Original by no means, this Ford Econoline pickup has been refurbished as a useful classic. It’s listed for sale here on eBay and is located in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The buy it now price is $7,750, and the Texaco-themed accessories apparently come with the truck if you want them.
The truck has been de-bumpered and has some waves under that pretty white paint, but at least it seems intact and the black wheels look subdued enough that they add to the truck’s good looks.
The bed floor has been augmented or replaced with what appears to be diamond plate aluminum. I think I’d either go all the way with the Texaco theme and sign-write the truck or take it off. What about you?
I’m sure those seats weren’t in there to begin with, but I’ll bet they are more comfortable than the originals as well! These cab-over pickups and vans have a bus-like rake to the steering wheel and take a while for most folks to feel comfortable in.
Here’s where things get interesting. According to several online sites, this plate belongs to a 1964 Econoline, not a 1967. It also originally had the 170 cubic inch inline six and a three-speed manual as opposed to the 289 v8 and automatic it now has. Ultimately, I suppose it doesn’t matter much as I can’t see anyone buying this truck to restore it to original in any case. However, the question is whether or not the truck is worth the money; what do you think?
The price made me suspicious of this one. I clicked the eBay link and the listing has been terminated by the seller. It just looked to good to be true, and I suspect it was.
Coincidentally I just bought one of these for $800, exceptionally rust free but needing just about everything. If this one had been legit I would have preferred it over the project I just bought.
A friend of mine had a 1961. It had a newer 302 with an automatic, but it still had loose manual steering and manual brakes. Fun vehicle, but what a bear to drive. It also still had the original low geared rear end, so it was recommended not to go over 55.
It somewhat gives off a “done on the cheap” vibe. It would have needed an up close inspection before spending the money.m
These are cool, but not terribly valuable. They lend themselves well to the “patina” look, so there isn’t much need to buy one with subpar paint and bodywork.
Steve R
I agree– looks like a cheap respray of a good truck. These are definitely cool, but white is the last color I would have painted it.
Always been a huge fan of these Fords, and would love to have one but they’re rare in my neck of the woods. The white paint job is disconcerting, especially as it seems to have been blown on as a cover-up. With original paint, I’d be okay with the body imperfections… unless there’s also a pile of filler under that shine.
@CanuckCarGuy. Everybody mentions the Bondo story when offering up a reason that they are not interested in buying a car that maybe has lots of filler, however, if you have ever watched “Overhaulin” then you will have seen how much filler goes into one of their restorations. Now go to one of the auctions where that car is featured and see how many thousands of dollars it fetches, irrespective of the amount of Bondo that the buyer must know is hidden under that fantastic paint job.
The painted over dents for me, begs the question of what else was painted over.
A skim coat of filler to achieve perfection where it didn’t originally exist from the factory, is far different than filler used to make up for rotted metal. Let’s not confuse the two.
Those seats look a lot more comfortable than the originals that were in my 61 pickup and my 63 Econoline van. A bodyshop locally has one of these in white I inquired about buying while they were doing some body work for me but the answer was no. Unless the kingpins have been kept in grease these trucks can be a hand full to turn a corner.
Not a 67, no backup lights. Not a 64 as they had floor mounted heater and steering column mount was angled. It’s 65 or 66.
I agree, it looks more like a ’65 to me, but the VIN definitely identifies it as a ’64. However, the VIN also suggests it’s a van (E12) and not a pickup (E10). Something’s awry here.
Now thinking think it’s ‘65. Believe that was last year for 170. Was replaced in ‘66 with a 240.
If it ain’t right – paint it white!
“…Something’s awry here.”
many things.
Pre ’67, even tho ‘Gen One’ has a few differences that some of us find significant.
My fav is the 8 dor (3 windows) 90 inch wb. Rough but doable is the 250/AOD. U hafta wrk the doghouse a lill.
This one I’d try’n source an early ‘toper’ frm one of the sunny side states as that would move it back toward a van but B convertible when needed (& B a ‘protector’ here in the frez/rain of the n.e. coastal states of our good ol USA).
Just wish these ol econobxes had the split window like I think the dodge did (or the VW 4 sure).
My 60 Ford F1 pick up’s vin. tag says A for trans, 3 speed column shift, 01 for axle, 9″ rear end. Maybe my research is wrong?? I do know it is the vin. tag for the truck. Ford experts???