(first posted 4/14/2013) History does tend to repeat itself, especially in the car business. Detroit’s more recent efforts to compete with import compact trucks was once a serious undertaking, but has largely dwindled away. The same thing happened once before, in the early sixties. In response to real (or imagined) incursions into the light truck field by Volkswagen (pre-chicken tax), Detroit launched a barrage of new compact vans and trucks. Ford was the most prolific in the 1960-1961 period, offering no less than three distinct types of pickups (Ranchero, F-Series, Econoline), the last being the most creative and nontraditional. Not surprisingly, it was the least successful of the three, and petered out after a few years. Americans know how they like their Ford trucks, and the Econoline was not it.
Of course, the Econoline van and pickup, as well as the Corvair and the later Dodge versions were all inspired by the VW Bus and pickup. The success of the VW Beetle, bus and pickup put Detroit on edge, and largely precipitated the creative rush of compact cars and trucks that all came gushing forth in ’60 and ’61.
Ford and Chevrolet based their new compact vans and trucks (loosely)on their respective new compact cars, the Falcon and Corvair. The Econoline shared the Falcon’s drive train, but otherwise was mostly unique, with a sold-beam leaf-sprung front suspension. And just like with the car versions, the pragmatic and utterly conventional, simple and cheap to build RWD Falcon trounced the adventurous rear-engined air-cooled Corvair in the car segment, so did their offshoot trucks. The Econoline van instantly became the best seller in the field, and Chevy quickly cobbled up a Chevy-II based van-only version to compete, and Dodge followed the same steps with their D-100 Van and pickup. Obviously, the Corvair van’s (CC here) inherent advantages of drastically better traction, braking and handling were offset by its lack of a flat floor throughout.
It doesn’t take more than a casual glance at the Econoline pickup to tell that it has a serious weight distribution problem. Ford installed a 165lb weight over the rear wheels in a effort to mitigate the problem, but lets just say this is not the thing to take out in the snow. But it was remarkably compact, yet it sported a 7.5 foot long bed and a roomy cab with storage behind the rear seats; essentially the first extended cab pickup ever. And it was economical to run , with its light weight offering modest resistance to the little 144 and 170 cubic inch sixes. Ford claimed that it could get up to 30 mpg in its ads. Optimistic, undoubtedly.
The Econoline pickup faced a lot of internal competition as well as external. In 1960, Ford relaunched the Ranchero as a Falcon. And a conventional F-100 cost a mere $86 more. That left a pretty compact niche, and public utilities turned out to be the big buyers of the little Econoline and Corvair Rampside pickups (CC here). Phone companies loved the space efficiency and low operating costs. But even then, after first year sales of 14k Econoline pickups, their sales steadily dwindled, down to two thousand in their final year, 1967. That pretty much coincides with the birth of Japanese small pickup sales on the west coast.
I’ve always been drawn to these trucks for their compact size yet roomy cabs, despite their limitations. Of course, as the former owner of a Dodge A-100 van, I can well imagine what they handled like with another couple hundred pounds less in the rear quarters. And the front crush zone is a comparable to a can of Orange Crush. But it makes a handy around-the-town scooter, like this one, which is the daily driver of Joe, who does superb vintage restoration work on European cars out of his small shop. He picked it up recently, rebuilt the tired 170 six, and will eventually get to the body. Don’t ask why, but I love the exhaust sound of that little Falcon six,which has a pleasant raspiness when working hard.
For some reason, this is a vehicle that I can’t quite take my eyes off: the combination of its odd proportions that challenge the conventions, and its jaunty cuteness. It’s also an extremely European-looking vehicle, although pickups in the American sense just weren’t hardly a reality there. And those red wheels don’t hurt either. These pickups may have been a sales dud, but they sure brightened up our carscape in their day. And today. Enjoy.
It’s interesting that Detroit took VW so seriously, yet a few years later seemed to roll over and let the Japanese steal their lunch.
The Econoline PU was “conventional” in the sense of being FE/RWD, but within the context of that particular class of PU, it was the odd man out – until Mopar finally got around to the A100. The Corvair Rampside followed the VW layout more closely – more conventionally?- given that the VW was the target.
One of my brothers had an A100. I could never see why they sold at all -or the Econoline. With the engine between the seats it was a hot sweaty and noisy ride, and as you point out, little traction over the drive wheels.
There is something simultaneously cute/utilitarian about these snub nosed trucks. You can’t get cuter than the first year A100 with the plastic bubbles over the headlights.
Detroit branded Japanese trucks, then built their own small trucks. Before they made small trucks domestically, US makers were busy either remaking their main products or avoiding bankruptcy. Can’t do everything at once.
There was a dodge A-100 van posted to the local classified ads yesterday and it is gone this morning. it was clean and rust free which is odd for this area as rust seemed to take hold in these shortly after purchase. I love all the snub nose vans with the dodge being my favorite looks wise fallowed by the ford.
There’s a great comparison video of Econoline vs. Corvair Greenbrier. The whole thing is fun to watch but favorite part is at 2:30, where they do a simple panic stop in the Econoline and the rear end flies up in the air! Which apparently stresses the body, so the driver’s door pops open, just to make things even more dangerous… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhCAiV7diY
My dad was talking to a guy about this video at a van show, and he informed us that to do this GM removed the weight over the gas tank, and had the passengers sit up on the dashboard against the windshield (which you can see in the video, as well as the unusually high ride height in the rear)
I read somewhere that these Jeep Forward-Control things were known for somersaulting when braked hard down steep hills, Don’t know if it’s true or not.
I’d read that also.
Never drove one or knew an owner; but I daresay there was a reason why it was dropped after a few years, before even the tooling was paid off.
I think the reason they were dropped was just that they weren’t very popular… and they probably weren’t very popular because they were fairly expensive, only offered in 4WD unlike most other small pickups. They also lasted much more than only a few model years (1956-1965) and were built on a CJ-5 frame, so I don’t think they lost tons of money on them.
Which is not to say that they weren’t just as, if not way more, likely to flip over frontways when braked hard. The FC-150 model had a tiny 81″ wheelbase and even more weight up front due to the 4WD hardware.
IMO these are even cooler than the Econoline pickup. Especially the military crew-cab and van body versions, and the Minivan prototype they never put into production (CC article somewhere).
Jeep forward control utes seem to follow the flat country design failings prevalent in American vehicles the original jeep was hopeless in steep country so making it higher and concentrating the weight at one end was hardly a recipe for success. Little wonder that the Landrover replaced jeeps everywhere they could be bought as a LR will go 45degrees side slope without falling over and climb and descend steep hills with a load
But one advantage of this cab style is that you maintain ground visibility while climbing steep grades and cresting hills.
While working at Kenworth, we built a number of COE-based monster 4×4 off-highway vehicles just for this reason (they were used for oilfield exploration out in the desert, amongst other things).
That’s one version. I’ve also heard that the weight was a running change implemented by Ford after production started, so the first ones off the line (thus perhaps including one GM got hold of to do comparison testing) didn’t have it.
Imagine freaking-out the drivers behind the Econoline by intentionally lifting the rear end while stopping for a traffic light. Not to mention how it would impact an unsuspecting passenger to suddenly get an up close and personal view of the street’s pavement.
Paul, I think your description came as close as ever as to why we like these things. I’d probably throw in their honesty as well, as they literally are what they are – bare bones economical trucklets.
But still, I can’t quite explain in words why it is I can’t stop staring in fascination at these things. They aren’t beautiful, they aren’t fast, they aren’t exactly safe, and they don’t work as well as any conventional pickup. But, they do seem space-agey and futuristic in an oddball, Hollywood B movie kind of way that really captures your attention and makes you want to thank the corporate beancounters who took a huge risk by begrudgingly approving these for production.
I think some of their grandchildren must work for Nissan now though, because someone in Finance over there had to pull the trigger on that Cross-Cabriolet Murano….
I worked at a hardware store in 1970 and their Econoline van was too light-tailed for comfort in snow/ice. We carried a permanent load of concrete sacks in back to compensate, but traction was still marginal. I wouldn’t have wanted to try the pickup under those conditions.
Vista, there’s another vid where they abuse a poor Falcon by trying to make it pull an Electra – not Buick, mind you but Lockheed! They obviously had the brakes set on the airliner.
I love these crazy, insanely dangerous things and agree that they seem much more like some obscure European vehicle than an American pickup. Even the instrument panel has a minimalist, Euro look with one big gauge right in the center – just like the VW. As much as I’m a Corvair nut, I think I’d take an Econoline pickup over a Rampside, purely on looks.
I always knew these were rare, but I never realized their sales peak was 14k/year. With numbers like that, it’s a miracle any of them survived. There’s a restored one I see around car shows pretty frequently, but I haven’t actually seen one on the street in forever.
And I like how the instrument cluster in that wonderfully Bauhaus all-metal dash looks to pull right out once you loosen the screws. Modern vehicle designers consider visible screw heads (or any screws) as a major faux-pas, but they’re a boon for DIY folks.
Virtually ever work-type pickup truck in Asia follows the same basic format. Yes, they are front heavy, and yes, traction is a bitch in the snow.
They don’t sell them in Australia any longer (I think), the last one was a Kia K2700 4-5 years ago or possilby Suzuki Carry/MPV. The closest thing now is a cab-over 2-ton truck which can be had in roughly the same size.
I bought one of these in ’62 (a ’61 leftover that could be had really cheap) with the wrap around windows and 144 c.i. six. Put a camper shell on the back and drove it cross country from New York to Oregon and back.
At the time I didn’t know about the weight in the back, or that it was inherently dangerous or that I must have been a pioneer of sorts.
However, with outstanding visibility and a bus-like driving position it was a GREAT way to see the country. I did have to wrestle with prairie winds and, without a radio, it could get tedious at times.
It later transported me to Georgia for duty in the Navy then up to Rhode Island for same. With a bunk in the back plus room for opportunistic cargo it offered tremendous bang for the buck. I liked it so much I have had a succession of Econolines, A-100s, a VW pickup, and currently, an Aerostar, ever since.
It’s easy to get wrapped up in our 2013 American cocoon.
Compared to a Model T outfitted for camping, this little Econoline was a great leap forward. Elsewhere people routinely drive tiny powered machines great distances over terrible terrain.
Years later I drove my VW pickup (with 36 HP and reduction gears) across country as well.
The Econoline’s 144 six was a power house in comparison.
Love it. Never owned one; never drove one (but did drive an Econoline of that generation, a company truck) but I love the flat front and set-back axle. It appeals to my desire for space utilization…yup, I get the safety aspect. But, as the owner comments, it’s perfect for an around-town gofer rig.
FWD would be the way to do one these days. Set the engine transverse between the seats…engine/transaxle packages abound these days. Lower loadbed floor; accordingly lower sidewalls (or not) and presto-change-o! A flat-front Rabbit-type pickup.
No market for such? Maybe not. The Volkswagen truck had the bad timing to come out of the warren just as the price of gasoline was falling like a stone. AND to have a reputation for trouble, as befitted American Rabbits. Businesses were scared off by the reliability question; many truck owners wanted solid frames or wanted to posture. Not enough eccentrics like myself were left…and even I was left out on that one; there wasn’t room enough in the RabbiTruck cabin.
Some mistakes are thought through; and some are just dropped without examination. Maybe this is something that should be re-thunk.
Good point on the fwd – it was the only configuration never tried on these (in the US) and the only one that would take full advantage of the packaging benefits of the forward-control style.
Then there’s this.
There was an Aussie company that offered a similar thing for the VW Transporter, called the Razorback. They were pretty expensive from memory and I’ve only seen a couple. Given the Aussie connection of the above ad for a vehicle not sold in Australia (Dodge pickup) I suspect there may be a connection.
The 1955 L’Universelle GM concept van was a mid engine front driver. GM considered it for production but the costs of the then-novel drivetrain would have priced it out of the market.
The problem with front wheel drive on this type of vehicle is it takes even more weight off the rear , causing very poor rear wheel braking. There would be no rear drive shaft or rear differential, which reduces weight there. VW and Chevy had the right idea placing the engine in back, even though it took away some cargo capacity. Chevy experimented with a front drive L’Universe forward control van of this type during the 50s, and decided not to produce it, because of very poor braking.
Larger FWD cars get in trouble on upslopes as weight shifts to the rear. Got my Sable stuck in my own steep driveway one winter. I’d hate to think how a loaded FWD pickup would behave.
Always thought it was funny how both VW pickups were fundamentally wrong, first with its engine in the rear where the load should be, then with its drive wheels in front, not under the load where they should be.
Depends. MOST trucks today, are driven MOST times, unloaded or very lightly loaded. Everything from Domino’s Pizza S-10s (they used to use them, for the resale value) to utility company gofer trucks that may or may not be moving parts with the servicemen, to personal transportation. All those miles back and forth from the office, with only a satchel for cargo!
The VW pickup had two issues: First, as you say – fully loaded, its drive wheels were lighter than the rear ones. Second, its basic light weight…a half-ton of cargo is a greater burden to a 3000-lb unit-body vehicle than it is to a 4500 ladder-frame box-bed setup.
As for OCCASIONAL traction problems, as with driveways: I’ve found I sometimes can (could) back up hills I couldn’t go up nose first. Weight shifts to the drive wheels and you dig right in…like you would going forward with an old Type 1.
I say “could” because my current Toy Yoda has reverse gear much higher than first gear. I can’t find ANY place I can back it where I don’t need to slip the clutch. I could probably reverse to 30 mph in that thing.
That’s where backing a front drive car up a snowy hill comes in handy. I’ve tried it and it works !!
I, too, will confess a fascination with these. A neighbor has a 66 Econoline window-van that his grandfather bought new, and is a very nice original old truck. I would prefer the van to the pickup, but I can certainly see the charms of this one.
These never looked right to me without that spinner-style hubcap that came out (I believe) in 1964 and may have stayed on trucks a bit longer.
That outie 10 1/4″ hubcap were used on the 65/67 F-100 Custom Cab and 1964 Ford Custom/Galaxie. The painted white and argent version with FORD in red was for the Standard Cab. I have both sets in NOS with the painted white ones in storage since I have a 65 Custom Cab. The 61-64 trucks all had innies
A shop/ag teacher at my high school commandeered one from the school district motor pool for his own usage. Painted olive drab (ex-army, bought by the school district for mere pocket change apparently), we nicknamed it ‘the pregnant cucumber’.
I still love this truck, but… another recycled CC? How about something on that Fiat 850 you keep promising us?
Perhaps when you renew your subscription.
Seriously, it’s comments like yours that bring me closer to throwing in the towel than anything else. Am I your (unpaid) jester, to amuse you at your whim? “Bring out the Fiat 850, Now!”
WTF do you think I’m doing right now? Writing a new piece. You think I can do that every day, as well as make a living and have a life? Why don’t you write an article on the Fiat 850 and send it in?
Lest you think you’re not appreciated, you really are. This is a daily stop for me, and it never occurs to me to complain if there’s no new content because there’s always new content. To be honest, had this been my idea I would have abandoned it a long time ago.
Thanks for all that you do.
Ditto on the thoughts. Paul, your work is appreciated, and I’ve done enough house work to have a faint idea of what you are doing on your day job.
+Infinity
The amount of content this site generates on a daily basis is almost overwhelming. I never have enough time just to leave comments on everything I want to, I can’t even imagine what it takes to research and type up these articles nevermind actually going out and photographing the subject matter. If you look around the internet, other automotive sites that keep the same pace are usually very simple “here’s a picture of a car” blogs or they’re huge sites with multiple paid writers on staff.
Additionally, I never would have known this as a re-run unless someone pointed it out. Not everyone has been with CC from the beginning and I’m glad to see even the ones I did experience already for a second time since, like I said, I often never get a chance to comment – and there’s always something else to add.
Sorry, left my mind reading hat in the car. I thought when you asked “what’s overdue for a CC,” you meant “what’s overdue for a CC?”
Grow up.
Wow. Just wow.
Steve: There were 171 comments in that particular thread, and not a single mention of a Fiat 850: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/no-curbside-classic-day-outtake-1-what-cars-are-most-overdue-for-a-cc/
Anyway, there is a Fiat 850 CC still at TTAC: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/05/curbside-classics-1972-fiat-850/ But if I rerun it here, you’ll undoubtedly not be happy either.
So you’re unhappy because I didn’t read your mind about you wanting a Fiat 850 CC right now. And who needs to grow up?
Paul, keep up the great work. It’s really appreciated.
Steve, just go away.
I am looking forward to your article Paul, because they are always the best on the site. I really don’t care what you write about, I am sure I will enjoy it.
In summer, I am planning to do a “Confessions of a Service Advisor” series if that is okay with everyone.
Only if they’re all about Fiat 850s. Otherwise I have no interest in reading them. Also, I refuse to pay you.
*sigh* I’m putting in way too many hours in the new studio and I suspect Paul is still busier than I am. And he STILL keeps this site up and running on his own dime.
Not cool at all.
Cute Lil truck like an American version of the Ford Thames vans and utes from England though those were based on the Consul Zephyr range and were great workhorses. These never came here newc as we had UK sourced Ford commercials and the feeble Falcon had a poor reputation in its early years so a falcon based pickup would hardly be a big seller.
In reality even though the window van version was sold as the Falcon Station Bus they weren’t based on the Falcon platform. The only significant things they had in common were the engines and 3sp transmission. The Van had a straight axle and leafs in front instead of the IFS used on the car.
The Ranchero of course is a different story since they were Falcon wagons with the back chopped off.
Thanks for the info Eric, I didn’t know that. Judging by the interior photo the axle must have been just ahead of the engine, which explains why the back of the cab is so far back – it looks to have a longer bumper to back-of-cab dimension than some cab-over trucks with 6-cyl engines!
I’m sure Bryce was not referring to the Ranchero as a pickup, because a Falcon ute was sold in Australia (& NZ) of course.
The axle in these sit under the front half of the engine. Yes, I should point point out that these had solid beam front axles. I’ll add it.
That makes sense, comparing the seat/front of engine position to the external view, there isn’t that much room behind the axle line. Plus there would normally be a crossmember under the front of the engine anyway, so there would be room.
The engine doesn’t start until pretty far back, there was a fair amount of leg room should one desire or dare to ride on the engine cover. The radiator is also under that engine cover.
Here is the best picture I could find that shows the relation of the engine to the axle center line. As you can tell the majority, if not all, of the engine is behind the axle. IIRC there is no cross-member under the engine. The transmission is supported from the top, there is no cross-member under it. They used a unique tail housing with an eye which held a bushing. A single bolt went through it and a pair of sheet metal brackets hanging from the floor.
Aha, that looks to be basically completely behind the axle – not much room between engine block and radiator either. My earlier comment was referring to the crossmember in a Falcon, the engine’s original home.
See a lot of stuff that looks like this with the golf course ground crews. Shrunken and not street legal. Probably made by mitsubishi and/or several “no name” companies.
You could sure talk me into driving one of these in pickup or van guise.
Oh, yeah. Kei-car trucks.
In South Dakota (and other states) they’ll issue registration for them. Honda, Daihatsu, some others, make them…look just about identical. I saw then when I was working a temporary assignment in Rapid City, SD…local liquor store had one. Originally they used it for deliveries; but they quit that service…just kept it parked out front.
Thing of it was…they didn’t sell those things through regular dealers. As of 2010, they could be imported; but you had to buy from the factory, and in a job lot. I think it was about eight of them. No warranty. No way to get it serviced…American Honda had zilch on them. Right-hand drive.
Still, though…cute trucks.
People in E& SE Asia drive them on public roads all the time. Even on expressways, where they are a bane. And none too safe, as one would imagine. Even a light frontal impact is enough to pin the occupants in by the legs, as I personally witnessed more than once.
AFAS importing them, I don’t know why the importers don’t source them from Korea instead of Japan, at least then the wheel is on the proper side for NA.
I see these sometimes too, modern Kei trucks with NY plates and registration stickers in the window. Seems strange that they’re street legal, although Googling leads me to believe that they’re registered under something like this and must be speed-limited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle
New YORK! The Traffic Nazis in the Vampire State…they ALLOW THAT?!
That state’s a terror. Thirty-five years ago they implemented a mandatory auto insurance requirement…with a new wrinkle. The insurance company was to send a memo to the DMV; same as it would a lienholder on the vehicle. If the policy were cancelled…the State Police would be in your driveway, taking the plates off!
That’s hard-core. And THEY are gonna let those kei-things scoot around on public roads?
FWIW…I talked to the the owner of that truck and liquor store. He told me that they were capable of the Japanese National Speed Limit of about 45 mph.
To hold it under 25, someone would have to fit a governor on there.
There’s also the possibility that the people driving them are just doing the good old “VIN plate swap”. Average police officer won’t notice the difference between a Daihatsu Hijet and a Daihatsu Hijet titled and registered as a 1987 Daihatsu Rocky.
Believe it or not, New York did away with emissions testing for pre-OBDII cars statewide last year. Crazy, right?
Because of the long doghouse for the six cylinder engine, these pickups had the first extended cabs. The rear corner windows remind me of the Custom Cab GM pickups a decade earlier.
Did Ford offer A/C as an option on these, or could you get it installed at the dealer? It does seem like it would get pretty hot in there with the all-metal cabin.
I went thru my brochures and there is no evidence of AC before the redesigned 1968 models, with short hood. Even then, it wasn’t in the dash, the evaporator ductwork was in a long molding that ran down the left side of the interior.
Almost certainly not.
We tend to forget, in our age…things like air conditioning were unjustifiable frivolities to the business buyers this was aimed at. Like automatic transmission…I don’t know but I’d bet that automatics weren’t initially available either.
Hot in there? Didn’t matter. If the employee doesn’t want to deal with it…he doesn’t need to work here.
Ford offered air conditioning in some years. It was a rooftop unit with the supply plumbing riding a conduit down the windshield. The blower unit was mounted atop the doghouse cover.
When I was young , a bunch of kids and I were driven to the school bus stop in an early 60s Econoline. We lived out in the country on a dirt road, and there was one short cut that took a dirt road down and up a steep climb. The Econoline had trouble there, and one of the kids said ” I can ride my bike up this road with no problem “. One time I saw a 4×4 conversion Econoline pickup , which would be great for low traction areas. With more weight added to the front, I bet that made braking even worse, with the rear end wanting to flip over. I think VW and Corvair had the right idea with the engine placement in the rear. A mid engine design would be one idea in a passenger van. Just stick the engine under the middle seat, You’d still have a lot of luggage space behind. The seat backs could fold down for long cargo.
I had a ’64 Econoline heavy-duty back in 1982, when I was graduating high school. 170 straight six, 3 on the tree, and I replaced the 14 inch wheels in the back with 15 inch mud-munchers … which were absolutely needed, as the damn thing was geared so low that the top speed was about 50 mph. Turns out a side effect of those big wheels was that it refused to get stuck in the snow …
In the winter of ’82-’83 we had a snowstorm in suburban DC that dumped 16 inches overnight. Didn’t faze that little truck one bit. I remember pulling a brand new BMW out of a ditch, and the yuppie in the beemer didn’t even thank me; he just wanted to complain about how he had spent so much money on the car and why didn’t it go through the snow and on and on and on.
I had also spent the entire summer of ’82 trying to get the engine to blow up, because in my seventeen-year-old logical processes if I blew up the six then my dad would have no choice but to GIVE me the high performance 289 in the corner of the garage.
Alas, it was not to be. I drove that thing for the whole summer with no radiator (it leaked, so I just took it out), and no oil in the engine. I drove it off a cliff. I rolled it down a hill while off-roading. I sank it is a beaver pond. I took it mud-bogging and got it covered with so much mud it actually changed the ride characteristics due to the weight. It never quit. The only things that happened were that I busted the mirror off the passenger door and knocked the front end out of alignment.
I finally gave up and sold it, as I was looking at a trip to Cincinnati in the fall of ’83 and there was no way I was going to make that trip in a slowpoke like this van. The guy I sold it to got approximately 100 yards from the house and it threw a rod … and his response was “no worries. I was going to put in a V8 anyway.”
I could have killed him.
I still miss that van, and it still carries a lot of wonderful memories for me and my best friend from high school.
Totally beautiful truck!! yes i’d get sandbags for it.
These things are well within impulse buy range every time I browse internet classifieds, I feel as though I’d have a fleet of them if I had the acreage to keep them. I can’t help but feel that same right brain attraction I have was present in Ford when these were concocted, they’re a very flawed idea from an anylitical standpoint, but on the concept is brilliant – “why ever consider a longbed traditional pickup again?”
And I agree, they’re cute, which is something sorely missing in these applications, which is either big angry beast, or mathematically utilitarian nowadays. It’s amazing from today’s vantage where beancounters, shareholders and focus groups would instantly kill or water down a vehicle proposal like this, that there was a time in history that this could be built. They may have been ultimately short lived in their day too, of course, but you just have to admire that they ever existed in the first place.
I’ve never driven the pickup truck version, but did drive one of the vans a few times while I was overseas on the Navy. The example I drove was pretty tired and my impression was that the front end might collapse if I hit a bump or pothole “just right”.
I also saw a pickup get hit in the right rear corner, flip on it’s roof, and slide down the street about 100 feet.
I had no idea these had such small 6 cylinder engines.
Small 6 cylinder engine? But 170 cubic inches is almost 2.8 liters … bigger than today’s 2.7 EcoBoost.
Imagine that 2.7L Ecoboost in one of these 🙂 …
Yeah, but it was a falcon six cylinder. Really not designed with any performance in mind.
Ha! My best friend in college (1978) had the van version of this “thing”. He called it
“the exhaust van” (like exhaust fan, get it?). That was because the floor of the cargo area was rusted out horribly, and the exhaust system was shot! We drove around in that POS during the worst winter in the Midwest ever (’78-’79). We had to roll down the windows at -20°F! What great (?) memories!
Wow
Its more likely Ford took the pattern for the Econoline from the already in production UK Ford Thames pickup and van that used Ford Consul mechanicals the two vehicles are remarkably alike.
So did these ever flip over on their front ends if you stomped on the brake when driving down a steep hill? These look scary to me.
I assume the extended cab was necessary to fit the engine in the cab. I wonder why they didn’t stretch it a few more inches and put a second row of seats in back. There certainly wasn’t any competition for such a vehicle back then, though probably not much of a market either. How times have changed….
I have always found it odd that all 3 domestics (plus Jeep, kind of) plunged into this market, which turned out to not be a market at all. Ford was the most successful of the 3 and sales of the Falcon Ranchero completely swamped this one. I suspect that an extended cab Econoline pickup (“Look, half van, half pickup!) would have had sales that did not hit 4 digits.
My best friend’s dad had one of these. It was an ex-USAF pickup, and as such had instructional decals on the dash, one of which read “Avoid sudden braking over 45 mph”.
Years later, my dad had one, and I can attest to its worthlessness on snow and ice. I also had a tendency to clip curbs while cornering with it.
In the summer of 1967 I had a job at a local Gulf Oil jobber. The Boss’ truck was a 1965 Econoline pickup. I think it had the 240 six. At least that was what he told me. He had upgraded to 15 inch wheels for ride, gearing, and ground clearance. That thing was kind of fun to drive and ran pretty good. The first day I used it for a delivery he cautioned me to make sure when making a right turn to wait until I felt like I had gone too far before turning the wheels because you were sitting in front of the wheels. He said that the first day he owned it he broke the right hand “west coast” mirror on a street sign by turning too short. One day he came into the building and told me to change spark plugs because “it’s cutting out at 80”. He did have a lead foot.
I didn’t realize Ford had brought these to the market even during the first year (March 1961); I have no memory of them:
I love the way these things look but I would never own one. The main reason is because the driver’s feet are mere inches from the front bumper and your legs are basically the crumple zone. A minor front end collision could easily result in severe leg injuries. I also don’t like the fact that the engine is inside the cab. I would imagine the trucks to be noisy, hot in the summer and that fumes from the engine would waft into the cab. I am a big fan of these trucks, but I will admire them from afar.
When these trucks were introduced in 1961, they were equipped with either a 90 HP 144 cubic inch six or a 101 HP 170 cubic inch six, both based on the Falcon “Thriftpower” engine. Beginning in 1965, a 150 HP 240 cubic inch “Big Six” that was also used in Ford pickup trucks and full sized Fords like Galaxies and Custom 500s became available. I imagine that this gave the little Econoline a huge boost in acceleration and pulling power. Not only did they put out nearly 50% more horsepower, but the truck six had gobs more torque than the little Falcon six. The Thriftpower six was an excellent engine, but the 240/300 “Big Six” was a legendary engine. Reliable and tough, these engines were nearly impossible to kill. I know, because I tried to kill the one in our worn out ’83 F100. It had an automatic and was bog slow, but we also had another ’83 F100, this time with a 3 on the tree. It was quite peppy through the gears and fun to drive. My grandpa had a beautiful white ’65 F100 that had a six (I’m not sure if it was a 240 or a 300) and a 3 on the tree and it was pretty quick. Driving it around town was a blast and the acceleration was great. It could have been a 240 but as quick as it was, I bet it was a 300.
Air conditioning was available, though not listed as a regular option. The electric compressor refrigeration unit sat on the roof, and the blower unit was mounted on the engine cover between the sears. I have a ’67 pickup and no, you can’t lift the wheels with a short stop. Chevy must have put the ballast weight in the cab, and as you see in the movie, the passenger and driver were up against the windshield.
Great article! Yes, and you are correct, and I’ve always thought the same thing. These trucks look European even though there was nothing that looked like them in Europe at the time. And while unconventional they are a hoot to drive. Around town and on secondary roads that is. Getting one on the Interstate or taking a long trip in one is fool hardy. And 65 miles per hour is the max if you want do get it stopped in a hurry without looking at the pavement up close and personal through the windshield, even if you do have the 165 lb. weight in the back.
I enjoy mine for local scoots. But I use my 1979 F-350 for the longer jaunts. Plus, the F-350 has A/C. LOL