(first posted 2/24/2017) How did Ford become the perpetual number one selling pickup truck? Well, there’s several reasons, but in my mind by far the biggest single one was Ford’s extended SuperCab. It arrived in 1974, and it’s no coincidence that 1976 was Chevy’s last year at the top. And when did Chevy finally get an extended cab? 1988. A GM Deadly Sin. Meanwhile, the F-Series pulled into an insurmountable lead.
It’s hard to imagine a world where not almost every pickup on the road has some kind of extended cab. Yes, there were some double cabs available back in the 60s, Dodge building the only regular production version. But the numbers were small, as pickups had not yet replaced sedans as the family vehicle of choice.
But in 1972, Dodge did revolutionize the pickup world with its Club Cab. Only one problem: it was too small. Yes, it gave some needed interior storage, but the side-facing “auxiliary jump seats” were completely unsuitable for anything but dire emergencies. I remember squeezing into our construction crew foreman’s Club Cab in 1974; I quickly wished I had jumped into the bed in back.
But it was the start of something big.
Ford seized on the idea, and made it super big; big enough for a real back seat. OK, not exactly the same as a double cab, but perfectly suitable for kids, and grownups in a pinch. Or just a whole lot more storage space with the seat flipped down. A Ford better idea, if there ever was one. And it was a pivotal moment in the pickup’s acceptance as a primary family-friendly vehicle and thus its rise to the tops of the sales charts. America had found its new vehicle of choice.
Of course this didn’t happen overnight. I don’t have stats available, but there’s no doubt that Super Cab sales started off as a minority of F-Series pickups. But they clearly were a success, and they were soon to be seen more and more frequently. And its obvious superiority to the Dodge Club Cab meant that it was perpetually marginalized.
And Ford’s rise to the top of the pickup market didn’t just start with the Supercab. In 1965, Ford took a big step in making its pickups more civilized and suitable as primary vehicles, starting with a whole new chassis under the body from its predecessor. The combination of the Twin-I-Beam front suspension and new steering tamed its rough manners to a very considerable extent. That same 1965 frame and chassis would be used almost unchanged for a very long time.
And to really show their commitment to a new civilized world of trucks, Ford offered a new Ranger package in 1965 and 1966 that was if anything, a bit too far ahead of its time, with its Mustang bucket seats and Falcon Futura console. By 1967, the Ranger reverted back to a bench seat, but a well trimmed one, and the Ranger package came to stand for the most civilized cab in the industry.
This ’78 (or ’79) F250 is in Ranger trim, as well as sporting dome very period-correct orange color bands, the kind that graced so many Ford pickups and vans of the late 70s.
It’s also sporting some pretty nasty rust. Given that its rocker panels and other lower parts of its body are intact, and the rust is mostly on the upper parts, I feel pretty confident in saying that this truck spent too much time at the beach. The salty coast air condenses on the cold steel, and begins to do its evil work.
The hood’s front edge has been eaten away. Speaking of, it’s hard to say just what engine it’s hiding under there, but given this trucks size and Ranger trim, we can be fairly safe in guessing it’s not the 300 cu.in. six.
Not that it wasn’t capable of motivating a big truck with its bullish torque, especially combined with the four speed manual transmission. But realistically, given the tow hitch and ball on the back, this, like so many of its kind, probably spent some time hauling a good sized camping trailer; maybe to Mexico every winter, like so many others from the Pacific North West.So the better guess is that a V8 was at work up there, which means either the 351M, the 400, or the 460. Given that gas prices were quite reasonable again by the late 70s, and this was a tow rig, I’d give the toss to the 400 or 460.
This truck has been very well kept, showing some honest wear to the upholstery but otherwise in very clean condition. Most likely an older couple’s truck. In places like Oregon, with so much outdoor recreation and wide open spaces, trucks have been popular for primary transportation for a very long time.
This is the rear seat folded down fully, in two sections, for a very useful cargo storage area.
The shot in the ad with the cargo stowed must be the jump seat version. Or maybe the standard version, which had no seat at all. Both rear seat types were optional.
What a clean and tidy rig, unlike another old yellow F series that’s getting pretty funky. The tow ball is just barely visible.
The SuperCab that transformed the pickup truck from a man cave into a proper woman-friendly abode. Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea after all.
Related:
Curbside Classic: 1977 Chevrolet C10 Pickup – GM’s Deadly Sin #33 – Where’s the Damn Extended Cab?
1965-1966 Ford F-Series Ranger: A Bit Too Far Ahead of its Time
1973 Ford F-350 Super Camper Special: Ford Goes Camping In A Superlative Way
suffering the ravages of rust. but i think those are the last of the classics for ford pickups. the 79 redesign was incredibly nice… but i don’t view them as collectable for some reason.
Has anyone ever heard the definitive reason why GM sat on their hands so long in regards to full-size extended cab pickups? Seems very un-GM-like IMHO. Not that it mattered as I am still a fan of ’73-’87 GM full size trucks, as well as big Fords like this one, too.
I think it would be the same reason GM sat on their hands in so many other markets. In the 60s and 70s the Chevy/GMC trucks were known to be more pleasant drivers. But GM always seemed satisfied to keep incrementally improving what it was doing and missing/botching big shifts in the market. (Thunderbird and Mustang come to mind). The only significant new market they really took a lead in was the one they found by accident – the Suburban which they had been building and improving since the 30s.
GM did have a crewcab on the ‘square body’ generation trucks. That hadn’t caught on just yet, likely since most 4-door cabs couldn’t be had with a short bed or lesser than 3/4 running gear. Gross overkill in many cases.
GM also offered what they called the “Bonus Cab”, which was a crew-type cab without a back seat for those who just needed a lot of lockable storage space.
Some of GM’s deadliest sins were what they didn’t do rather than just what they did, and waiting 14 years after Ford and 16 years after Dodge to offer a full-size extended cab pickup was one of them. This was one of several instances where they reacted far too late to a fundamental shift in the marketplace (the shift from rolling-living-room luxury cars to luxury/sport sedans was another).
I guess when they decided to move the fuel tank out of the cab, someone decided all that extra space leftover could be expanded and put to good use!
But why, oh why, did Ford insist on putting the ignition switch on the left side of the steering wheel?
This truck reminds me a lot of my high school Physics teacher’s truck, which had a double cab and long bed. He said it wore out front tires about as fast as he could eat a bag of popcorn.
It is on the left side so you can start, or stop the engine w/o getting in the truck. Newer Freightliners still do that and the key is actually angled away from the driver slightly. Maybe not the best idea if it has a manual transmission but convenient with an automatic.
The key switch is located where the starter button was in our 1955 F100.
That was another improvement over the competition: At the time, the standard fuel tank location in Dodge’s Club Cab (and crew cab too) was still in the cab.
This truck has the tank under the bed with the filler going through the cab,and this is what it looks like now.
buffed out too!
The Dodge is ungainly, IMO. Their Club Cab never, ever looked right to me. Maybe it’s the long bed…
Ford, OTOH, looks far better integrated, like the extended cab was meant to be there.
It’s also worth noting – and I’ve belabored this point before – that over time, Ford began offering more premium packages on their pickups while GM spread the luxury around, debasing Chevy in the process. Then people wonder why Ford takes the sales crown year after year.
But GM waiting a dozen years before rolling out an extended cab was simply not good.
IMHO, just about every extracab is ungainly. They look like stretch limousines to me. I can appreciate the functionality for some people: more secure interior space, a backseat for passengers, and a longer wheel base makes for a more stable towing platform. For me, most of that is irrelevant or runs counter to how I use a truck. The extended wheel base and extra weight make maneuvering it a nightmare if even possible in tight spots and the added weight blunts performance something fierce. The most miserable experiences are in any extra/crew cab with the smaller V8s. In every case its wet mop handling, zero power and big block mpgs .
I had forgotten that the early Club Cab was only for jumpseats, and also how much more room the Ford version had. That was the norm then – Dodge coming up with a good leap ahead (1971 B series van and the Club Cab pickup) then Ford refining the idea into something really good.
By the 70s, Ford was really making a civilized truck. I remember marveling at how car-like their interiors were in the nicer models.
I have always loved the looks of this model, especially the crew cab. Still look great to this day.
I’m probably in the minority on this but I wish that extended cab trucks were never thought of. They were the beginning of the end for traditional pickups which has led to the too big, too ugly, too expensive and too thirsty pickup trucks of today.
Im kinda there with you. I don’t like extra cabs since they always look gawky and grossly out of proportion. Crew cabs look spot on though. I think it’s the rear doors breaking things up a bit and looking shorter even if that’s even longer yet. Ironically, one if the only extended cabs that looks right to me is a Ford: the Raptor with the supercab mated to the crewcab’s 5.5 ft shortie bed.
I think that crew/extra cabs are only partially responsible for the bloating up of today’s trucks. Traditional BOF sedans/wagons were used like civilized trucks back in the day. As car were downgraded into bland fragile light duty commuter pods, many of those buyers migrated to SUVs. Those got downgraded/wussified into CUVs. Big pickups are the next logical step. Basically if you own a house, have recreational or outdoor activities, carry a lot of stuff OR if the smaller lighter cars come off as cheap diddly disposable junk, there’s nowhere else to go. Small light duty platforms are great for mpg and emissions standards but if you have a real job to do then all that falls by the wayside as capability and longevity take priority. Lets see how long a fwd sedan or minivan lasts packing a full load and towing any kind of trailer.
I think they have went overboard on the interior sizes. My ’06 Screw is all the larger I need for my family of 5. The new F-150s are 8″ longer with the same size bed. That makes a big difference in my garage and the longer front doors are even more of a pain in tight parking spots.
The cab was stretched 6″ from 2003 to 2004 in regular and SuperCabs, and 2008 to 2009 in SuperCrews. The front doors got slightly longer going from a 2008 to a 2009 regular or SuperCrew (or 2003 to 2004 SuperCab), but for the new 2015 models, Ford moved the B-pillar 4″ forward to make the rear doors wider. This also makes the regular cab models 4″ shorter.
You can still buy regular cabs…and they are more efficient than this truck’s contemporaries.
Modern beds are unnecessarily tall, though I don’t know if you can blame that on extended cabs.
Yes, if you go full size. I don’t think any midsize truck offers a single cab. Still single cabs are a bit of an anomaly now. I know, because every time I’ve bought a truck that’s what I had my mind set on…although a Dakota crewcab properly set up would be awesome. And single cabs are more livable as daily drivers than ever. My 3rd gen Ram 1500’s cab had nearly a foot between the back wall of the cab and the front seats. PLENTY of room for a good sized tool box AND a suitcase with room to spare. My ’84 power Ram, no way. But then Im 6’1 and need the legroom. Probably why the taller beds don’t bother me so much either.
Case in point. Dad’s ’95 Ranger vs. my ’15 RAM 2500. The tailgate is over 40″ off the ground! Ridiculous!
In all fairness, that’s a ridiculous comparison. Apples to anvils, really. A 2wd mini truck is practically a car. You have a 4×4 3/4 ton full sizer. You could put that ranger in the bed of your ram and drag your house down the street with that thing!
Rams are enormous though. When I bought my ’05 Rumble Bee it was a bone stock 2wd. It dwarfed my neighbors Z71 4×4 Chevy. Only after I did a 2/4 drop did they look to be comparable trucks. I like a 2wd truck hunkered down a bit but a 4×4 should be up with helicopters. JMHO.
Here’s a better comparison from Paul. The F-150 bed is 10″ taller and the sides are 56″ tall according to Paul’s measurements.
I’m 6’3″ and I find my F-150 too tall. I can’t reach much over the side, and what I can reach is very awkward. It’s not a deal-breaker, but I’d sure rather have something lower.
It’s not ridiculous. Even a Ram 1500 2×4 has a bed height of 35″. That was not the case a couple of decades ago. My F100 has a bed height of 26.6″. Bed heights have increased very substantially over the years, almost a full foot.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/history/cc-comparison-1966-ford-f-100-and-2016-f-150-just-how-much-has-changed-in-50-years/
Update: I see Phil beat me to it.
My F250 4×4 has the Ford rear lowering “kit”, IE shorter blocks. Ford mainly sells that to the 5th wheel crowd as trucks are just getting too damn tall. Mine however was not used for that purpose but I’m not going to change it as it takes 34″ tires just fine as it now sits. My wife did not appreciate the switch from 31″ tires.
I actually prefer the much deeper boxes on modern truck to the shallow box of trucks of the past. That said, they are getting a bit on the high side. I am a bit taller than Phil and the height of my half ton is just barely okay for me. I can step up on the tailgate, but it’s a stretch. And I can reach over the sides, but again a bit of stretch. I have shovel loads of dirt out of the back of my truck and the height isn’t too bad for me, but again it’s basically the highest height that’d I’d be comfortable with. I do appreciate the 10″ of ground clearance my truck has for driving on unplowed roads in early winter morning, but I wouldn’t mind a truck a bit lower.
How much of that height difference is attributable to larger wheels, taller tires, taller springs, etc.? It’s not all in the height of the bed.
Which, along with the bed height, is why I think if you have a 60’s-80’s pickup truck like Paul’s you should keep it. These are the “right tool for the job,” if you generally have just yourself and you need to lift materials in and out of the bed. Enough capacity, but not so large that you have to park half way to the next county in the parking lot. Folks needing to carry extra people, like a work crew, can get those extended cab mega-vehicles, but an old bench seat can carry three. Or you and your dog. And when Paul’s drivetrain gives out, he can put a Ford 300 c.i. six with fuel injection in there and really haul something. Even us Chevy guys can have respect for that motor.
Agreed. Much like the 302 Ford V-8, the 300 I-6 was a beast and could tackle just about any payload you threw at it. Never seen a used Ford 4.9L even actually sell, when I worked at the salvage yards. Sold plenty of Dodge automatic transmissions, rear axles, and rear bumper assemblies though……..
I could say the same for the Chevy’s. A lot of 700-r4/4L60E/4L80E shlush boxes went out, along with the aluminum driveshafts and carrier bearing style drive shafts.
But, when we got a Ford 300, in an F-Series, we knew it would sit in that truck, until the truck literally rusted away around the damn thing.
One of the best engines, that Ford ever made.
My ’70 C10 was low in the back and had the same style tailgate rods as on Paul’s truck. You can disconnect them and lay the tailgate on the old style aftermarket step bumper my Chevy had (which I don’t think Paul’s truck has) which makes a mini ramp. I would do this and back into the low point where driveway meets street and could load and unload appliances with a hand truck and no lifting required. Need a helper or ramps with the tall Titan, even though it’s 2wd.
Our 2000 Chevy K2500 is the very last of the GMT400 series trucks. Its a regular cab long bed. Even being a 4×4 with the HD payload package, It sits lower than new “1/2 ton” trucks. I’m only 5’6 and can comfortably reach into the bed.
Thats a more straight on comparison. 2wd ford to 2wd ford. And yes, for a 2wd to sit up that high is completely preposterous. As someone who has taken many 4x4s offroad, you definitely WANT you 4wd to sit up high. The GM trucks for years have sat like lowriders…without a substantial lift, you’ll rip that fragile plastic bumper and air dam to shreds.
Compare a 1997 4×4 Ram 2500 to Ed’s 2015…I don’t think the height has grown all that much. Its the half tons, especially the 2wd that are out of what. As Paul said, the Rams are probably the worst offenders there having owned one.
I’m with you, there’s a great many popular things I wish hadn’t been invented and the extended cab is one of them. But in this case I must concede that I’m really not a truck guy and don’t really have a dog in the argument since even if single cabs still existed I still would want a truly extinct stepside bed for me to be interested.
When I was a kid, my aunt was the first person I knew to get a pickup- a Chevy S10 with an extended cab and jump seats. I thought they were the coolest thing ever and loved riding in the back sideways.
Of course now I don’t think I could even get myself contorted enough to fit in the back of an S10.
My grandparents had a 1977 Ford F350 when I was a boy. I’ve always found the 1976-77 front end more attractive than either the 1978-79 Ford F350.
I don’t recall these really becoming family vehicles until the short bed SuperCrew was introduced in 2001. That’s the truck that hit the sweet spot for families.
Would be interesting to see the numbers, I’d wager regular cabs still ruled the sales charts until the 90s.
About 30 years ago I travelled in the Canadian Arctic, and observed that 9/10 pickups were Fords. Curious, I discovered that the only dealerships in about a 1000 mile radius were Ford stores. But I also noticed that many of these pickups were SuperCabs carrying families with children. I always wondered which was cause and which was effect. This was just before GM introduced their new style pickup with extended cab. At the time I drove a SuperCab Ranger (the small one, not the full size trim package) and had previously owned a “KingCab” Datsun, and have subsequently owned an XtraCab Toyota and now own a DoubleCab Toyota.
The photo of the rear seat area is with the seat flipped down. To convert from passenger seat to cargo area/platform: first the seat bottom flips forward by 180 degrees, next the seat back flips down by 90 degrees. This yields the perfectly flat cargo floor in the photo. My girlfriend’s (later 1st wife) father had a ’79 Ford Supercab when she and I first started dating in 1992. It had a 460 and automatic. In the mid to late 90s, during my college years, I had an 84 F250 4×4 SuperCab 460 automatic. The rear seat flipped down in the same manner.
Thanks. That’s kind of what I was assuming, but not quite sure about.
As someone who has never Lived in NORTH AMERICA,one thing is very unique:i see tons of very powerful trucks on THE Road that aren’t Even hauling anything.Down Here i see tons of old japanese small pickup s with crazy amount of weight on them.some you can see and hear the end of exhaust hitting the ground.
Nice find. Somehow its 1978 Euro-relative was never accepted as a (desirable) family car.
Source: http://www.fahrzeugbilder.de/bild/LKW+Oldtimer~Ford~Alle/54627/ford-transit-ft100-mit-doppelkabine-von.html
This sort of truck was our family hauler (albeit a couple decades later) when I was growing up.
They were nice and extremely versatile for us country folks. I also enjoyed getting to take them out once in a while when the folks let me. Late model big Fords were cool rigs when I was 16-17 and my actual car was a tired ’89 Taurus.
Now that I don’t live in the country, I have no desire to own a truck but I’ll always have a soft spot for them.
Them old Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable models were a beast, though. One of my friend’s had a Sable. He beat the snot out of that 3.0L V-6, and he purposely tried to kill that car. It refused to die. I think his was an 88-89 model year, too. It was the first gen body style, and the SHO package was unstoppable, in its time. I wouldn’t want to be the mechanic, that had to work on the Yamaha DOHC it had in it, because the intake manifold stretched from the core support to the firewall(which meant you had to work on everything from underneath the car), but it was the fastest car in its class, out of the regular production mid-size sedans from the 1980s.
I’ve never liked the proportions of the extended and double cab pickups. Yes, they’re useful for added cargo and passengers, but it just looks wrong to me.
I bet the torque of a standard transmission 400M is amazing. The one in my old Ford was impressive, even with the C6 and 2:75 rear end
IH offered a crew cab as a standard order configuration since the 50’s. They even offered them in today’s popular configuration of a “1/2 ton” with a ~5.5′ box. Of course those early ones were 3dr, but the 4dr did come along in the early 60’s.
The 1957 IH Travelette was the first 1/2-ton short bed pickup, and after 1960, the last for over 40 years. The bed was somewhere around 6′ long, maybe a little shorter.
Actually in the 70’s they did offer the Travelette in a 1/2 ton short bed but it was the typical 6.5′ bed instead of the 5.5′ and of course in the 70’s they had the Wagon Master in 1/2 and 3/4 ton versions.
This is my 1958 A120 3-door. One of 17 ever made.
These Ford pickup are my all time favourite generation of Fords. They were still an old style truck, but they modernized them just enough. The chassis strengthened and improved, the fuel tank was removed from the cab, the interiors got much more comfortable and well equipped, and they proved to be very durable. On top of that, I think they are one of the nicest looking pickups ever made, with my preference being for the 1978-79’s (I am biased though since I spent many years around a 1979 F-150). I have never really cared for the looks of these trucks as Super Cabs, but they were very innovated for their time.
I always wondered why GM didn’t add an extended cab when they refreshed their trucks in 1981. They really dropped the ball on that one. GM had the 3+3 crewcabs, but they were all 3/4 or 1 ton trucks. I saw them on construction sites, but almost never as daily drivers. That said, in this area even up until about the late 80’s, regular cab long box trucks were by far the most common. It wasn’t really until the 1990’s that extended cab trucks really took off. I do have all the production numbers for these trucks. It’d be interesting to compare them over the years.
While I don’t fully approve of what modern trucks have evolved into, they have really become pretty much jack of all trade vehicles. I tend to agree that many who would have driven full-size cars in the past now drive 1/2 ton trucks. Sure they are overkill for most people, but it’s hard to beat the practicality when you do need a truck. And with the newer extended cabs and crewcabs being just as comfortable or more so than many cars, you can at least now have a truck and still use it for family duties. When growing up my dad had a truck and my mom had a station wagon. The regular cab trucks just didn’t work well as family haulers and usually resulted in some of us riding in the back under the cap. We got away with that then, but not a chance now a days, especially with how long kids are in child seats.
I remembered when Dodge introduced its Club Cab and thought it was a good idea. Having extra room behind the seat provided useful covered storage for things I didn’t want to put in the cargo bed. Ford’s Super Cab had more room but it also had a much longer wheelbase. If you wanted to seat 3 additional passengers comfortably, that’s what the Crew Cab was for.
As I recall, the Dodge’s wheelbase (with an 8′ box) was extended from 131″ to 149″ for the Club Cab. An 18″ extension wasn’t too bad and could still be parked in a good size garage. Ford’s Supercab (with 8′ box) had a 155″ wheelbase; a 22″ increase over the regular cab. The Super Cab increase in length was more noticeable.
Chevrolet/GMC’s answer to the Club Cab/Super Cab was the “Bonus Cab”, a Crew Cab without the rear seat. Typical GM’s beancounter approach. The Chev/GMC Bonus Cab wheelbase was 164″ (8′ box) which was 31″ longer than the regular cab. Made for a pretty long truck that had the maneuverability of an aircraft carrier.
I don’t recall whether GM at that time offered the Bonus Cab or Crew Cab with a 6-1/2 foot box, but do remember you could get a 6-1/2 ft box with extended cab or crew cab from Dodge and Ford.
One point on Ranger as a trim level is that name debasement struck here too! By 1979, the last year for the “old” body, it was one step up from the base (“Custom”) trim, with the Ranger XLT and Ranger Lariat above it.
I think a lot of extended and crew cab trucks are ungainly looking. However there are some that look pretty good. Take the 04-12 Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon. The extended cab version of the truck looks pretty good and also shares the same 6ft bed as the reg cab version. That means that any truck cap, cover, bed liner etc that fits the regular cab will fit the ext cab.
I have a 2011 Colorado regular cab but would have loved to have had gotten the ext cab version. I could use the space behind the seats for my tools and other things I did not want to leave in the bed of my truck(even with the cap). But as for driving in the truck the regular cab Colorado has plenty of leg room unlike my 2010 Ranger which had no room and felt cramped.
Here is a pic of my regular cab truck on the day I got the Probe. Yes it is a white truck with a blue top but I snagged the top brand new from Cap World on clearance for $600 plus tax and install. A new cap in the correct color would have been $1500 and as I am a cheap B@stard and as I wanted a cap to keep the weather out of the bed and keep the crap I keep in it from getting wet, I am more then happy to have a non matching colored cap and save $900. With the white and blue, I call this my Dodger Truck
It is well and truly baffling that GM didn’t get in on the extended cab market before ’88. I know the box body trucks premiered back in ’74 and maybe they just didn’t think Dodge was onto something at the time, but by the late 70’s, you’d think they could have found a way to splice some extra length into that cab. It’s not like GM was short on money at the time! They were still doing yearly styling changes on many of their cars back then…
“Box body” Chevy/GMC pickups began in model year 1973.
Ford really hit a home run with the SuperCab. A lot of people bought Fords without even shopping the other brands simply because it was unique. The Dodge wasn’t competitive and GM had nothing comparable. It made a perfect camper rig for a couple with 2 kids. I preferred driving the GM trucks, but it’s not hard to see why these were popular. It is mystifying why it took the general so long to catch up.
Interestingly, extended cab pickups are starting to wane in popularity now it seems. When I was shopping for a new one last year it was about 6 to 1 in favour of crew cabs no matter where you looked or what trim level you wanted. I eventually ended up with a crew myself, partly because of what was available and partly because I suspect it’ll be easier to sell in a few years. The only regular cabs I saw were base trim, base equipment work trucks, and they’d obviously been around awhile.
Funny thing about the Dodge Club Cab, they were dropped after the 1982 model year, but reintroduced in 1990, with the same inward-facing jump seats. No idea why the 7 year hiatus. Ford really did perfect Dodge’s great idea/poor execution. Ford was, however, very late to the dual-rear-wheel pickup game, not offering such a model until 1980 As for ‘Twin-I-Beam’…….
In 1982, Chrysler was still looking for ways to cut costs, and extended cab pickups wouldn’t be major moneymakers for another 10 years, especially given Dodge’s distant third place in full-size pickup sales (the Cummins was still over 5 years away). At least they had the foresight to keep the tooling around until extended cabs became seriously popular again.
Crew cabs and Utiline beds were kept around a little longer, until 1985, when they were dropped for good to streamline Dodge’s offerings and make room on the line for the upcoming Dakota.
Ford was definitely late to the DRW game, but they did have a sort-of competitor in the LWB F-350.
Ya know, this truck sems very typical of a certain demographic of owner. A 2wd extra cab longbed 3/4 ton with a crusty tutone paint job. The manual is a bit out of character but its been well maintained and kept relatively stock right down to the wheel covers. Definitely a suburban retiree. I think last week he finally got that damn hippy clerk to direct him to the Spanish tiles, using this very truck to bring em home to finish his pool cabana. But lately he’s been looking for those two boys been whackin’ off in his tool shed…Buffcoat and Beaver….
Don’t forget his nephew in Arlen, Texas…..started off with a Ranger Super Cab, them got hisself a Super Duty Super Cab…..
That truck is in very good condition, for the year. Amd I agree, Ford did something amazing with their line of trucks. I recall, back in the 1980s-1990s, almost everyone I knew had parents/relatives that drove the F-Series Pickups. They wouldn’t buy a different brand of truck. And I will agree, that Double I-Beam front suspension is a very rugged design. They were miserable to replace, if they actually went bad, though.
Unfortunately, like everything, it all came crashing down eventually. The newer F-Series can’t last even close to as long without horrendous corrosion, and I see many of these that are half the age of this one amd with 4x the rust. I just passed a broke down F-150, today. Its fuel tank straps had rotted to the point, the fuel tank fell out onto the ground amd was dragging. Luckily, the driver was able to get off the road, but I could see all.the gasoline and smell the fumes as I drove by. The Fire Department was assisting him, thankfully.
The F-Series has also became a former of its excellent self, with setting the record for most units recalled out of every automobile in the U.S.(Total units).
There was a time, when I swore by Ford Trucks(and I am a GM Fanboy, too), but only these older beast-mode trucks. The REAL F-Series pickups, that were more dependable than a Timex watch.
Should a single poorly-maintained example be taken as representative of the whole?
The 1997 Ford F-150 is the MOST RECALLED VEHICLE of ALL-TIMS.
http://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/no-chevys-on-the-top-14-most-recalled-vehicles-of-all-time-list/
It is not just one “poorly maintained” vehicle. Ford’s quality has really slipped, with their trucks. Too much “Hecho en Mexico” junk, inside of them now. Thanks NAFTA……
It’s not hard to be the most recalled vehicle when you’re also the most popular vehicle. Forgive me if I don’t trust an article from a site called “Chevy Hardcore” to be unbiased when it comes to Fords.
Do you have any data that shows that Mexican assembly (or NAFTA, for that matter) has had any tangible effect on the quality of these or any vehicles? Remember that many crew cab Silverados are Hecho en Mexico, while F-150s are made exclusively in Kansas City and Dearborn.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/859983
Almost 700,000 automotive jobs have been “displaced”, because of NAFTA. As a former salvage yard manager, for many years(about 36 to be exact, as my family owns their own salvage yard), I have been tearing apart cars for longer than most people will ever own a single vehicle.
I have seen internal production stickers, from the Big 3, from vehicles as old as the early 1970s, to current and late model 2000s vehicles.
I can decode VINs, as that is part of the inventory processes with salvage work, as well.
In fact, I even recall an article in the Automotive Recycler News, back in 2007. It was mentioning how Ford’s engineers were going to use nylon valve covers, instead of cast aluminum. Their reasoning was for saving weight(yes, Ford……2 whole pound of vehicle weight will translate to 0.00001 mpg increases), to increase fuel economy. As such, I read that article, and said to myself: “Well, THAT is genius. Won’t take long for those engines to catch on fire……”
And sure enough, here we find that Ford Escape valve covers leak oil onto the manifolds and can cause engine fire, with valve cover replacement costs around an average of $400
http://repairpal.com/estimator/ford/escape/valve-cover-gasket-replacement-cost
Gee, it sure sucks paying $34.99 for a Fel-Pro PermaDry valve cover gasket, that takes less than 10 minutes to change on my 1995 Saturn SC2, in my driveway, with hand tools and a torque wrench……….
Guess I better buy one of today’s “better-built Ford-tough” models, huh………lolololol
Ford has been using plastic composite (they’re not nylon) loooong before 2007, the Vulcan in 1991, the Modular 4.6L SOHC, all Duratecs as far as I know and all of which are very notably robust engines. All predate NAFTA by several years, and aren’t even made in Mexico! I’ve owned a car with these kinds of valve covers for 10 years, and never once had a leak because of material, and certainly never had a fire. In fact I’m a frequent patron of salvage yards for as long, and have seen vehicles with engine fires first hand, and A. the fires aren’t caused by the material, and B. The composition actually acts as a flame SUPPRESSANT, same as engine covers and underhood blankets, and you can tell by the condition post-fire they are victims not perpetrators (which is usually literal vandalism here in Chicago or shade tree fuel system “repairs”).
As far as weight savings, have you ever actually compared them side by side? I have. You estimate 2 lbs? Try 20, EACH, with a V bank. That’s significant for more than just MPG targets, just weight distribution and CG alone make plastic worth while. The 32V modulars always used aluminum instead of composite the 16V engines used, and I’ve compared them directly as I swapped engines to the DOHC design, between them and the aluminum manifold the weight savings of the aluminum VS iron block are almost entirely made up for in these components, which serve no other critical purpose than to keep oil from spilling out the head, which the composite does superbly, thanks in no small part to their gasket molded in gasket channels that makes the old stamped surface cork gasketed designs look as archaic and troublesome as they are.
I’m not a Pickup truck fan, it’s just not my thing. If I do like pickup trucks, they tend to usually be Chevies and GMCs, for some weird reason. But, I really like these mid to late 70s Ford F series, particularly the F250s. I think there’s just this very rustic, no nonsense, workhorse charm they have that appeals to me for one reason or another, especially in the looks. I still see some of these used as work trucks, which tells you the extant of their appeal and durability. That being said, finding a clean one is impossible, if someone manages to find a rust free 70s Ford F-Series truck, they’re pretty much are in possession of a unicorn.
Dodge’s Club Cab was 18″ longer than the standard cab, while Ford’s SuperCab was 22″ (comparing short bed to short bed, or long bed to long bed). Those extra 4″ were what gave Ford enough legroom to consider offering a bench seat to advertise 6-passenger seating. GM was seriously late to the party, but when they finally made it, they came with more length than anyone else: 24″ over the regular cab models.
Their class-leading length difference was partially what led Dodge to extend the Quad Cab in 2002, and Ford the SuperCab in 2004, but in those cases, they also extended the regular cabs to match, so the 18″ difference stayed about the same while giving more behind-the-seat cargo space to regular cab buyers. Toyota followed a similar path with the 2007 Tundra Double Cab. Ram, Toyota, and now Nissan’s regular cabs are quite massive; Ford’s is pretty sizable, but they actually lost 4″ in the 2015+ models because of a repositioning of the B-pillar. GM’s regular cabs have remained about the same length as they’ve always been. Between that and their steadfast refusal to move the rear axle backward on 8′ bed models, GM RCLBs look the most “normal” while also being the shortest in WB and OAL of any full-size pickup today.
Our particular SuperCab, a ’77 F-250 Ranger XLT, had the jump seats, and those were the absolute coolest thing for a 5-year-old on a road trip. We’d put the cooler between the seats and my sister and I would have a perfect table. A friend of mine grew up kicking his brother in the shins in an ’80s Ranger SuperCab, but that F-250 was so wide that my sister and I could hardly even reach the other side. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that those jump seats, while less and less common every year, were still an available option all the way through the 1996 (and maybe 1997 HD) models.
There were a few conversion companies making extended cab/6.5ish’ bed Chevys in the ’80s, but these extended cabs don’t seem long enough to me.
Ford (the 2009-2014 trucks), Toyota and the current Ram have a larger regular cab for a more practical reason. This was done so that the regular cab long box, the Supercab short box (6.5′) and the crew cab short box (5.5′) all share the same wheelbase. This results in all three of these variants having the same length (the Ram lengths vary slightly). For whatever reason Ford stopped this with the 2015 redesign and the shorter regular cab means the reg cab long box truck now uses a shorter wheelbase than the Supercab and the Crew cab.
Chevrolet has a wheelbase that is considerably shorter than the Ford/Toyota reg cab long box. It is close to it’s classic trucks wheelbase at 133″, but the overall length still is 224″ which is considerably longer than their old trucks (2017 Ford is 227.9″, while the 2014 Ford is 231.9″, Ram 231″ and Toyota is 228.7″).
I personally like the extended cab/supercab/doublecab/quad cab over the crews. While I can appreciate the limo like room on the crews, especially in the Ford and Toyota, I don’t really appreciate the ultra short box. For me the reason I own a truck is to haul things and pull trailers. They are too large and inefficient to be our primary vehicle, but at the same time, Ultimately I’d like a 8′ box, but a regular cab is just to much of a compromise when you have a family to haul. And owning a third vehicle isn’t in the cards either. As much as I’d love to have an old 70’s pickup just for work (the winters here don’t make that a real option). And that doesn’t even factor in the extra costs of an additional vehicle. So my truck needs to fulfill DD needs, hauling and trailer, and also family duty.
I think these extended cabs are a decent compromise, considering we use our Outback as the primary family car and only use the truck as a family vehicle when it’s truly needed. FWIW, after sitting in all the full-size extended cab trucks, I found the Tundra cab had the most rear seat room with the front seat adjusted for me (all the way back). I also don’t know why Ford hasn’t abandoned the suicide doors on the super cab, but it seems that they sell so few Supercabs these days, I don’t think they care. It also seems the Chevrolet and Ram cabs are significantly smaller than the Ford and Toyota’s.
I knew about the common wheelbase; that was most of the reason Ford made the long beds look so gangly starting in 1997. So I can’t understand why they just shortened the regular cab when they moved the B-pillar forward on the ’15s, when they could have gone back to having the clamshell doors on ’04-08s. Were people complaining that the regular cab had too much space?
A SuperCab/8′ model is also my favorite configuration in a half-ton. Sure, it’s long (the longest half-ton available), but in my neck of the woods, space isn’t really an issue anyway. When or where that’s unavailable, a crew cab/6.5′ model is almost as good or better in some aspects.
My issue with the Supercab 8′ bed or a Crew cab 6.5 bed is the truck is way too long. When they get to this size they loose the last little shred of nimbleness. It’s not that I don’t have the room, but quite frankly even the Supercab 6.5 beds are too long these days. I have a 32′ deep garage and even my 229″ long truck takes a ton of space when it’s in there for maintenance, For me, a 6.5 foot bed with a Supercab is a the best compromise for my uses.
The same is true of the pickups sold here in Australia (one wheelbase, adjust cab & bed length to suit).
Ford built the F-series in Australia in this era and through to the early 90’s, but I don’t the supercab or a twin-cab was ever offered. I have seen a couple that have been converted by importing the panels or a complete cab from the US – a lot of work but less than a RHD conversion.
I absolutely love this truck. I wanted the 8 ft. bed, that was the deal breaker, the extended access cab was the frosting on the cake. I also wanted a new truck that I could pay cash for, so nothing outrageous. It’s really only comfortable with two passengers but with the big seats, and the pull down arm rest it brings back memories of my ’70 CdV. It’s a great riding and handling truck. It’s a V6/auto, but I’ve pulled a couple of cars on trailers up from So Cal. I had to pull in behind the loaded big rigs going over Cuesta Grade!
A SuperCab with a back seat and even more storage space would have been acceptable, but I thought that you could only get a 6 1/2 ft. bed with that set up. A 5 1/2 ft. bed behind a Crew Cab is a joke if you need to use a truck as a truck. But I can see how they can function as a family use vehicle. My Buddy has a F250 4×4 Crew Cab with an 8 ft. bed. Wow, is that thing long! He has resisted adding a shell, but he has to worry about his luggage and load when he stops on a trip. I think that a big SUV is a good choice as long as you don’t have to carry dirty loads.
Here it is fully loaded.
“I always wondered why GM didn’t add an extended cab…”
Probably heard in GM boardroom then: “Not invented here” “Who needs a back seat in a 2 door pickup?. Then it’s not sporty”
“Something sporty” was often heard when young folks were asked what they wanted for first car. Hence why ‘sport’ is used in SUV terminology, and sport is a common trim name.
Those weren’t very difficult dies, too bad Dodge couldn’t figure out how to extend their Club Cab a few more inches to match the Ford.