Up a dusty unpaved road in Washington state’s Olympic Mountains is an abandoned 1962 Ford F-Series truck with a “Rust in Peace” sign propping up the hood. I can’t think of a more ironic truck to have been left deep in the rainforest near the Quinault River. The 1961-63 F-Series Styleside is the granddaddy of the “lifestyle” truck.
Mike Levine of PickupTrucks.com wrote that Ford had high hopes of expanding sales to suburbanites by emphasizing a more comfortable ride, a roomier cab and Ranchero-like styling that integrated the cab and bed on Styleside models.
The Quinault River Valley has always had a few rich folks with summer homes, but for years a goodly proportion of year-round residents worked in logging and fishing. Fancy truck styling took a back seat to hard-core functionality. This 1962 Ford may have disappointed on the latter front.
“Stories percolating through the Internet tell of unibody owners who would load their trucks, only to discover that the sills had distorted enough to jam the doors shut,” Levine wrote. “Yet others tell tales of having a fully laden truck twist badly enough to pop a door open when crossing railroad tracks. Age and corrosion only exacerbated issues as the load-bearing bodies began to perforate and rust.”
Ron, a Curbside Classic commentator, stated that the wrap-around rear window on the top-end Styleside models had a “terrible reputation” for popping out in response to “the twisting and flexing a work truck had to do.” The pictured truck includes the Styleside’s integrated sheetmetal but does not have the wrap-around rear window.
The unibody proved troublesome enough that Ford introduced a separate cab-and-bed model in mid-1962, and by the end of the 1963 model year it was outselling the unibody version by two-to-one, according to Levine. That was despite the bed coming from the 1960 F-Series, so its styling didn’t match.
Ford’s experience was bad enough that for years thereafter the automaker was more cautious than General Motors in making its trucks more car-like.
I have yet to satisfactorily answer why such a stylish truck was developed during the reign of Robert McNamara. He was Ford Division general manager from 1955-57 and vice president of the Car and Truck Group until November 1960, when he briefly became company president before joining the Kennedy administration as defense secretary, according to Aaron Severson. Presumably McNamara had the power to put the brakes on this new design direction if he had wanted to.
McNamara has been described by automotive historians as the antithesis of a Detroit “car guy.” He “preferred smaller and more utilitarian cars than those his company was making,” noted journalist David Halberstam in his book, The Reckoning.
McNamara reportedly marked the Edsel for elimination even before it was launched, he considered discontinuing the Lincoln, and under his tenure the number of large Mercury models was radically scaled back in favor of an ambitious range of smaller cars.
Brock Yates described one of Ford’s new entries, the Falcon, as a “mediocre economy sedan” that appealed to McNamara’s “humorless, somewhat Spartan personal predilections.”
Severson has argued that McNamara had more design taste than is commonly assumed. However, the F-Series had long maintained the utilitarian heritage of the Model T more than any other Ford. Why throw away that legacy by turning the F-Series into a fashion statement?
Whatever the reason, the unibody sold so poorly – and undercut Ford’s reputation for building rugged trucks – that it was discontinued after the 1963 model year.
One can only imagine why the Styleside pickup pictured here was abandoned. However, the tie-down hooks on the side and construction materials in the bed suggest that this truck did not enjoy a life of frivolity in the suburbs. I wonder if this Ford would have been on the road longer if its owner had instead opted for the separate cab-and-bed version?
SOURCES:
- Bonsall, Thomas E.; 2002. Disaster in Dearborn: The Story of the Edsel. Stanford General Books, Stanford, CA.
Halberstam, David; 1986. The Reckoning. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY.- Levine, Mike; 2010. “Looking Back: 1961-63 Ford ‘Unibody’ Trucks.” PickupTrucks.com. Posted February 17.
- Old Car Advertisements; 2018. Ford (1962).
- Ron; 2011. Commentator in “Curbside Classic: 1962 Ford Styleside F-100 Pickup — That Most Feminine Truck.” Curbside Classic. Posted June 4.
- Severson, Aaron; 2009. “In the Continental Style: The 1961-1963 Lincoln Continental.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted March 1.
- ——–; 2013. “A Historical Note: Ford Division General Managers.” Ate Up With Motor. Posted March 13.
- Yates, Brock; 1983. The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. Empire Books, New York, NY.
Related reading at CC: 1962 Ford F100 Styleside – That Most Feminine Truck by PN
Stories of unibodies stretching and bending abound here with people alledgedly pulling cars out of shape towing yet actual results have never been produced, Did these actually stretch and bend or was it propaganda to kill a style nobody else thought of.
Up till 71 all Aussie local brand utes were unibody and suffered few ill effects from overloading, Cool old ute though.
It certainly seems plausible, and the reason is how some unibody dragstrip cars twist and bend under hard acceleration from a standing start and actually do pop-out their rear windows. The specific one I can recall most vividly was the Plymouth Duster doing exactly this. Of course, these were modified cars with slicks but the theory is still sound.
The issue is that these weren’t proper unibodies. They were fully body-on-frame with a traditional truck ladder frame that was built with some amount of flex in it, topped with the integrated cab and bed that wasn’t as strong as an actual unibody (particularly a ’50s one that tended to be overbuilt) which is why the Falcon Ranchero developed almost simultaneously and a true unibody had none of these problems.
Enjoying your pieces S.
McNamara might be derided as a whizkid numbercruncher, but the cars that arrived around the time of his tenure include some of the company’s greatest shapes; 60 Ford/Edsel, 61 T-bird and 61 Continental. The uncelebrated 60 Falcon sits amongst these, and the 61 F-series established a successful aesthetic that continued pretty much through to 1986. Of course looks aren’t everything, but to my eyes this period marks peak styling for Ford. McNamara can’t lay claim to all of this, nor can he be denied credit for playing his part.
I had one of these unibody Fords when they were about 10 years old. Mine was a short bed. Drove it over a lot of rough roads, but didn’t really haul or tow much. Don’t remember any particular problems with the body other than the usual north country rust. Now the 292 V8 engine – that was a problem . . .
Can you say more about the 292? I have been interested in some elements of their design (stacked intake passages, wrap around exhaust manifold), but am not sure about how that all played out. I do have impressions of 1) a high school friend’s 292 that made my 352 seem like drag car engine 2) various old pickups that barely ran and emitted worse fumes than a diesel, but would like to know the whole story.
The Y-Block was basically a heavy design with a trouble-prone lubrication system and restrictive cylinder heads. That having been said, it’s biggest problem was probably that it was completely overshadowed by the Chevy Small Block (and Plymouth 270 poly-head as well).
Great post and fantastic photos!
I don’t fault Ford for the concept. The Styleside idea was brand new when this truck went into development so I think For can be forgiven for guessing that the old time-tested bed with the separate fenders would be the choice of those who were buying a work truck. Chevy’s Cameo and Dodge’s Sweptside made it look like more car-like high end pickups were the future and this would be the most car-like of all.
Another idea that occurs to me is that planners undoubtedly knew that the big Ranchero would be gone after 1959. Was this truck seen as a way to forge a middle way between the Ranchero and a regular pickup? It would be more stylish than the 57-60 Styleside yet have more utility than the Ranchero.
A quickly conceived Ranchero replacement makes the most sense. Robert M. certainly would not have vetoed such a low cost development program. As Lokki said below, he probably paid little attention to the truck side of the business as long as the numbers were good.
Fascinating – I really don’t know anything about pickups of the 50’s through the, well ever, I guess. My first ride in a pickup was probably in 1973 or so, in my sister’s boyfriend’s Datsun pickup. We lived in western Pennsylvania and were not in any way well off; in those days for most average people, I believe, pickups were purely work vehicles and not at all on the radar. I don’t think pickups really became mainstream until somewhere in the late 70’s when they began to morph into commuter vehicles. As I recall things, they were held to a much less rigorous pollution standard, so they ran better, and were exempt from the 5 mph bumper standards entirely. This meant that you could get a nice and roomy and powerful stripped new pickup for compact car money. Therefore the market began to expand as people who never intended to use them “as trucks” began to buy them as transportation.
Anyhow, I had no idea that Ford had ever attempted a unibody truck, and my theory is that Robert McNamara didn’t either – I suspect that he (like much of America) had little interest in trucks; he would have viewed them as a nice, stable, cash-cow side business, and therefore let pretty ignored them. No need to get involved in a niche that is doing well. Obviously, knowing nothing about trucks, I have zero evidence for this but it would match up with my business training – focus your attention areas with growth i.e. cars, while trucks could be viewed as a relatively stable volume market.
In many baby boomers’ minds, the name “McNamara” equates with Vietnam.
However, what he and his fellow “whiz kids” did for Ford is indisputable.
These early 1960s Ford trucks were quite attractive in their own right. A neighbor had one many years ago, and I would have liked to buy it from him – and tried – but no sale. Eventually it was wrecked in a crash and I never saw it again. What a shame, after all it was red!
I suspect there is some confusion that this pickup used unitized construction, which is not the case. It was a standard body on frame design with “integrated” (Ford’s term) styling where the back of the cab was also the leading edge of the bed, and the bed sides were welded directly to the door sills.
“Unibody” was/is a Chrysler trademark. I’m not sure if the name was retroactively applied to these or if it was common (albeit incorrect) usage the time.
Exactly. This was just a big BOF convertible with the “hole” in a different place. I suspect Ford could have fixed it but it probably wasn’t worth it to continue this style. Note that early Blazer, 4Runner, Scout and other SUV’s used a similar design with a non structural fiberglass top which could be removed.
“Note that early Blazer, 4Runner, Scout and other SUV’s used a similar design”
Very true. However, all of those were on a significantly shorter wheelbase which would make for an inherantly stiffer structure. I have watched pickups go over uneven surfaces and even modern ones exhibit a slight jiggle between the cab and bed in those conditions, especially when carrying some weight.
On the “unibody” terminology, you and Stumack are exactly right. I think Ford truck people have just misused the term in a way that identifies these as separate from every other Styleside pickup Ford has ever made.
Kinda like the never existed 64-1/2 Mustang.
Errol Morris’ documentary, The Fog of War, was a great look into the mind of Robert McNamara and what he learned from WWI, his tenure at Ford, and, of course, Vietnam. It won an Academy Award for best documentary in ’03.
This probably isn’t all that notable, given the lower sales numbers and heavier use when they were new, but unibody F-250s are incredibly thin on the ground. Searching for ’61-63 F-250s brings up almost all separate bed models, whether 4×2 or 4×4.
I don’t believe 4 wheel drive was ever offered on the unibody.
Gene Bordinat’s interview with Dave Crippen (one of the Benson Ford automotive design interview series from the mid-80s) offers some interesting commentary about McNamara’s attitude toward styling. Bordinat was not too impressed with McNamara’s taste, but said he was not unconcerned with how things looked.
My read of McNamara is that he was not oblivious to the appeal of subjective qualities like styling, but his first and foremost question was always whether it made financial sense.
“We” always called them Uni-cabs.
“a more comfortable ride” Huh? Solid axles and leaf springs all around. Chevy had rear coils and IFS by then.