I was well aware of Ford’s big hood scoops on their HD trucks in the early-mid sixties. But I just ran across these shots of a couple of ’56s that also had them. Hmm…time to find out the history of them. Turns out they were only installed on the optional 200hp 332 inch Torque-King (Lincoln Y-block) V8s that featured the new four barrel carburetor.
The upshot is that trucks were rather ahead of the game with functional hood scoops to feed their hot new V8 engines.
The Lincoln Y Block V8, which appeared in 1952, was clearly also designed for truck use, and was the top engine in Ford’s big trucks through 1957, after which the massive new Super Duty V8s replaced them. The truck versions came in 279, 302 and 332 cubic inches. This 1956 F900 brochure shows just two versions of the 332 being available, the 190 hp with a two barrel carb and the 200 hp with the new four barrel carb.
It looks straight out of a JC Whitney catalog. And if I remember correctly, these Ford truck hood scoops found themselves on a fair number of hot rods.
Here’s another ’56 F900 with the scoop. These V8s had quite the bellow when worked hard, which they usually were.
And here’s a ’58, although the scoop looks a bit different now.
And in 1961, the scoop was turned backwards. Ford undoubtedly realized that the area in the middle of the hood is a low pressure zone, whereas the base of the windshield is a high pressure zone, so that turning it backwards made it much more functional, as well as reducing rain ingress.
These hood scoops were seen through the rest of this generation of Super Duty’s too, to feed the big V8s up to 534 cubic inches.
mn
And to add that the end of the 1961 generation came in 1969, not with the new ’67 pickup cab. They weren’t updated at that point because the Louisville trucks were on tap for 1970.
I believe that some ” 1967 pickup cab” heavies also got the factory hood scoop.
There were enough of them around that all being retrofits seems unlikely.
I believe I misunderstood nlpnt’s point.
Anyway, the ’67 pickup cab was used as a heavy, but the lines between light medium and heavy and model-year changeover were definitely blurred by simultaneous production of Old F, New F, and then Louisville.
The 1967 – 1969 HD Ford conventional trucks continued essentially unchanged, and did not use the 1967 style pick-type cab as also used on the medium trucks. This is from the 1969 brochure:
“The 1967 – 1969 HD Ford conventional trucks continued essentially unchanged, and did not use the 1967 style pick-type cab as also used on the medium trucks. This is from the 1969 brochure”
That brochure may not cover the ” 1967 pickup cab heavies” but definitely many heavies (HD engine, air brakes, spoke wheels, 5+speed trans, 2spd axle..) were built based on the ’67 pickup tin.
My original point was simply that the previous lines of distinction between weight class, cab “year” and series had definitely become blurred.
A Louisville could be spec’d for “billboard duty” with 300-6 and “motorhome” tires. Meanwhile, a ” ’67 pickup” could be spec’d heavy enough to be interstate line-haul ready.
Yes they did. In ’67, I think the medium duty F series up to the F-700 got the new ’67 pickup cab and the F-800 and up, along with the short N series trucks stayed with the older cab now with a significantly raised roof. At some point in the 70’s after the Louisville trucks came out, some heavy duty F series trucks reappeared with Super Duty gas V-8 and Caterpillar diesels. Those trucks had scoops (single for gas, twin for diesel).
Here’s the full range 1969 brochure. The regular F Series maxes out at a GCW of 50k; the HD F and T series at 75k. That’s a lot more genuine HD in my book.
Yes, the high end of the regular F series could technically be called a “HD”, but only technically so, depending on the definition.
The point is and was that Ford’s top end HD conventionals still used the old cab. And there were no new cab versions that had the same capabilities that it did.
And I’m not going to spend any more time on quibbling over the definition of “HD”. There may have been a bit of overlap, but there was a clear distinction between the Mid-HD F series with the new cab and the full-HD versions with the old cab.
Not hood scoop(s), but yesterday I saw an 80s model medium/heavy duty? Ford dump truck with venting on the side of the hood big enough to swallow a microwave oven.
Thanks, Paul. As an old truck salesperson, I always find truck history interesting. I remember the scoops. I also remember the sound and the smell of the exhaust of Ford gasoline engines for trucks. Trucks do not get pampered and these Ford met the test.
Interesting shot of the dump truck.
I spend a 2 summers in college driving an F-800 12 yd twin screw Ford Super Duty gas. A few of the older Fords had the hood scoop, but my ’67 along with all the newer ones didn’t. I thought the scoop looked cool and asked the shop mechanics if they could put one on my truck. Told no way – problems with dirt ingestion at off-road excavation sites. Found out they ended up blocking scoops on the older trucks. All subsequent trucks were ordered without the scoop to avoid repeating the problem.
The bakery where I worked had these Ford V-8 semis. The engines in some went 300K miles without an overhaul..As the saying goes,”Built Ford tough”.
“Torque King” — boy howdy! 🙂
I love these big ol’ trucks. Gorgeous hunks of machinery.
Interesting 1958 new “Extra Heavy Duty” truck brochure-magazine with features, maintenance ease, new engine development—and one hood scoop seen: https://www.ebay.com/itm/284169148959?hash=item4229cd1a1f:g:c0cAAOSw0kdgGD~z
Totally an aside, but did the hood scoop go onto the Thunderbird around then to make room for taller engine, etc? (Memory may be faulty.)
Minor correction, ’58 saw introduction of the Super Duty engines (534 et al) which replaced the Big Job “Lincoln” engines.
The “Lincoln” stayed on in medium duties until ’64, when replaced by the “Ford” based FT.
Correct. Fixed now.
Incidentally, Pontiac borrowed not only the Super Duty designation, but the hood scoop too; as in the actual Ford-built, part# and all, scoop.
True, except they slapped their own p/n on it. they were used for the ’63 (coincidently called) super duty 421 drag racers and the NHRA required a factory p/n, as in Pontiac factory.
As far as performance, hood scoops are more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. Really, the biggest benefit is a bit of underhood cooling by letting hot air escape.
I vividly recall Chrysler’s sixties research on hood scoops and they discovered that a ‘boundary layer’ was needed above the hood surface to raise the scoop enough to actually ‘scoop’ the air for a performance increase. The results were the (in)famous, gigantic hood scoop on the 1969 fiberglass Six-Pack hood, then the fiberglass hood of the one-year-only 1970 Challenger T/A (although a similar hood scoop remained available on later Demon/Dart Sport models). Even today, the legacy of hood scoop air intakes mounted high from the hood surface can be seen on today’s drag racers.
Another unorthodox method was the 1968-69 442 W-30 package where the scoops were placed underneath the front bumper. This proved troublesome during inclement weather and removing them during winter months was a prudent measure.
That’s really the biggest issue with hood scoops that actually work in day-to-day use: they not only bring in air, but other unwanted material like rain water, bugs, and dirt.
A functional cold air intake improves performance some vehicles have that built in with complicated plumbing the easiest and cheapest method is chop a hole in the bonnet/hood and press up a scoop, cold air, warm fuel, better bang for your buck of course intercoolers help but these are old trucks.
Image #5… Did 253 have its horn clipped so as to not obscure clearance lamp?
Picky picky. lol Never saw that before. shrug
I think that’s just the glare of the sun on that corner of the air horn trumpet. I think it’s all intact.
It is interesting how things have come around. Ford is now offering a 7.3 L gasoline engine for its medium duty trucks. I see them everywhere. I also note that pretty much every F-250 or F-350 SD in commercial use is running a gasoline engine. This is not scientific, just what I notice out on my strolls.
The reason is simple: the diesels are not reliable. They are service nightmares (from my direct experience) and with the $13,000+ upcharge, it would take a very long time to recoup this in fuel savings, especially when turbo replacement comes.
Yahbut, with the diesel you get to leave the engine running whenever you stop to run in the store for a bag of chips or whatever. Just like an actual, real trucker! That alone has gotta be worth the $13k+ premium, no?
</sarc>
Yup, that’s what it’s all about, a dick slinging contest.
Depends what you’re trying to do. shrug
Let me find my firesuit a moment 🔥before I offer one of my unscientific, non-data-driven observations. lol
In my humble opinion the single biggest factor in creating the mass of overloaded bloated pickups we have today was overreaching government regulation.
Used to be most of light business logistics was handled comfortably and safely by 1 to 1-1/2 ton trucks. So much regulation was brought onto the trucks and drivers that it pushed everything underground.
Now, for example, “work” that used to hauled comfortably by a dual-wheel ton flatbed has likely been shifted to the combination of an overloaded single-wheel pickup pulling a trailer. Probably registered and insured as non-commercial to boot.
Trucks escaped the regulations that cars had to comply with. At the time that fuel economy standard were laid out, nobody could have thought that condominium dwellers would ever drive F350’s. Most trucks sold today are fashion accessories just like ladies shoes and purses. How is it that “over reaching government regulations” are a real thing when the US military has been on standby for 40 years any time that the US oil supply is threatened?
We tried that route. The gas 3/4 ton we have gets about 8-9 mpg. New Cummins averages about 20.
It’s also a lot nicer to drive. The ford 7.3 seems like it might be better than the hemi or 6.2 ford, but the latter require some revs to move loads and keep up with traffic. A lot more frantic than an 850 lbft inline 6.
And when I sell it, I expect to make up that premium for the diesel.
If that Cummins requires a repair, and it will, any fuel savings will be gone and your truck would be down.
The new Cummins indeed uses less fuel. It also cost a lot more than your old 3/4 ton.
Avoid Cummins and you’ll save on repair bills they guard their tech very hard to the point of stupidity Where I just quit from had a large fleet of Freightliners running 600hp Cummins engines when taken back to the Freightliner agency with engine issues the trucks took for ever to come back simply because Cummins will not pass on their diagnosis software and all problems have to go via the Cummins agent, Interestingly Cummins reside next door to the Volvo agents in Auckland and the sheer numbers of dead engines in their yard is astounding as is the numbers of fresh crates containing new ones
I spent time at the Volvo agent waiting for trucks to be repaired.
That’s certainly not a problem for 5 years or 100,000 miles. At that point, I will have used ~5000 gallons of fuel. So, roughly $15k worth. Let’s say the gasoline is a little cheaper and call that 25k. Already made back the premium before we consider the elevated trade value.
At that point, I’ll either trade it or rectify the most common issues and drive it another 100k.
And for Bryce, that would be the vgt turbo. They’ve gone to a new model, so I guess we’ll see. That the engine is locked down is a bummer. So is everyone elses though. Come on right to repair…
The gas 3/4 ton we have gets about 8-9 mpg. New Cummins averages about 20.
That’s not correct. Modern diesels average only 10-20% better mileage than gassers. Once upon a time, diesels were 25-30% more efficient, but the has come down to to the emission controls on diesels and improved efficiency of gassers. But it was never near the 50+% improvement you cite.
Here’s the combined EPA numbers for the current F150:
2.7L gas V6: 22 mpg
3.0L diesel V6: 23 mpg
3.5 hybrid gas V6: 25 mpg
Paul, I’m sorry you aren’t here to check the odometer/fuel use. This is an accurate representation of the mileage between the two trucks.
Now, there are some factors that play into this that would not be represented by the epa mileage (not available for 3/4 tons, but available for half tons). In particular regarding the cylinder deactivation and T/C lock up.
The gas truck doesn’t have the torque to pull the gas truck along the highway at 65-70. In normal operation, the truck shuts off half the cylinders and slows down until it unlocks the tc, downshifts, and speeds back up. In practice I just started hitting the tow haul button every morning before leaving, which seemed to keep the TC unlocked and the cylinder deactivation off. Much better for driving, not so great for mileage.
I’ve also never seen the epa mileage advertised for the half tons. I haven’t owned a 2.7 ford, but I did own a 3.5 ford. It did nowhere near the epa rating. Over 5 years and 75k miles, my spreadsheet shows it did 14.5.
So, I don’t know what the test cycle looks like, or how manufacturers optimize for it, but it’s not close to my personally daily cycle.
Either way, I’ve personally cut my fuel bill in half by switching trucks. And again, it’s much less annoying to drive.
My American Legion post owned a former telephone company (GTE) Ford bucket truck. Bone stock. It’s cab was 67-72, its engine a 361 FT (the heavy duty version of the 360/390 FE). A Clark 5 speed manual transmission, and a massive belt driven hydraulic pump to power said bucket. F-500, if I recall. built in 1974 . Drove it many times.
I saw a couple of 56 pickup cabbed heavies on wheat properties in outback Aussie they still worked at harvest time hauling to on farm silos by the look of them but only one had a hood scoop, I guess it wasnt a universal fitment and at the time figured it was a homebrew,
The centre pic of the prime mover pulling a ‘A’ train is interesting, very outdated configuration thank gawd, backing one is an art.
Great article and thanks for it. I’m surprised that the 4bbl carb option was only good for an extra 10HP. Due to the governor speed I assume?