In the last week I have luckily run into three 1960’s Ford Trucks. What could be better?
First up is this 1966(?) Ford N-600 dump truck.
Next up is this 1966 Ford Econoline pickup, captured while in line at McDonald’s. The owner was gracious enough to allow me to take pictures but he wasn’t much for chatting so no dilly-dallying.
Finally, we have this fine 1969 F-100.
The history of these N-series pickups has already been well-covered on this website here. It’s pretty hard to pin down the exact year of these trucks, but this one has what looks to be the “raised-roof”, so it’s from 1966 or later. It’s not a diesel, as it’s missing the external air-cleaner on the passenger side, as well as the “Diesel” insignia above the grille.
The badge identifies it as a 600 series.
It’s not a V-8, as it’s missing either a “V-8” or “Super-Duty” insignia somewhere on the fender, so it must be a six. Given this is a lower-end (medium duty) model, the 240 cid or the 300 cid big six is probably under its hood.
The most interesting thing about this truck, really, is that it is a true dump truck.
It’s got hydraulic brakes, another sign that it is a lower-end model.
That looks like an Eaton two-speed rear end. A different Eaton model, or perhaps from some other manufacturer, was installed in this Diamond-T.
The two-speed axle actually has a Berkeley connection, as the Ruckstell axle was originally manufactured by Hall-Scott in Berkeley.
Before Eaton took over in 1926.
Eventually, as Model T production ended, Eaton adapted the technology to heavy-truck applications.
There’s a power takeoff to what looks like the mechanism for raising/lowering the bed. I didn’t have enough time to understand the mechanism, whether it was hydraulic, mechanical, or some combination, though I would assume hydraulic. Maybe one of you folks can enlighten. Just like in the Fuso, looks like there’s a transmission-mounted parking brake.
A business-like place for doing business.
You can see the switch for the two-speed rear.
I don’t have nearly as many pictures of the Econoline. I talked to the owner, it had a V-8 and an automatic, I don’t think that was stock. It sounded good, though.
It was in great shape. The Econoline pickup was never available with the V-8, but it’s a popular engine swap.
And it was still being put to use, real work, not just getting a Big Mac.
Our next truck is a Ford F-100 from 1969, which the paint job proudly proclaims, if you look close.
It must have been repainted recently, though I think that paint job unfortunately was starting to peel. I think Ford should go back to the F-100 designation for their basic truck, but they have become so wedded to the “F-150” as being the highest-volume vehicle in the country, I imagine that would be a hard sell.
Also a hard-working truck. There is no V-8 insignia on this truck, so it probably has the six, maybe the same 240 or 300 cid six as the N-series also featured in this article.
The owner has added some aftermarket gauges, very useful if you want to monitor the condition of your vehicle, and make it last.
There you go, three 1960’s Ford Trucks, which one would you choose?
Related posts:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-sighting-mercury-econoline/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/coal-requiem-for-a-truck/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/cc-outtake-1969-ford-f250-at-work/
Four wheel tipper with hydraulic brakes carden shaft handbrake a two speed Eaton and petrol engine no thanks been there and had the low diff gear fail to engage when most wanted, I see it has hungry boards so someone definitely loads it up, I’d guess it has an underbody hydraulic hoist, of that selection I’d take the F100,
Nice pics. I had never seen an N series, and would have had a hard time identifying it as a Ford from the front. From the side, the doors are probably the most typical Ford part. Wasn’t it too heavy to have just a 300 CID and hydraulic brakes? Perhaps it’s not as large as it seems to me.
Thanks for sharing!
Six cylinder engines were quite common in medium duty trucks, and even some HD trucks. And this is a medium duty truck. Noe exactly sure of its load rating, but states limit trucks’ weight if they don’t have air brakes.
I think it is 26,000lb for air brakes. N-600 base configuration was 23,000lb. It came with vacuum-hydraulic brakes. Air over hydraulic and full air were optional. 240ci six was standard.
This was what you could read of the model plate. I think by 1966 is was N-6000, but same as an N-600
It was an N-600. Diesels had a 4 digit designation, gas engines had 3 digits.
A tough choice. I don’t really have need of a dump truck, so that one’s out. I would suspect that the padded dash makes it one of the later ones, unless someone added it.
The F-100 would probably be my choice. I don’t know why, but I would mind a failed old original paint job a lot less than a modern clearcoat where the clear is delaminating. And may I say that painting a pickup truck red with clearcoat is cheating. Any owner of a red pickup ought to have the option of letting it turn dull pink for lack of waxing.
Same here. Clearcoat paintjobs just don’t age in a charming manner, this looks like your average Chevy Lumina. I give it a pass since the truck is still being used for truck purposes though.
I’ll take that N Series dump truck, although I have much less use of one nowadays. But a bigger version of my truck with a six and ten gears to work through appeals in a big way.
These N-Series have become quite rare. I haven’t seen in the flesh for a long time. Great catch!
The dump setup on the N series would be hydraulic with a PTO driven pump so dumping would involve engaging the PTO, releasing any safety latches and operating the hydraulic valve. I worked with a similar setup on an 80s F350 flatbed tow truck. That company also had some F-350 dump trucks which used an electric motor to power the dump bed hydraulics since it was more idiot resistant.
The N series’ short nose lived on in the Louisville series as the short hood LN and LNT options.
I’m not sure which of the three I would choose since I have a modern F150. The N series is interesting as is the Econoline and the F-100 has a basic charm in 6 cylinder form.
As an aside Ford’s shift from F-100 to F-150 reflects the shift from a true “half ton” with a 1000lb payload to a “heavy half” with a 1500lb payload and Ford actually had F-100 and F-150 in parallel for a while. Chevy had “Heavy Half” badging on C10s in the 80s but ultimately followed Dodge and Ford by badging their trucks as 1500s.
For what it’s worth, some F-100s in the ’60s were rated at 1500 lbs. or more. What really separated the “heavy halfs” from the older models was their GVWR putting them in the same category as 3/4 tons.
Very cool finds. Thank you. I used to trade die cast toys with older friends as a kid, in order to collect models from before my time. I remember trading for an early 70s release by Matchbox of this late 60s N-Series tow truck. I liked the ‘brute’ styling on these.
I’ve still got one of those in heavily played with condition, along with a Dodge D series tow truck in BP colors
As to the 2-speed axles, Ol Yeller is an Eaton, the one in the link is a Timken.
In most basic description the Eaton uses a planetary reduction within the ring-gear. Timken instead used two complete and separate gear-sets of different ratios, constantly in mesh and selected by a dog; similar in operation to a manual transmission’s gear change.
Earliest models were manually actuated. Then came vacuum shift, or brake air actuated shift. Finally electric shift.
I found these interesting pictures from a 1953 International Trucks Service Manual.
Here’s the Eaton 2-speed, as in the pictures in the text and your description above, it uses a planetary setup inside the ring-gear.
And here’s the Eaton Double-Reduction. Hypoid followed by a herringbone reduction to the ring gear, with the two halves of the herringbone split down the middle. The herringbone is to eliminate end-thrust on the carrier bearings.
And here’s the Timken (later Rockwell, later Meritor, then Arvin-Meritor, now Meritor again) two-speed double-reduction. As you say, it shifts rather like a two-speed transfer case, with a dog-clutch on the layshaft.
And finally here’s the Timken double-reduction axle. Note that there is no herringbone setup like in the Eaton. Timken made their name, then and now, with tapered-roller bearings, maybe they just figured their bearings were up to it.
Cool.
Thanks for rounding up the pictures!
One minor detail, the pictured Eaton may not be a 2-speed, although that is the make up of the 2-speed system. If I see the dark picture correctly, from the absence of shifting components, that may be what was commonly called a locked-in-low carrier. Which as the name implies was essentially a 2-speed that could not be shifted out of low.
The Timken unit was probably the toughest carrier of all. Maybe a draw with Mack’s own, another rugged design.
I can’t edit my comment now but with a better look at the post and pics I can see that jeromesolberg accurately pointed out both the 2-speed and double-reduction units.
Vacuum operated Eatons sometimes found neutrals you didnt know you had, vacuum leaks being what they are youd shift, the diff wouldnt and youu roll to a stop with a growling noise from the rear end, range shift and joey boxes eliminated two speed diffs and thats a good thing.
F-100 had a better ring to it, but F-150 has too many years of recognition to axe it. Plus I separate the F-100 era from the F-150 era by workaday single cab pickup truck transitioning to the plushy suburban truck for the family, it would almost be name debasement to revive it for what pickups have turned into since it’s departure.
The Econoline is my favorite here, nothing has the cheerful character of 1960s forward control van pickups
The F-150 was a “5/8 ton” in order to avoid passenger car emissions standards by raising the GVWR to above 6000lb. F-100’s were typically 5000lb.
In the beginning, there was the F-100, which had a shorter wheelbase than the F-250 and 350. Somewhere around ’55 or ’56 the F-150 was added as a half-ton with the long wb and 8 foot bed. When emission standards came in the F-150 was redesignated as you pointed out, with eventually both series offered as short- or longbeds. Finally the Ranger replaced the F-100 in 1983.
There was no F-150 until 1975. F100s came in short and long beds.
I have to go with the Econoline. My Father had a 1962 & I remember well playing behind the driver seat as there was enough space there for young me & my toys… I’ll never forget. His was white & he thought me how to drive a stranded trans on this truck…
I believe the N’s numbered in hundreds (600, 700, etc.) were gasoline powered, and the thousands (6000, 7000, etc.) were Diesels. 6 cylinder engines were perfectly adequate for trucks of that type the way they were most often used back then – local, lower speed work. Correct on the dump hoist. One floor lever to engage the PTO and a second lever to control the hydraulic valve, usually power up, and gravity down. Later, larger trucks had air engaged PTO’s and some used push-pull cables rather than levers. 26,000 pounds GVW is the cut-off point where “big” trucks begin, legally, in the United States, as I recall.
I believe the N’s numbered in hundreds (600, 700, etc.) were gasoline powered, and the thousands (6000, 7000, etc.) were Diesels. 6 cylinder engines were perfectly adequate for trucks of that type the way they were most often used back then – local, lower speed work. Correct on the dump hoist. One floor lever to engage the PTO and a second lever to control the hydraulic valve, usually power up, and gravity down. Later, larger trucks had air engaged PTO’s and some used push-pull cables rather than levers. 26,000 pounds GVW is the cut-off point where “big” trucks begin, legally, in the United States, as I recall. Look closely and you’ll notice the N cab structure is the ’61-66 cab used on pickups on up, raised up with a different nose structure. Often manufacturers held over older cabs for their larger trucks after their light trucks had moved on to a newer style.
That’s true, an N6000 would have been diesel powered. The diesels Ford used in medium trucks those years were their own British built Dagenham/Dorset diesels. Those diesels were fairly reliable but not very powerful. Not too common even back in the 60’s.
It was the same for the C-Series as well–100s were gas-powered and 1000s were diesel-powered. The fire truck I saw at Cromley’s Ford back in September 2018 was a C-8000.
Model emblem
I once had to rent a late model medium duty diesel dump to pull the only equipment trailer that the lot had left to rent. I was taking a ’22 Dodge hot rod project to a Good Guys show/swap in hope of selling it. Driving that truck was much different than driving my old F 250 and new F150. I kept it down to the legal speed limit of 55 mph. It was loud and rode rough and felt even bigger than it really was. Even with a/c I wouldn’t want to earn my living driving these and bigger trucks. For all the expense and trouble I couldn’t even give that Dodge away. So far I’m three for three for not being able to sell a car at Good Guys. Maybe people don’t really go there to buy, but I’ve seen many very good deals.
GMC had their cab forward version around the same time. Looking quite similar as well.
Hydraulic brakes were available on heavy duty trucks. A local construction company purchased two GMC 8000 series Brigadiers, tandem rear axles, these were heavy equipment machine service trucks. I always wondered what possessed some one to order these trucks with hydraulic brakes. Hated working on hydraulic brake trucks. Especially tandem axle trucks. You could spend hours trying to get the brakes bled. The adjusters were always difficult to access and were usually rusted up anyway. We had a large national tree service company that bought medium duty trucks and they didn’t stop buying six cylinder engine until the engine was dropped.
Two speed rear ends are another whole story. Best product you can sell to keep your service department busy. Most drivers are never properly trained on how to shift the two speed and bingo you burn up the electric shift motor and tear up the engage meant dogs.
xr7, I agree, hydraulic brakes on heavies were the worst.
Remember, steers that probably would’ve been easy to “spoon” had a simple wrench-turn cam adjuster that always worked? Meanwhile, the drives could have TWO miserable stuck inaccessible star-wheel adjusters per wheel.
There is no state imposed weight limit on trucks with hyd brakes. The capacity of brakes on a truck is determined by the size of the shoes/drums.