miles and ’71 Chevy C10 w/19,000 mi) for a drive to compare and contrast how different the two were.
It’s worth a watch:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZgCzxGpT8&w=560&h=315%5D
That business owner really knew how to hold a grudge.
Color me shocked. If you combined every other low mile survivor FoMoCo car model made in 1980 (Mustang, Pinto, Tbird, Monarch, Mark IV etc.) I’m not sure the grand total would necessarily reach $97,000!
Somebody must have been nostalgic though, but if it’s a precedent setting new trend I’m just baffled at this one, I never thought this generation was anything special, the beds and cab carried on through 96 and the front end styling is the second only to its direct successor in dullness, and plastic usage really became noticeable. I can see the value climb happening for the preceding dentside generation since they’re getting pretty rare, but I still see quite a few 80-96 work trucks around to dilute the specialness of these, and the disparity between this low mile one on BAT and a high mile one on Craigslist must be a record.
Don’t see it and wouldn’t pay even beyond $20K for it. I’m not a static collector as I like to take my collection out for drives. What fun is there in just looking at the vehicle in a garage. It was made to be driven as that is where the enjoyment is. Naturally you put on miles when you drive it and miles translates into a lower value. That being the case is why I wouldn’t pay that price as I am anticipating it’s lower value as I drive and so take it into account. This was nuts but then car collecting does have it’s share of nuts.
And this isn’t even a vehicle that is that enjoyable to drive just to drive and using it to do what it was intended for will really make its value drop.
I just hope a youtube idiot didn’t buy it to destroy, since buying a $100k truck and destroying it for subscriptions is a thing right now.
And the thing is mileage shouldn’t actually matter on truly collectible vehicles, any Ferrari 250GTO is still worth millions upon millions even if an eccentric owner daily drove it and put it in the ditch a few times in its past, restorations are perfectly acceptable to restore value and even survivor condition carries value with them, same with a Shelby Cobra of a Hemi Cuda. And there’s no value sinking taboo taking them out to vintage races or the drag strip or even a car show, or fixing them if something happens. If you actually used this F250 to do what it was designed for and treated it no different than owning a brand new F series, that $97,000 will rapidly come down as far as $970 like many other 1980 F250 survivors were already worth before you know it, it’s an investment bubble that literally needs to be kept in a bubble in this case.
What jumps off the page on this one, is that it is simply a truck, like a Tonka truck on a grand scale. It doesn’t try too hard to be or do anything other than be a truck. No second row of seats, fender flares, whiz-bang interior features or special compartments. No auxiliary lights or fancy side mirrors. It’s just like that IH junkyard truck from a few days ago, but a bit better appointed here and there. The ‘90s trucks are a bit more comfortable, have thinner sheet metal, and routinely come with a/c and extra space behind the seats. They are the crossover. This is prime, low-mileage pre-crossover, from when trucks were just trucks. My pocketbook and tailbone will leave this one alone, but it sure is nice to see a prime specimen of “just a truck”.
What’s with ragging on how bad this thing would be to drive? Most all of the normal everyday vehicles from yore would be crap to drive compared to what we drive now. A base level 63 Chevy doesn’t handle, stop or accel vey well either.
I wouldn’t pay the kind of money they paid but I would sure as hell would drive it. This is probably close to the end of trucks being trucks. You would have bought a 3/4 ton like this here if you were going to be plowing snow or if you lived out in the country and you needed to get to and from home reliably in the winter.
As for ragging on the ride, I think we’re all just shocked by the price…and trying to point out that it doesn’t make much sense. Clearly no one is going to drive the thing much but if they do they certainly aren’t going to be pushing a snow plow or hauling 2500 lbs of gravel, thus they would be better off with a F-150.
But it’s hardly true that 1980 was “almost the end” of trucks being trucks. This same basic body continued for another 17 years, a 1997 F-250 could be just as basic as this one and runs much stronger with fuel injection.
I heard a comment that a lot of high priced auction vehicles get that high because of laundered drug money.I wonder,is there really that many people willing to pay ludicrous amounts of money ,knowing it’s not worth it and knowing they won’t ever get their money back?Some vehicles are good investments,provide lots of fun and have a reasonable chance at a mild return money wise.The way the classic car market has takin over the last 5-10 years,you have to say a lot of people will get left holding the bag.
Great article, Tom, and I have a theory on this, regarding basic trucks: “this is how most pickups used to be sold, and how some buyers swear they would still equip their trucks today (although no one actually does).” I sold new cars/trucks in the 80s, and over 4 model years I sold exactly 1 special order vehicle. What a pain it was even then! And, I spent weeks trying to dealer-trade for a vehicle that was close to what the client wanted before my sales mgr would let me place the order. Dealers don’t want to sell cheaper cars/trucks (unless a dealer that specializes in fleet sales or work trucks), and dealers don’t want to waste time special-ordering them. Add to that, the overall “softening” (I have a lot of other descriptions but will keep it PC) of Americans minds and bodies and you end up with today’s luxury toys.
I’ve seen several eye watering prices on BaT vehicles that “sold” only to have the “buyer” back out over the years, and I wouldn’t bat an eye if this is one of them. The one comment that stuck out to me in this tread was from James: Bigfoot. That actually makes some sense if that’s the intention.
What do I know? There is currently a 1981 Civic hatch with 127k on it already bid up to $8,200 (!) Yes it’s darn clean, but really? Parts can’t be easy for those early Honda’s, let alone finding someone who can figure out that crazy vacuum system. Ran when parked comes to mind.
BAT auctions for low mileage vehicles often bring surprising prices. There is a strong demand for these square body Ford and GM trucks from the 70s-80s either from nostalgia or a desire for a more truck like truck. I like the looks of these early 80s Fords better than the late 80s “waterfall hood” facelift but prefer the later ones as daily drivers because from 87 on up they had port fuel injection in place of carburetors.
I think this price is insane so somebody with more money than sense really wanted one.
The biggest contributor to greater truck sales starting in the late 80’s was the push to FWD cars. I sold Fords out of high school at Kemp Ford in Thousand Oaks CA in 1984 and the trucks were just starting to get fancier with Eddie Bauer editions and such.The big gripe, almost a hatred, was ALL the car companies were going FWD and you couldn’t get V-8s in too many of the cars at that time. That trend brings us to today’s trucks, even more appealing, luxurious than ever. 97,000 dollars buys a lot of car or truck, for me though, this truck definitely isn’t worth it.
Hm… I think you may have put a finger on the truck phenomenon! I know we’ve established that well-equipped pickups are the PLC or what-have-you of our time but your reasoning, for me at least, puts a time and reason on it that makes me go “Ah, yes – that IS why this happened.”
Regarding the subject car – as a child I was dumbfounded that every vehicle I encountered with a “CUSTOM” badge was an old, poverty spec American car or truck with crude build quality to boot (in the late 90’s/early aughts a ~20 year old car wasn’t yet a classic, and my mom wisely raised us with a string of Toyota Cressidas which made me wonder why all old cars weren’t as good as those) and so I cannot get excited about this truck much less the abhorrent selling price.
I’ve always said that in any vehicle that has to move a lot of weight, like this F-250 or especially in an RV, power is everything.Fuel economy doesn’t vary a whole lot because a company such as Ford, GM, Dodge (Ram) have to design there vehicles to move weight and smaller engines sometimes don’t do any better MPG wise.Thus you are left with an underperforming vehicle, such as with a lot of older vehicles, car or truck.Even if this truck was going for a third of the 97,000 dollars I wouldn’t buy it because in theory it really needs the 460 V-8 to do what it’s designed for.This truck though, should be in a museum, a tribute to 41 year old design and technology.
As with power vs economy, mainly the70’s, some 80’s , with engine choices, you basically either got the smallest engine for MPG, or you got the largest engine for power.The Ford 300 ci inline 6 cylinder for the trucks was one of the “World’s” best engines.They even used them in the F-250’s,they could do miracles practically, although they weren’t fast at all.With a full load they were lucky to get a few more miles per gallon than the 460 V-8 but performance was dismal.The F150 would do well with a 300 ci 6 cylinder with a light load and the 351 V-8 did better but got the same mileage as the 460 V-8 just working harder.So, the F250 -350 and up needed the bigger engine for all the weight they had to move.The in between engines back then didn’t give you the power or the gas mileage you needed.That was then, but now technology is way better at both,way better.
There was a Chev on BAT last year that went for high five figures also. I wonder why they’re always such basic spec when they get stashed?? You never find a no-miles XLT Lariat or High Sierra. Which is the way I’d want a truck like that equipped… this tale makes me feel better about continuing to refresh my 90 F250. Which is a 460 Lariat that I’ve got maybe $2000 into!