Looking like a photo out of a 1965 Ford Econoline Pickup brochure, other than a few dings and creases, this original example would be a nice project. Having some rust, which the seller mentions and shows in the photos, you’ll need to do some welding. You can find it listed here on eBay in Stanfield, North Carolina, and bidders have wrenched the price up to $10,100 and the reserve isn’t met!
I love the look of this Rangoon Red truck, how this one has avoided being modified over the decades is crazy, but I’m glad. The seller says that it’s a Texas truck but it has quite a bit of rust so it must not have been the dry part of Texas. It recently moved to North Carolina around four years ago and the seller has repaired some of the rust but there’s a lot left to do. It’s certainly not scaring the bidders at all.
Ford offered the E-Series, or Econoline pickup from 1961 through 1967 and they’re as interesting as it gets. Corvair also made a cab-forward pickup as did Jeep and Dodge. Volkswagen even got into the act. Ok, just kidding, I made that fake VW Photochop a few years ago. Cab-forward pickups were known for being front-heavy and that’s not surprising. This is the optional five-window cab as opposed to the standard three-window cab.
Here’s where things get a bit fuzzy, literally. I’m not sure what happened with the focus, or lack thereof with the seller’s camera or camera phone, but a few of the photos are so blurry that it’s impossible to see any detail. You can make out the two front seats and the doghouse where the engine sits, and here’s a shot behind the seats to get an idea of the extra room back there. The integrated bed looks good but you can see rust holes in quite a few areas and those will hopefully be fixed by the next owner. They even provided a few underside photos.
Ford added a bigger 240-cu.in. OHV inline-six in 1965 and a bigger compartment was needed. The seller doesn’t give a VIN or say if this is the 170 or 240 six, but one of you will know (Bob?). My money is on it being the 170 inline-six, which had 101 hp and 156 lb-ft of torque. It’s said to run well and with some cosmetic work, this could be a real show-stopper. It sends power to the rear wheels through a column-shifted three-speed manual. A three-speed automatic would have been an option. Have any of you owned a cab-forward pickup?
Fun write-up Scotty. I always enjoy seeing these at shows. I think, it’s because of the preposterous-ness of the layout as viewed from today’s perspective. Didn’t the owner bother to check if the pics were in focus? I don’t know which straight six this would be. Given its unmodified state, looks like this one might be worth the effort.
That VW chop: reminds me of something, maybe the dimensions of an airport luggage truck?
Always thought these were cool, including the Dodge, Jeep and even Corvair variants. Good thing the auto safety group wasn’t as vocal in the early 60s or there would have been a warning sticker on the dashboards advising occupants not to lean very far forward as the no-nose design might tip up on its schnozel. Guess this would have applied to the 60s vans as well.
Like yourself Terry, I’ve always liked these, and have even driven one, a dodge A-100, but the biggest thing that bothered me, was if you ever ran into anything, you’d pretty much be guaranteed to be the 1st one on the scene!!
Could have bought a running (badly, but running) rust bucket for 500 bucks bout 20 years ago , wife said no way. Been a nicely restored one running about town saleing flowers outta the bed last few years , wonder if it’s the same one
You dont see these anymore. It’s gonna be a labor of love and money but when fixed up its gonna be worth it. No way a V8 is gonna fit in there but i wonder if the trusty 300 would fit. Must be manual brakes and steering i’m guessing wasn’t even offered as an option. Just don’t crash head on because you’re history
I have seen 305s stuffed in the doghouse. They will fit, but boy howdy is it tight, and changing plugs takes all afternoon.
Thing’s already a deathtrap. I can’t imagine going over 65-70 in one or (it’s a trip; take my word for it) or why someone would want to choose to die so colorfully. It would still get more attention than my ’66 Bonneville if it were powered by a rubber band.
Yes a V8 will fit it in. The bad part is changing spark plugs from underneath
A V8 will fit. I have an identical truck. It has a 347. Will start high speed shakes about 110! 🤣
Another Bob chiming in! I have one of these: a very early ’65 (built fall ’64) and I recognize all of those rust spots, a year ago I had just finished welding up mine.
The little bump-out at the back of the cab, into the bed says that this was built for the 300 engine, which a somewhat beefier (and hence longer) block than the 144, 170, 200, and 240 that preceded it. Nearly impossible to tell what’s actually in there without decoding the engine number (I thought mine was a 170 until the fuel pump order arrived & it clearly would not fit; turned out to be a 250 from a ’78 Fairmont.
It’s leaking through the headlight/fresh air intakes (and probably a few other rust holes in the nose panel) to create that wet floor under the mat. Not in bad condition all things considered, and I am delighted to see it top $10K so far.
Having a tailgate (even rusty; again, this one’s not too bad) is a huge bonus as they too were an option and many fleets didn’t bother. If you can find one in decent nick, they’re $1500-$3000 with former pond dwellers getting $700.
Think you guys are getting your Ford sixes confused. The 144, 170, 200, and eventually the 250 (much later than this truck) the “Falcon” six. The 240, a much more robust (taxi cab, fleet duty) came out in 1965; not sure if offered in Econoline. In time it grew to the much loved 300. Loved the story about guys cutting up LS heads, welding them back together so the 300 could breathe!
Oh and yeah: Manual steering & brakes. One-speed wiper. One-speed heater fan. No sun visors. No seat belts. Passenger seat has no adjustment.
You could order it with an automatic transmission.
Ash tray was standard.
Dad had one. Sitting on top of that straight axle sure made for a bouncy ride. If you could get it to stop fast, the back wheels would come off the ground. Fun and (occasionally scary) times, but we lived through it. Hope the successful bidder enjoys it, but don’t get silly on the road with it.
Not sure about a “show-stopper”, as much as they do great “stoppies”. Here was a GM propaganda film touting the advantages of the Corvair. What they don’t say, is the Fords had 500 pounds of ballast on the front passenger floor. The Corvair engine and trans weigh a lot more than the claimed 175 pounds added by Ford. Didn’t see many Econoline pickups, like Rancheros, most folks just got a full size pickup back then. The Ford could have used a rampside, that Corvair had, and all these “cabover” pickups were a chore to drive. I think the Corvair was the most stable, yeah, go figure, Ralph. Awful vehicles here, and I for one was glad to see ALL cabovers go.
Stoppies ?,,sorry, GM, not bloody likely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-THAAaJQS0
I had a 65 van converted into a camper in 72. Drove it cross country from Massachusetts to the rockies to live in and ski for 3 months.
In 73 I installed a 302 and repeated the previous adventure.
Brakes were marginal, steering was scarier, some rust but it was only 6-7 years old. It was reliable and the 302 got better mileage than the 170 engine.
Spent many years traveling and skiing out of it.
Can this be referred to as a quarter van? Super cool needs some work. And yes I wouldn’t want to hit anything head on. Maybe some aftermarket airbags?
Made s great surf rig in the 80s,my buddy had one ex USAF ramp truck bought at a DRMO sale. After surf session drinks he managed to get busted by local island cops. I went up in his eco-cruiser to bring him some lunch the dang door fell off at cop station. No worries we kept driving it.
The engine in the picture is either a 170, 200 or 250. 170s and early 200s (pre 1965) can be identified by 3 freeze plugs. 200s (1965 & newer had 4 freeze plugs. 250s had 5 freeze plugs making these engines pretty easy to identify. These 6 cylinders all have the distributors mounted towards the front of the engine on the driver’s side with the fuel pump behind the distributor. The Ford big six, the 240 & 300 can be easily identified by inspection covers on the driver’s side of the block. The 240 & 300 have the distributor mounted towards the middle of the block with the fuel pump in front of the distributor. First generation Econolines had versions of both the small and big six engines as well as the 289 V8. All of which were very easy to service.
VW did make a cab forward pickup on the type II chassis way before the American auto makers. In fact they made a single cab and a double cab.
I always thought these cab-forward designs were best suited for electric conversion.
I had a ‘63 Econo-Truck years ago. Bare bones 3 window. $50 special. Back window was busted out. Covered it with a piece of plywood, cut a small hole in it and put in a plastic window. They are terrible vehicles. poor handling, under powered -and frankly, dangerous. I absolutely loved it!- wish I still had it.
This is a Spring Special package offered by Ford in 1965. Dealers got a Rangoon Red truck with the side trim and deluxe cab along with a few other things as a package on the base truck. Most just kept the 170 in them. A few ordered a different color and the 240 along with other options. Never offered power steering or brakes.
I have been driving early Econolines since 1972 and have owned at least 40 of them in that time. I am not afraid of a front end collision. These are unibody and very stout at that front door line. Most any car built in the early 60’s is unsafe compared to new cars, but we drive them anyway.
Can’t edit, so:
302, not 305.
I have hit 70 in mine exactly once. No mas. Thus a V8 is IMO wasted in it, unless you’re building a track beast.
There is a 167-lb pig-iron weight bolted under the bed & over the gas tank to address the ‘stoppie’ tendency. Discovering that must’ve been a fun day at the proving grounds.
Sun visors, 2-speed wipers & 2-speed fan were options, probably for the passenger van.
The bump-out was a requirement for the 300 only. All the other sixes fit without it.
In the late 80s had a 1964 Falcon van, 3 on the tree, 170 engine. Loved it, very dependable ride. Paid $500 for it. Traded it for a ‘66 Mustang…great days.
Auction update: this one ended at $12,200 and the reserve wasn’t met so no sale.
My brother had one of these for his wheel shop back in the 80s (Monocoque Wheels, Santee CA). I worked there off and on after I got out of the Navy and drove that truck more than once. Dunno which engine it had but remember that wandering Ford steering box that took a skilled hand to keep in going straight. Not sure what he did with it, but upgraded to later F150 with a V8, added heavy duty suspension for loading the wheels and transporting to LA for heat treating. Good times.