It’s always a pleasure to run across a former CC, like running into a long-lost friend. I first shot this fine Econoline over in Springfield back in 2009, and wrote it up at the other site. I didn’t see it again for years, and had long forgotten about it. And then here it pops up again, not far from our neighborhood. And it looks just as good as it did then.
And best of all, the owner came out and told me a bit about it. What more could a curbsider ask for?
Let’s get the preliminaries out of the way first. The Supervan was new for 1965, and it simply involved an extended rear end on the original Econoline body. Now that the Econoline had some serious competition from both Chevy and Dodge, Ford needed something to stay the leader of the pack, and this was it. Chevy and Dodge soon countered with extended wheelbase vans, which were of course a better solution than just hanging out back.
Yes, this was a bit primitive, but it did the job. Ford undoubtedly didn’t want to spend the money on an extended wheelbase because by this time they were already working on the next generation Econoline, which would be a really major change, by pushing the engine out front, and thus redefining the American van.
That got rid of the big dog house between the seats, although it was a nice warm place to sit on a cold day. And one could do a tune up in the rain. But good riddance, on the balance. One had to hop over it to get into the back, they were hot in the summer and noisy anytime. And the handling on these was always crappy, although the Supervan with its extended rear undoubtedly had better weight distribution than the regular ones.
This van has the 240 cubic inch “Big Six”, which was a welcome new addition. The 170 Falcon six was always an underachiever, especially with any kind of load. Or hill. And since 1964, the three speed C4 was also available, and is present here. Curiously enough, no automatic was offered on the Econoline in its first three years, 1961-1963. I’m still stumped about that.
In the post here I did on that subject, it was speculated that the new two-speed Fordomatic was to weak. But that makes no sense, as automatics are only strained by the input torque, and that was just the little Falcon six, a torque underdog if ever there was one. Plus, that Fordomatic was used on bigger cars with bigger engines too, including V8s. It’s still a mystery that’s unsolved.
This van of course has a nice camper conversion, roughly comparable to the VW Westfalia that defined the genre in the ’50s. The jalousie windows are a period touch.
The big seat in the back undoubtedly folds down for the main bed. The extra length on the Supervan was quite welcome in this role.
When I shot it back in 2009, the owner also came out, and raised the top, which is pretty nifty. Unlike the more typical soft-sided pop tops, this one has rigid walls, mostly windows, actually. It’s a pop up clerestory, and makes for a very light-filled interior.
The current owner bought it in Portland, which explains why I didn’t see it for a decade. But now it’s back home, and it does get used for camping trips.
As is obvious from his other cars in the driveway, he’s a lover of fine vintage iron.
And the Supervan fits right in: more fine vintage iron.
More gen1 Econoline goodness at CC:
CC 1961-1967 Ford Econoline: The Leader Of The Pack
Obscure Historical Factoid: The 1961-1963 Econoline Didn’t Offer an Automatic
Do you know if the owner did the conversion? Looks like a nice, basic but effective DIY job but wondering who makes a glass pop-up roof like that. The rest of the furnishings look like they may not have been intended for automotive use but seem alright anyway.
No. This was undoubtedly done when the van was new, as those jalousie windows are very much a ’50s-early ’60s thing. And the pop top is also very much from that era. You couldn’t find those items now to do the conversion.
The pop top is undoubtedly quite rare now. I’ve never seen another like that.
These conversions were often sold by dealers. #vanlife started a long time ago.
I saw this Supervan camper a few years back with what looks to be an identical pop-top, right down to the faded decal (with lettering that I can’t quite make out) near the front of the mechanism. Though it does have a different window configuration.
What a nice survivor. I would swap a 300 into it, nobody would know the difference. And it really needs nicer wheels and tires.
Would the longer stroke of the 300 cause any clearance issues under the doghouse?
Nope. The 300 is identical to the 240 in every way except for having a different crankshaft, rods and pistons. I’ve pondered turning my 240 into a 300 that way. Exact same block and other components.
Actually, there 240 has slightly smaller combustion chamber volume, to create the roughly same compression ratio as the 300, since it has less displacement per cylinder. Putting a 240 head on a 300 is an easy way to raise CR (and power) somewhat.
The first thing I focused on were those scissor-type aluminum/glass louver windows. Nothing says 1950’s -1960’s to me like those windows. Our house had these louvers in our front storm door, and as a young child I would sit behind them, turning the crank back and forth, making the outside world appear and reappear (ours were frosted glass). I felt powerful, able to let in the world or shut it out on a whim. The mechanism was solid; sturdy. Of course, with a pass-through street in front of my house, I also saw many classic 50’s and 60’s cars going by from the safety of my lair behind those louvers.
That door survived until I sold that house in 2011. A year or so later I drove by and saw that the new owners had removed that door, which among other things meant that the lovely solid wood front door, complete with leaded-glass window, was exposed to the elements. Sacrilege.
Nice to see a rolling version of those louvers.
My Aunts summer cabin has a ton of those windows (maybe 20 or more) she worked for a school district and when they remodeled in the early 70’s they took out hundreds of them. As a kid they were great during a thunderstorm they are almost floor to ceiling, you could sit inside with them open a bit for maximum effect watching the rain and lightening hit the lake.
What a great idea. Again, the sense of being protected while having the ability to let just the desired amount of the outdoors, in.
Thanks to Paul I now know these are called “Jalousie” windows. I wonder if they are still made; they’d make a great retro architectural touch.
Apparently they are still made. https://www.tafco.com/aluminum-jalousie-louver-windows.html
Even Milgard makes them but only offers them for sale in Hawaii. https://www.milgard.com/windows/style/jalousie-windows
Hawaii is the only place with a climate mild enough not to require “energy efficient” windows. These windows do not seal well at all. Many homes there have neither heat nor A/C, just floor to ceiling windows of this type.
The Tafco jalousie windows are sold at Home Depot, but much nicer ones are made by companies like Breezway that have modern features like remote power open/close that can be controlled by phone apps or thermostats, decently airtight seals when the slats are closed, and much better resistance to break-ins and adverse weather than the ones in your 1950s/60s house.
VW used jalousies in their Westfalia camper vans at least through the end of the T2/second generation in 1979. The T2 was actually built as late as 2013 in Brazil and sold in small volumes in the UK, but I’m not sure if Westfalia conversions were available on the T2/T2c after German production ended.
One thing I never understood about these long vans was the use of a different tail section with pickup tail lights as opposed to using the same stamping that was used on the standard vans. I love those added jalousie windows by the way.
That’s because the rear quarter panel had to be a new pressing, so why not include an updated tail light?
There’s a body seam that runs vertically behind the rear wheels on both vans, so it would seam logical to just stretch the existing stamping. Even as a kid seeing these vans I thought this was odd. But, you may be right.
You can’t just “stretch” an existing big stamping like that. There’s a subtle amount of taper to that body at the rear. It required all-new panels back there to integrate with the front panels. This is not a perfect box; it has some curves too.
Due to that taper, the space for the tail lights may well have been less than before, so using a narrow tail light would have also been a practical consideration.
By “stretching” i meant creat a new stamping off of the original design. It’s been done countless times in the automotive industry. Take the roof stamping on this very van, which is a longer stamping or “stretched” version of the standard length van. Less space for the round taillights hadn’t occurred to me so that makes sense.
“Handling problems” is a serious understatement. Wet asphalt from an Econoline driver’s seat might as well be glare ice, at least back before radials became the norm, and as for actual ice you DO need chains, whether the Highway Patrol says so or not. The rather unhappy combo of solid axles at both ends and lack of communication between road and steering wheel doesn’t help much either.
I guess that the extra foot & 1/2 worth of weight on the rear, worsened already touchy steering, due to correspondingly less weight on the front.
You’re looking at “handling” all wrong. Think of it as a 16 year old grocery delivery boy back when these were new. What other vehicle configuration would allow a Falcon 6 to break traction and do donuts so easily?
Such a lovely old unit.
I can’t help but imagine what might happen if a – er – larger guest and his friend rested heavily out in that rear extension. I suppose if those guests were heavy sleepers, it’d be a chance to renew the front suspension.
I cannot look at these pics without being consumed by jalousie.
“Chevy and Dodge soon countered with extended wheelbase vans, which were of course a better solution than just hanging out back.” And yet Dodge ended up doing the latter in ’71 with its 15-passenger Maxiwagon with Ford following suit in ’78. Chevrolet took the longest but finally did it right in 1990.
Minivan-wise the opposite happened: the Grand Caravan’s wheelbase was lengthened from the original Caravan’s in ’87, while Chevy & Ford simply added length behind the Astro & Aerostar’s rear axles, though Ford did it first in ’89.