If you’ve watched the prices for original Ford Broncos (’66-’77), you’ll notice that they’ve reached nuckin’ futz territory. I find the phenomenon perplexing for a utility vehicle that is, how should I say it, so agrarian in nature. Whatever, I guess. But that leads me to ask whether International Harvester’s Scout may be a more reasonable alternative. Primitive as they are, they had a twenty-one-year successful run, pushing out over half a million units; we feature them regularly here on BF. Today’s find is a 1967 edition that has been sitting in Rockton, Illinois, for some number of years. Those with an interest will find it here on eBay, where it’s available for a BIN price of $16,000.
The Scout’s formula was similar to the Bronco’s, or I should say the Bronco’s formula was similar to the Scout’s, since the Scout was introduced six years ahead of the Bronco. Technically, this Scout is an 800 series, which spanned the years ’66 through ’68. This example, which is as basic as they get, has been parked for the last 35 years, but it appears to be solid. The listing includes numerous images of the body panels and underside, and rot doesn’t appear to be a serious problem – the seller does state that the storage has been dry. For the most part, the body is straight with just a minor contusion here or there, though the front bumper has been kissed. The finish? Well, it looks original, that’s for sure, but it has obviously seen better days. The chrome-slotted wheels are one of those “I’ve seen these before” items; a Chevy or GMC truck, perhaps?
The crux of the biscuit here is this Scout’s not running condition. The seller doesn’t tell us exactly what’s under the hood, so I imagine it’s the standard 152 CI “Commanche” four-cylinder engine good for 92 horsepower. The seller states, “Slave clutch and reservoir will need to be replaced and installed. Reservoir was already removed…” OK, so we know the clutch has a problem, but what about the engine itself? Despite its claimed 71K miles of use, sitting for 35 years is long enough to produce a stuck engine. Minus the that clutch business, the engine compartment does look complete. A three-speed manual transmission provides the transfer case connection to both the front and rear axles.
The interior is about what one would expect to find, austere and worn. It’s complete, and there’s no indication of rusted-through floor pans, so that’s a good start. The front seat has been covered with an Indian cover – a quick fix for shot upholstery, but it doesn’t really matter in the scheme of things. Assuming a full restoration, the interior would undergo a complete redo anyway, but I suppose the environment is functional and usable as is.
So, we have a $16,000 price of entry, and then what? Well, the aforementioned Broncos usually undergo a full zoot suit redo, and I suppose that could be in the cards for this Scout, but not necessarily. It could be made to operate safely, and just remain as is, battle scars and all. So, what’s your thought, is a Scout such as this 1967 example a viable alternative to an uber-priced Bronco?
Just no.
Having had a ’66 800 in the family — my father bought it new, and I put quite a few miles on it, both on- and off-road — I’m not really tempted.
I checked a few years ago, and found that replacement parts are not cheap. Not sure some of the Scout-specific bits are even available these days. Add that to rust — Scouts really do corrode in all the usual places, and I’m wouldn’t accept anything but eyeball evidence that there is none on this car — and the anemic performance of the slant-four, and it not terribly appealing.
On the upside, the mechanicals are pretty stout, and I’d guess even an engine that has sat for more years than are good for it can be resuscitated. Can’t say the same for gaskets and seal, though, so while the next owner attends to the clutch, they ought to at least re-seal the engine after it’s freed up. After that, it’s brakes, tires, shocks and a thousand-and-one other small items that are sure to wear out on any vehicle this old.
I might change my mind if this were a tenth of the posted price. Scouts are good off-roaders, and are no slower (and ride not more harshly) that a Jeep of similar vintage. I dig the looks, too. So, it’s not all bad….
Well, Ford only wished the Bronco was the Scout/CJ alternative, but wasn’t so. With only 14,000 ’67 Broncos sold and with more than twice the Scouts sold then,, it was more like Jeep that was sweating bullets. I read, a ’67 Scout cost about $2128, or about $200 less than a CJ5,( $2361) while a base ’67 Bronco was almost $2700. Your figures may vary, but was clear, the Bronco was more for an unproven vehicle. It was uncharted territory for Ford and they knew it. Splitting hairs really which was better( unfortunately the Landcruiser kicked them all) but the Scout had nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, motor aside, the Jeep and Scout used many of the same guts. I remember a photo of the historic ’67 Chicago blizzard, and the only vehicle moving was a Scout!
Now, about that price,,,
We had a 66 from new….PTO and gear drive winch …very sure footed compared to our jeep CJ 3B… only way to stick it was to get high centered.
.Good rig.
Love the Scouts over the Broncos and Jeep. Just so damn cute and simple. Tempted on this but the $16k is out of bounds for me. I would buy for $8k because you still have $8k more in work to to.
I sure wouldn’t kick this Scout off my driveway. Of course I would still want to install the other half of the engine. Lots of potential here.
Parts fairly easy to come by. Some body parts available so that’s a sign that there’s lots of potential.
Definitely, the Scout was an instant success. When they first arrived on the scene out west, their presence was known, but when the Bronco arrived, you had to look for them for a few years as they just didn’t ooze out of every corner.
Who would want a Bronco if he can have a Scout!
Of course just my opinion –
I would love to own a Scout, but the $16k price tag is a no go !!!
Wait, wait, we need to click on the eBay ad for this Scout to view all the photos! Is that a KRACO 8 Track Player (hanging on sideways) on the passenger side under dash? If so, why aren’t there 75 comments here? Doesn’t that increase the value just a little?
Dang, you are sharp, I believe that’s exactly what that is. I’ve never seen one mounted like that, so I didn’t even look further. Seems like a poor place to mount a tape player.
We had a ’67 Scout for 3 years from 78-81, when my Dad traded it in for the ’69 Bronco that’s still sitting in my garage (gotta go change the oil in a few minutes).
The 152 in our Scout was gutless which was the main reason Dad got rid of it. We had to put the transfer case in low range to get up our driveway and to pull out onto the main road from the street. Thankfully Dad was a farm kid so rowing multiple gear shift levers was second nature to him. When we went four wheeling and encountered a steep hill, the family piled out so Dad could get a run at the hill hoping to crest it with a few hundred pounds less ballast in it.
My uncle had a 73 Scout II and that was a completely different vehicle (much better!).