This 1955 Ford F250 has been parked in a rural Kansas barn for nearly 45 years! According to the seller, his father purchased this truck in the early 1970s when it only had about 6,000 miles on the odometer. But unlike so many vintage cars with low mileage, this one doesn’t appear to have any mechanical issues that prevented the miles from racking up. In fact, the seller says the truck drove like new when it was parked in the barn. It can be found here on craigslist with an asking price of $20,000 and has been listed for sale off and on for the past few years. Have a closer look at this beauty and thanks to Darrun for the tip on this one!
The interior certainly looks like it hasn’t been used much. The seller says their dad repainted the truck in the 70s because it was sun-faded. I would imagine it would shine up really well once it is washed. As far as the interior, a little dusting, and some light cleaning and it should be good to drive. The seller says the seat needs to be reupholstered, but, it’s hard to tell why from the photos. Perhaps the seat has some dry rot?
The engine is a V8, which the ad points out is the same engine that came in V8 Thunderbirds of the same year. However, the seller has turned down offers to buy the low-mileage engine and instead has chosen to keep the drive train intact. Overall, what do you think about this one? Do you believe the 6,000 original mile claim?
It’s located near Kansas City,Kansas.
Howard A., geomechs, help me out here-wasn’t the ‘55 TBird the 292 ci while the truck was a 272 ci? And did Ford ever put a 292 TBird in their ‘55 trucks? My exFIL (‘50’s-‘80’s truck driver/gearhead) tells me he believes the ‘55 TBird motor was actually a Mercury!
Be interesting to see if anything is hiding under the muck the seller is too dang lazy to spray off..
Hi Nev, from what I found, this motor is either a 239 which was new for ’54, or a 256, new for ’55. ’56 saw the 272. I think Lincoln motors came a bit later.( late ’56) I read, the T-bird motor for ’55 was the 292. Back then, trucks seemed to have their own displacement V8’s.
Thank you, sir-Always good to have the real scoop!
I think you’re pretty close, Howard. The 239 was kept in production into ’55. The car got the 272 and the T-Bird and Mercury got the 292. The 256 was a Mercury engine for ’54 but I don’t think it saw much production in ’55; I think performance was getting important, even in trucks and the 272 was introduced later in ’55. I might add that the truck application held onto the 3-bolt carburetor well into 1956.
“Three bolt carburetor”-was that the bolt configuration of the carb base to the manifold or the carb body construction, geomechs?
The Three-Bolt setup was right on the intake manifold in the first of the Y-blocks except for the Mercury which had the 2-Storey (teapot) carb from the get-go. It seems to me that the trucks kept the 3-bolt setup right into the 272. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an adapter. I might add that the 272 engines that I tuned up were later and ran the conventional 4-bolt setup…
We had a ’55 F-600, and it had a 317 with a governor on it. We bought it used with a bad engine, then found out our 292 pistons wouldn’t fit. OOPS!
Great find, and I believe we’ve seen this truck before. I can tell you what it’s not being red and that low mileage, it’s not a fire truck. The mileage is absolutely correct. It doesn’t appear to have a hoist, so a lot of shoveling was the order. Living in a northern farming community, I’ve seen trucks like this, some still in use, and they are used for planting and harvesting, so they accumulate very little miles. Sitting at a rural feed mill in spring or fall,, if you have the time, is when these older trucks come out. They sit inside most of the time until they are needed again, unless, of course, the kids take it out on Sat. night when the folks went to town, to see how fast they could get it going and put back before they got home,,,dad wasn’t stupid, he knew, probably did it himself once.
We all know, dust equals that “just found” look, and quite frankly, the paint isn’t that nice anyway. Naturally, I feel, a vehicle like this, that needs everything just to get it to move, is a bit much. Perhaps if it WAS an old fire truck in perfect shape, maybe, but $5g’s tops on this. Cool find though.
You are right about it being on here before. Just over 3 years ago was the first time, and they were asking $20K then as well. Stubborn little buggers when it comes to price. I don’t mind features being repeated at all, but it is a shame the sellers can’t update pics or make some kind of progress over the coarse of time.
Yep….good eye guys…..I remember the dirt .
HA, I always say something is worth whatever someone’s willing to pay, but if no one’s paying that price for years, it’s time to lower your price or your approach or both. This is a joke.
Nice truck with great potential however, the wear on the steering wheel seems a bit much for only 6,000 miles…
I would think the seller would have cleaned it up put more effort into it .Kinda looks like a scam who knows.just sayin.
Nice truck at crackpipe price. I`ve pulled similar trucks out of barns for between $1500 to $5000. Some better, some worse. Maybe they should open a museum and charge admission to look. Won`t ever sell at that price.
That truck has seen a hard 6000 miles or its been around once. Don’t usually see that much wear on the steering wheel, and the engine compartment shouldn’t look that bad even parked outside for 48 years.
Looks like a stake bed. To me it’s worth very little without the real bed.
I am sure many of you will disagree ,but from my experience, having owned and built 5 ,1953 to 1955 F-100’s, i have a good idea, what it costs to build a reasonably nice one. If I especially wanted a restored truck, I would buy this one. Why? Because in the long run you would save allot of money. A stock pick up frame would be an easy find, you can buy the entire P/U bed reproduction, for less than 2K and that’s hardware, wood, just bolt it together. It is basically bolt all of the it together and you have an original looking 6,000 mile truck. Its a Winner , Winner
The wear on the steering wheel is a bit much for 6000 miles, don’t ya think?
Perhaps it has such low miles because the cement (paint?) on the windshield makes it tough to drive.
Be good for 106,000 miles
That was my first observation unless it is paint on the wheel from the 1970 paint job.
The “real” bed may well be a genuine Ford script stake body which could have been ordered directly from the dealer. I personally would prefer the Ford body, especially if the rack sideboards were all present and restorative. All light trucks in that era could be ordered with OEM flatbed/rack bodies from the factory. Even a vintage rack body would be authentic for a farm truck. Most of us have more use for a truck like this (especially with a dump hoist) than for a regular pickup. Hay bales, for instance.
I had one of these in high school. A 3/4 ton single rear wheel long bed.
With this truck you get the privilege of replacing all the tires ( and tubes?), rebuilding the brakes system (all of it, including the metal lines) replacing the water pump, hoses and having to wash all the rust out of the block, then potentially replace the radiator. Same with the fuel system and tank. Rebuild the carburetor and tune it up. And all that for $20 grand. What’s not to like?