Behold this definitive specimen of the American pickup truck. In all its vast and rich history, the appeal has sadly been fairly limited for many outside North America while being a bastion of life for many within North America.
For many vocal critics the modern versions of these seem to fall somewhere in the spectrum between a religious and painful experience. That whaling and gnashing of teeth is often accompanied by incessant bellyaching, moaning, and denigration not only of the machine but of the owners. It is an interesting, and rather humorous, phenomenon.
But fear not, friends. Despite what may read like me sticking my finger into the figurative monkey cage, I have finally seen the light and wholeheartedly agree with these folks. What you see before your eyes is the embodiment of perfection, a perfection swathed in a most interesting, alluring, and titillating shade of green.
Really, when a pickup is this perfect, what need is there for anything more? History has impugned Charles Holland Duell, commissioner of the US Patent Office from 1898 to 1901 for reportedly having said “everything that can be invented has been invented”. Duell was certainly onto something profound as this Ford pretty well makes its own argument for nothing further being needed. It is simply unimaginable anyone could identify any need for improvements or refinements.
Duell really didn’t make that statement but, as was once said, what does it matter? When a pickup as perfect as this Ford comes along, and we all know Ford is King Ranch of pickups, one should respect it.
Seriously, why does anything – car, pickup, van, minivan, road tractor, dump truck, locomotive, or naval vessel – need more than 223 cubic inches of fire breathing thrust with 135 gross and throbbing horsepower? Maybe the original owner needed to move houses or some such, opting for the one year only (at least for the half-tons) 262 straight six. But probably not.
That available 292 V8 was ridiculous overkill; nobody needs a V8 in a pickup. A six is all I ever need so that’s all anybody else should ever need. A V8 simply uses too much fuel.
Us wasteful Americanos.
Our featured Ford is also the last of the true, dyed in the wool pickups. This is the sort of pickup used by men who dry shaved with dull, rusty blades, women who gave birth without pain killers while at home in the bathtub, and people who knew how to butcher their livestock.
Lookie there, boys and girls, this green machine has a solid beam front axle. It would be in 1965 when Ford acquiesced to peer pressure from Chevrolet, discarding a solid axle and implementing the Twin I-beam front suspension. There was nothing at all wrong with a solid front axle – it was as durable as an anvil and as complicated as a chunk of granite. A pickup is an implement; why did Ford see the need to throw in the towel and succumb to the sensitive crowd?
Sure, some whine about “well, it rode so harsh”. Well, that’s the way it was and people liked it. Everybody knows if you load your pickup down, it rides smoothly. Anybody who doesn’t keep at least 1,500 pounds of dead weight in the bed of their pickup at all times doesn’t need a pickup anyway!
And look at how low that bed is to the ground! Praise Hank The Duece! This is ideal. When loading a person can just drop that load into that eagerly awaiting short bed. When unloading, a person can bend over and pick up heavy loads from knee height. If that doesn’t build a strong back it will certainly build character. Who the hell thinks a pickup bed whose height is identical to a typical bathroom vanity makes any sense? I much prefer straining my back when lifting something; if I lift it from waist level, I cannot feel the burn.
No doubt the real men and women knew what was coming for 1965 as it was in 1964 Ford sold over a half-million half-tons for the first time. Those buyers knew they better get a true pickup while the getting was good. Beginning in 1965 the American pickup started down that slippery slope to those damned macho manscaped poseur super gargantuan jumbo monster truck brodozers. You know, the ones that compensate for the owner’s teeny weeny peeny.
This Ford was borne in the finest of traditions. Unlike all that tom-foolery found nowadays with things such as fuel injection, catalytic converters, engine computers, air bags, three-point seatbelts, crumple zones, collapsable steering columns, ten-speed automatic transmissions, ergonomic interiors, and previously unheard of fuel economy with twice the volumetric horsepower, this ultimate in Ford pickups has lap belts (maybe), a one-barrel carburetor with a manual choke, and a three-speed manual transmission with none of that other hogwash. Hell, three speeds were good enough for my daddy and for his daddy, so it’s good enough for me. All a pickup is supposed to do is pull a load, not win drag races. Anybody who can’t drive a clutch with a three-on-the-tree doesn’t need to be behind the wheel anyway.
Speaking of pulling loads, Ford rated our featured pickup at around 5,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. You know that’s bullshit; Ford underrated these bad girls from Day One. Supposedly a new short-bed F-150 has a gross vehicle weight that is over 20% better. You know that’s bullshit; marketing propaganda sells oodles of pickups.
Even more marketing baloney is how Ford claims a new regular cab short box F-150 has a cargo volume of 62.3 cubic feet with an interior bed height of 21.4 inches. That’s all fine and dandy, but a 4′ x 6.5′ x maybe 1.25′ bed with about 32.5 cubic feet is plenty. Nobody needs anything more than this.
The world would be a better place if all pickups were built in the same vein as this rugged old Ford. Plain, basic, and tough. There is absolutely no need for any cloth seats, air conditioning, heaters, power steering, power brakes, stereo radios, infotainment systems, cruise control, anti-lock disc brakes, backup cameras, trailer wiring, cupholders, or two exterior mirrors. That’s just so much ridiculousness all wrapped up in an envelope that generally has four times as many doors as it does usefulness. This is all a person needs.
I found this pickup in Southern California, a place we’ve often heard of being a haven for old cars and trucks which are still doing their thing. True that. But notice the Oklahoma plates. This Ford is a long way from home and I wonder if the owner is ultimately heading toward Mexico.
But I think we can all agree on one thing: Whoever drove this old Ford such a distance has more hair on their butt than on their chest. Why? This is a pickup, not a jacked up safety chamber for some cowboy wanna-be. The number of people in the population who can navigate this honey are dwindling, the sort of people who rolled their own and who are getting mighty thin on the ground. Too many in this old world know nothing but those newer, prissy pickups that drive like a sedan.
Found May 2020 in California, the county seat of Moniteau County, Missouri. Mexico is another 90 minutes northeast of California. For what it’s worth, Paris is about 30 minutes north of Mexico and Louisiana is 45 minutes east of Mexico.
That is indeed a real truck. Six in a row and good to go.
A mean buzzin` half a dozen.
My Dad owned a 1965 F100 shortbed stepside (flareside in Ford terminology) 1965 was the first model year ago for the twin I beam front suspension.
It had the 240ci inline 6 and 4 speed manual….It was a former US Air Force truck that my Dad got through government surplus bid in 1975.
He drove it daily 25 miles each way back and forth to work until 1990 when he took it off the road to restore….Unfortunately, he passed away mid way through the restoration.
Real pickup, around the time that was made we got similar vehicles from Bedford simple trucks cab chassis build a drop side flat deck on the back and youre in business six cylinders 214 cubes 4 speeds floor shifted padding on the seats none on the dash and they ran for decades doing everything required of them beam front axle rough riding basic truck 1-6 ton capacity take your pick. Love em.
I agree wholeheartedly! My one and only pickup truck has been one of these. If you don’t have enough upper body strength to steer it or the kidney stamina to take the harsh ride, then you have no business owning a truck. Dammit. And seat belts? Anyone who needs seat belts is just a bad driver. AmIright?
I recently found some old pictures which included a picture of the 63 F100 I owned in the 80s, with the six and a 4 speed with the stump-pulling low. I used to look forward to firing it up and driving it around – it was a total sensory experience that was real, genuine driving (like with cattle). After an hour of running errands I would be exhausted. But what a great engine that 223 was, it fired right up and ran smooth as silk no matter the conditions.
Using seat belts is just an admission to having a lack of self-confidence.
Thank you for this picture of your ’63. I didn’t know it was a step-side.
“I didn’t know it was a step-side.”
FLAIR-side, thank you very much. 🙂
It’s all about MONEY! And they want it.
Haha! I loved the Missouri geography lesson at the end! And that is truly one lovely, lovely specimen of a truck.
Let it also be known that Houston is in Texas county.
Definitely the perfect truck. And not only is it from Oklahoma, but that’s a recent (2019) Oklahoma plate, so presumably it made the 300-or-so-mile trip in the near past. Impressive.
Oh, and in addition to Mexico, Paris and Louisiana, don’t forget about Florida, which is also lurking nearby!
That’s true. Also, Scotland (County) is about an hour north of Mexico.
The number of recycled place names here is amazing. I’m not sure if that is a function of it being the actual case or my having been to just about every place in the state, thus being more familiar.
Maybe that truck came from Miami.
Also Eric703, there is a vintage Oklahoma plate on the front which is neat to see.
I’m not clear on just how these are used in “whaling”.
Why thank you Jason. Your excellent prose on this perfect specimen of a pickup truck has made me finally see the light. What am I doing driving a modern truck? Clearly, I have been misguided by its a abilities that go beyond the traditional duties of the pickup. Now I see that these frills and features of the modern truck are tomfoolery that have only made me soft. I need to reconnect with my roots and dispose of this modern impersonation of a truck.
Epic write-up Jason and great find. This article made my week! 🙂
Much like this pandemic has softened us all up physically (my six pack has morphed into a keg), time has softened us up as a society.
You can recapture the magic on your Tundra quite easily. Just remove the power steering pump and brake booster. Discharge the coolant from the a/c system. Bypass the heater core. Reinforce that flimsy steering column with some re-bar. Remove the rear brake pads as those rear brakes don’t do much anyway.
Repeat for the Torino.
Voila – you’ll now find yourself avoiding the hassle of using shaving cream. Just warn your wife about the likely changes to your posterior. 🙂
In 1975, as an 18 year old son of immigrants, from California, with thick glasses and a funny foreign name that no one could pronounce, I had a summer job in rural Virginia that included putting a lot of hours, and a few miles, behind the wheel of a slightly newer F100. It had stylesides and TwinIBeam, and I suppose a 240 six, but 3 on the tree and no power anything. I think driving that truck, often sagging on the bump stops loaded with construction and landscaping supplies, was essential in helping me fit in there. And probably influenced me in becoming a pickup owner for most of the last 35 years.
This is the sort of pickup used by men who dry shaved with dull, rusty blades, women who gave birth without pain killers while at home in the bathtub, and people who knew how to butcher their livestock.
This hits a bit close to home. We used to butcher our chickens. But I prefer a bit of water and bar soap for shaving with my dull blade. And Stephanie didn’t even use the tub when she gave birth at home to all three kids without pain killers, the last one delivered by yours truly. And I drive a softie Twin Beam ’66 F100. So obviously it’s not meant to suggest us in any way. 🙂
It sounds like you are a great fit for this pickup.
I’ve butchered hogs but never chickens. No doubt each has their own fun elements, with the most memorable with hogs being the pungent smell from scalding the hide to pull the hair off.
With chickens it was the pungent smell as you burned off the pin feathers around the “ankles” over an open flame. But then, you got to have fresh grilled chicken for lunch, usually with new vegetables from the garden. Nothing in the world better than that.
Cleaning a chicken always killed my appetite for chicken at least a week. Even in the open fields where the wind can whiff the smell of that wet carcass, even before I gut and dress it, I can’t even think of eating.
My favorite part was watching the dogs fight over the severed heads.
Why are we sure it’s a six?
How can we be sure it’s not hiding a mighty 292, or even a modern implant?
Are there two sets of exhaust pipe clamps to be seen when peering under the driver door?
The emblem on the leading edge of the hood is the gear and lightning bolt which was used on the sixes, so it did not leave the factory with a V8.
Did ’64 use a “Vee” emblem?
Actually the V8 hood emblem did not start until 1965, so it’s impossible to tell from the exterior of a ’64 or earlier if they had the six or V8.
But from experience, given that it’s a short bed stripper, I’d be willing to wager that it’s a six. Or was so originally.
The reason I mentioned that it’s not easy to tell is because I had a V8 ’61 for a looong time. I really liked it’s nimble responsiveness.
Anyway, about 40 years ago a guy about skidded to a stop when he spotted my truck at filling station. We chatted, he said he thought he had bought the truck new; so that was some 20 years on.
He said he was the guy who had swapped in the 401 Buick V8. You know, for safety.
Before we opened the hood to reminisce he described the chassis mods he had made for clearance. Once the hood was popped there was no question it was his described handiwork.
I had a ’63 too, with Big Block Chevy power, in a plain wrapper.
I don’t recall any specific incidents, but I must’ve surprised a few who were not going to get stuck behind the turnip truck. LoL
“Actually the V8 hood emblem did not start until 1965”
Ahhh, did not know that. No wonder those trucks sporting V8 emblems were so rare.
I have a 1953. It came with a 292 flathead and the V8 was in the grill. The emblems were somewhere on the vehicles all the way back into the ’30’s when Ford started making the V8’s.
Nice tour of Audrain county, Mo. My mothers family hales from those parts. Laddonia, Farber, Mexico and Paris. Love that old Pickup, May she continue to do her duty.
Okay this is the vehicle everyone should learn to drive on and use for their road proficiency test. Drive this guy in city traffic and you will really understand what it means to operate a vehicle. I have the slightly more civilized 1980 F100, 300-6, 3 in-the-tree, armstrong steering with a giant steering wheel and no power assist brakes.
No kidding. When I took the school for my SCCA Competition License in the late seventies, our chief instructor (who’s apparently still active in the club) drove an early sixties Chevy pickup and told us that it was the best training for practicing accurate vehicle placement and control. He did not condone driving fast on the road, quite the opposite in fact, but drilled into us the need to drive with precision, placing our car within inches, every time we got behind the wheel. And he pointed out that if he could do that in an old, slow pickup with 6 turn lock to lock steering, drum brakes and 3 on the tree, we could do that too.
My wife would agree — she learned to drive (in the 1980s) on her parents’ 1969 F100. And she loves giving me grief that she’s driven a 3-on-the-tree and I haven’t.
A family friend taught all four of his daughters to drive in an early fifties Chevy pickup, complete with the I6 and three on the tree, in the belief that if they could drive that they could drive anything. The only pickup that I personally owned was an F150 complete with auto trans, power everything, carpet on the floor, etc. Essentially it was a tall car with an open air trunk; the only downsides were that it was awkward to park in tight spaces and had a terrible thirst for gas. I averaged around 12 MPG in town and 16 on the highway, with the 4.6 liter V8. I finally got rid of the truck when I realized that 99% of the time the only thing I hauled in the bed was air.
Ayup, I owned a ’62 Ford F100, 6cyl., three on the tree. I put a radio in it. A complete waste of time and effort. You couldn’t hold a conversation in it, let alone hear the radio! (Real men don’t talk much anyway).
It was one step above a riding lawn mower.
The ’70 Dodge V-8 Stick was no better.
But my ’77 Ford F100 6cyl. stick was a
revelation! Nice ride, quiet and you could drive over 70 mph. without constantly wrestling the truck into submission.
I’ve had a few other trucks, and my current truck, a ’99 Dodge, has Air, automatic, power steering and power brakes. This is the first truck I’ve owned with these features.
My truck and perhaps myself have become “sissyfied”. I am pampered now.
But it still has “roll yer own windows” and manual seats. Some traditions die hard.
Uh, oh I’m in trouble. My 65 has one of these things sitting on the front of the hood. I tried but couldn’t find a six with a stick.
One nice thing about old pick ups is that are never truly, functionally obsolete. As long as they still have a bed attached they can always be used for their primary purpose, hauling stuff. Maybe not rapidly, comfortably, conveniently, economically, or even safely, but as long as they still run and stop you can move your load. As we ( I ?) approach geezerdom we know what is best, but of course no one wants to listen to us when we share our insight. I like newer trucks. I just drove 350 miles yesterday in my 2007 long bed F150 base model and I was completely comfortable and returned home in fine fettle. If not refreshed, at least able to unload my cargo. My old ’66 F250 was a bit more grating on my constitution.
I can agree to all of this-my brother and I are looking to find me a mid-60’s truck to rehabilitate. With one exception. The Chevrolet independent front coil and solid axle rear coil suspensions were so softly sprung and had so much wheel travel that you could bound over really rough ground at considerable speed, something much more difficult to accomplish with a solid axle and leaf springs. Less bounding, less chatter over washboard, less opportunity to place an impression of the button on the top of your ball cap into the top of your skull over a real large bump. So, I’ll go with the C-10, in this vintage and with this drivetrain.
We all know that seat belts save lives, but it is so much easier and more enjoyable to judge the angle of the drift as you slide around a corner on gravel if the seat of your pants is not so rigidly strapped into the seat. Something was lost with that safety upgrade.
I’m mostly agnostic about the Chevy-Ford thing with these pickups. But I will say that my Twin-Beam lwb ’66 actually rides quite nicely; it’s really not harsh at all. I would say confidently that it rides every bit as well as the comparable Chevy. The coil springs on the rear of the Chevy don’t guarantee it a better ride; lots of very soft and fine riding cars have used leaf springs. There is nothing inherently inferior riding about them; it’s all in the spring rate and damping.
The big advantage of the Ford is the all-steel bed, which is made of very thick gauge and takes endless abuse. The wood floors in the Chevy beds inherently rust.
Also, the Ford cab seems to have a wee bit better visibility.
It’s why I gave the nod to looking for a Ford when I bought mine.
My 63 lacked all of those advantages of your 66. The Flair-side bed still used a wood floor and mine had not only the solid axle and 4 leaves, a prior owner had added extra leaves to the back springs which made the truck ride like it was on solid tires.
Let’s try again as the first try just vanished.
I have a 65 F-100 Styleside long bed and, as Paul says, it drives very well on either a boulevard or highway. Manual steering is quite nice, little effort, and good road feel. Only time it is an issue is if one needs to slowly move into a parking spot which might take a couple of extra moves. So, guess what, I don’t do that.
The only downside to the truck would be the noise at highway speeds if I want to listen to my iPod through the standard radio speaker, new of course. Since I don’t cut it is something you live with. A minor issue is the redone bench seat which is a wood bench in a dugout with some padding and vinyl on top. I’m sure over time there will be more give but not likely in my lifetime.
I agree with Iowahawk on the rear suspension. My ’71 C10 had lots of suspension TRAVEL, making better off road than a leaf sprung setup of exactly the same load capacity. GMC had leafs, and a friend’s half ton did not do as well in the rough. On road it really makes no difference.
Our 2000 Chevy has the torsion bar front end and even being the 2500HD, it rides better than the coil over Tundra it replaced. I dont know why, but I suspect it is travel.
Actually the coil spring jobs were less forgiving.
It wasn’t the suspension itself but the drive-shaft’s lack of a slip joint.
On the drawing board the suspension’s arc of travel “hinged” at the center shared with the u-joint, making a slip unnecessary. In reality anything beyond the textbook’s expected suspension travel would kill the driveshaft.
The arms didn’t age well. They could become weakened by rust and fatigue and then when when significant load or torque was applied they’d fold.
Usually arm failure was a disaster that would wreck both arms and the drive-shaft, twist the axle housing out of place. There would be no limping home. A leaf spring failure was seldom as traumatic.
I didn’t want to be the one to bring this up, but I agree. The rear coil suspension on those GM pickups does not have the best rep. There was a good reason why they went back to leafs. I’m a bit wary of the them. I don’t think they take overloading as well as a leaf spring setup, among other things. And I do that all the time. 🙂
I think two things ended them, higher manufacturing cost with more parts count, and user acceptance due to loading issues. What I liked, travel, was a disadvantage when loading. A$$ end up in the air empty and then low at max weight. Leafs move much less vertically with load. I did have to replace bushings that simply dont exist with the leaf setup. Today, Ram pickups have coils in back.
Oh, this is interesting, thank you! We had farm equipment for heavy hauling, and our truck was parked indoors, and mostly run on gravel roads, so it did not have to deal as much with heavy loads or winter salt, and the suspension held up well. Uncle’s identical ’65 also held up well, and he was not one to baby his equipment. Even with the “heavy duty” coil spring option, these rear suspensions were easily overloaded. There was a supplemental leaf spring option, but I never saw a truck with one, and one look at that contraption in the brochure would make anyone who needed the capacity move on to another truck. So, for everyday, light duty use, even over rough roads, the Chevy was very comfortable and a good choice. But if you were going to really load up, looks like Ford, or a 3/4 ton Bowtie or a GMC, was the way to go.
Another example of how the uses to which a vehicle is put can very much affect how it is perceived. But in looking for an old Chevy to rehab, I will need to climb under and check out those long trailing arms.
I have to admit I have not ridden in a Ford of that era, so I am speaking out of turn. I do know that my Dakota could not drive very fast on a farm trail, and that both of Dad’s box Chevy trucks, with the rear leafs, were not as good off-road. You are so very right about the steel bed. A major task in rehabilitating a Chevy of that era has to do with removing all the rotten wood, choosing what kind of wood to replace it with, cutting and preserving the wood, getting all of the necessary hardware together and then installing it. And then figuring out how to keep it looking that good. A lot of work for what is supposed to be a box to carry stuff in.
More fantastic, often hilarious writing from you, Jason. This is certainly a “truck’s truck”. Great to see it doing work without apparent complaint. (That is a big fridge.)
Have to admit the only American pickup Ive owned was a Cornbinder and it was an AL 110 Australian built six cylinder three speed column shift flat bed bags of torque little brakeing ability tough as nails and would tow way beyond any rating it may have had, a good truck actually zero comfort features there was the bare minimum of legal requirements fitted and yes I’d have another one if I had a use for it.
Is it for sale?
“There is absolutely no need for any cloth seats, air conditioning, heaters, power steering, power brakes, stereo radios, infotainment systems, cruise control, anti-lock disc brakes, backup cameras, trailer wiring, cupholders, or two exterior mirrors.”
My 2011 Ranger XL has vinyl seats & hand-crank windows, but you still need somewhere to put your bottled water (cupholders) for easy access to stay cool without using the A/C. I hardly use the AM-FM radio (no cassette, CD, MP3, infotainment, etc.) or cruise control. Most pickups designed before the ’80s & ’90s were still used for just hauling items in the bed and trailer towing for additional loads was just an afterthought (though certainly still doable); most trailers now have lights (and a lot of them have electric brakes) that require a trailer wiring harness in order to safely–and LEGALLY–be towed on the highway. A backup camera (which I added myself) & a passenger side mirror make a good ally for backing right up to a trailer without damaging your otherwise bulletproof rear bumper (or tailgate), in addition to watching your over-track so you don’t clip the curb when making a right turn. For a Regular Cab Short Bed, the 2.3L Duratec I4 is plenty adequate in regular everyday driving (V6 will just use more gas).
The biggest advantage of the older pickups is that they were give-or-take 100% made in America.
There are two reasons why a modern F-150 has a GVWR rating just over 6000lb, vs 5000 for the ’64. The obvious one is that to get the same payload. Modern trucks are simply a lot heavier when empty, due to all the reasons of safety and comfort.
The lesser known reason is emissions standards. The reason F-150 replaced F-100, D-150 replaced D-100 over at Dodge, etc. was that 6001lb was the cutoff for not having to comply with passenger car standards. The bar was again raised to 8501lb later, hence the 7400lb F-250 became an 8600lb Super Duty. California still has a 6-10k GVWR class for emissions testing.
The one possible exception to pickup orthodoxy would be if the F100was built during Dearborn’s flirtation with unitized trucks before reeturning to buildiing them body on frame.
Yes. That truck. Yes. My Y chromosome needs that like meat, whiskey and tobacco. Like a new Snap-On Tool and the calendar that comes along. This truck is what I need.
I’m sorry, the featured Ford is a nice survivor, but it doesn’t knock the 1948-54 Chevy Advanced Design pickups from the gold medal pedestal. It’s the Advanced Design Chevys that are still being pulled out of barns and fields after 20 years of slumber and fired up.
Also, this ’64 Ford, while predating Twin-I-Beam, represents a step back from earlier Ford efforts to car-i-fy the truck. Earlier in the sixties, Ford experimented with unifying the cab and bed into a single body, which looked streamlined and modern on the dealer’s lot but proved disastrous once the trucks were put into service (used hard enough, the doors could jam from the body flexing). GM never wasted time trying that.
I rode along when my dad purchased his only new vehicle. I would have been 5. 64 ford pickup. ended up with a white, long fleetside box- had a tool storage compartment below bed on pass. side. column 3sp . had the 8. he got the brush guard. we bought scrub land outside Klamath Falls Ore. as a getaway from the “rat Race” of SF Bay area. a beast of bent steel bar riveted to the bumper. wanted the little mirrors instead of the big western style ones. dash had a pull throttle knob- the old school version of cruise control. i recall a lightning bolt logo embossed on the bench seat back at the center position. seem to recall the fuel tank was a tall thin thing right behind the seat. could hear it sloshing. 64s seem pretty unusual now. many older ones get the full on resto. and slightly newer survivors get their day in picture features. this is the first one from 64 I have seen profiled. thanks.
Question to the commenters here: Almost all the older pickups have their fuel tanks mounted behind the seat in the passenger compartment. Having ridden in a few as a kid, that sloshing of the fuel in the tank was very distracting, and was a constant reminder that in an accident, there would be little good in sharing a compartment with a tank full of gasoline. For long-term older pickup owners, does one get used to it, or is the noise in the cab so much that adult ears don’t even pick up on the sloshing sounds?
I don’t notice mine. It’s really not that noticeable even if one listens for it. But then my ears are not exactly those of a kid anymore, in more ways than one.
I drove and owned them and even with young ears never noticed the sloshing. Of course there were a lot of things that would raise hair on end now that we thought nothing of. …and today, vice versa. LoL
I specifically remember a seat-tank F750, not exaggerating, the fuel gauge could be observed falling on a long pull. It had a second “D” tank.
The next one I’m hesitant to tell, but I was there, saw it, and it’s absolute truth. A “kid” somehow caught a seat tank Ford on fire while fueling it! This second I don’t recall exactly if it was an N or an F, but it was about a 500 Series, Niedermeyer cab. Anyway, he saved the truck by driving it -on fire!- to our nearby workstation where he must’ve figured that the “old timers” would know what to do besides just watch the truck burn. We got the fire out.
Ever seen a Landrover? you sit on top of the petrol tank in the early ones the filler is under the drivers seat squab, but they dont explode very often that only seems to happen in hollywood.
No, don’t notice the sloshing in my truck either. What I would notice is the slight smell of gas after filling the tank up to full.
Some artful Jason writing to finish out the year, and a reminder of how bone-simple these vehicles were/are! A couple minutes of peeking on eBay, etc. just now shows what $$$$ these things are commanding, whether well-aged or tarted up.
I’ll just fire up my Time Machine and see what I can bring back for 2021:
A Ford pickup that model overtook me on the motorway on one of my trips last week a used import though no way of telling when, It was a left hook but a longer bed than the one pictured an V8 powered I could hear the twin exhaust above the noise of the Detroit in my ride (twin stax on the old Sterling the noise exits above the cab unless you are Jaking) Nice looking pickup though cream and maroon two tone paint and it didnt have wide wheels like so many here do have pickup bed was well scratched up so it gets used properly too, reminded me of Paul’s ute similar sized.
I have always liked the design of the 1961-66 Ford Style side trucks. I like both the first series with the unitized bodies, and the second series with the separate body/bed. The 1966 might be the best looking overall to me.
I have always thought that Ford trucks from 1953-56 and the 1961-66 had a too tall top. That may be the reason so many of the 1953-56 Ford trucks had the top chopped, which improved the proportions greatly, if not chopped too much. I don’t recall seeing any of the 1961-66 trucks with a mild chopped top. So, I though I would see what one would look like.
I chopped the top, added skirts, made the body/bed unitized, lowered the suspension, and removed the side badge. Not a perfect job of it, but I like the sleek stylized look. I actually have done something similar but not as drastic, to my 1986 GMC daily driver for real.
I am not a fan of the step side version due to the rear fender design not matching the body design. My design may be a love it or hate it, due to the more Ranchero or car like look of the truck – certainly something that is not in vogue today, with the monster trucks getting larger by the year!
The before for comparison. Not that is a bad looking truck as is, of course.
What I’d like to know is why that fancy yellow racheting thing is being used to hold that load in place when a good old rope would do the job good enough for Uncle Charlie and cheaper to boot.
That’s what I’d like to know.
Totally amazing to me that anyone would think that a 60 year old suspension with bad brakes would suffice in todays world. Much less a motor that has less horsepower than some motorcycles. I have a 64 f-100. It will retain all outward appearance of a stock vehicle but will will be safe enough my wife can drive it while entering an interstate highway on ramp at 70 mph,