I’m not big on following various local estate auctions, but this one has been in the local newspaper for so long I just had to investigate the auctioneer’s website. The auction is about ten miles east of me.
All three are one-owner, very low mileage vehicles. Before I go into details, let me link to the auction, which is here and ends at offset times in the middle of the day on September 17. What you will be reading is based upon their sale flyer. Which of these unusually-low mileage cream puffs would you pick?
First up is this 1962 Oldsmobile F-85.
Powered by the aluminum 215 V8 with an automatic transmission, it has 15,359 miles on the odometer. It looks very good all over and is advertised as having been repainted once. Another picture, not seen here, shows it sitting on ancient Firestone radial tires.
Next up is this 1992 Ford Taurus powered by a 3.0 liter V6 and having 11,800 miles.
The interior looks good.
However, it has had a fateful event on the left front…
With a kiss on the left rear.
Finally, we have a wildcard of sorts, a 2009 Ford F-150. Red is the definitive color for a pickup and its being a regular cab with four-wheel drive certainly captures my attention. It being powered by a 4.6 liter V8 certainly adds to its allure.
With a cloth interior, it isn’t exactly a full-on poverty spec model.
Best of all? It is advertised as having all of 398 miles on the odometer. Practically new.
Sure, I was skeptical, but here’s a trip odometer from a different 2009 F-150. I’ve driven several F-150’s of this vintage and they say “TRIP” if the trip odometer is being displayed. Other than it being in kilometers, its layout is identical.
Which would you pick? The auction ends September 17; at the time of this writing the auction will be closing in seventy-two hours and twenty-four hours after this piece runs. Currently, both the Taurus and Olds have bids at $1,050 and the F-150 is at $11,600. If interested, the auction (with a lot more pictures) is here.
(All pictures, except the last, are from www.atterberryauction.com)
The Taurus looks mighty good to me. I had a ’94 GL that I drove for fifteen years and 100,000 miles. They were the Model A of their time, straightforward, economical and comfortable, with plenty of room for big guys like me and a few friends. I wouldn’t kick at another one.
The Cutlass, I already have a Ford pick up for dirty work, and the Taurus is a bit too boring, maybe if it was a loaded up LX with the digital dash and leather, or an SHO, but it’s still an interesting artifact. The Taurus will probably be the deal of the auction, especially with the slight damage.
Can’t really say that any of these specific cars appeal to me, although it is very refreshing to see a second-gen Taurus in original condition (despite its bruises).
My 2004 Nissan Titan I bought new has just 13020 miles as of today. I bought it November 2004. Even still has the original battery and tires. Always parked under cover, it still looks and runs as new. Gets oil changed once a year. No problems except having a few recalls performed. Going to a wedding in Idaho this weekend, this will be about an 850 mile trip. I may hit 14K this year. High mileage compared to these examples. I’ll take the Ford F150 out of these choices. Great find.
The mileage on the Taurus has been updated to 111800 miles.
The Taurus will need a lot of work unless all the fluids have been recently changed and all the rubber hoses replaced. There are many of these 2nd gen Tauruses bombing around Portland and it is a shame they are not as reliable as the numerous Camries bombing around since I like their looks.
I see the 4X4 gear selector on the drivetrain hump of the F-150, but what are the other attachments? Compared to the 2X4 2006 and 2008 F-150 I rode in this F-150 does not have much foot room for the bench seat’s middle passenger. Also, I do not care for the running boards. Wonder how old the F-150s gasoline is and how much work it will need?
This Taurus has the 3.0 V-6, which is much more reliable than the 3.8 V-6 versions. The 3.0 V-6 didn’t munch its head gaskets regularly, and the automatic transmission had no trouble handling its output. The Taurus owners I’ve known who have one equipped with this drivetrain regularly get well over 150,000 miles of trouble-free use out of them (at least as far as the drivetrain is concerned).
Yes, that old tech Vulcan engine was a jewel, in my estimation. It was all iron with pushrods, the kind of simplicity I like. It was rated at only 135 bhp net, but damned if it didn’t feel a lot stronger. And the auto trans never gave me a lick of trouble, probably because I changed the fluid regularly. A good, good car…
I just sold a very similar 2008 F150, with 53,000 miles and 2wd that I no longer needed. Very good, trouble-free vehicle. I suspect I’ll miss it. That being said, I wouldn’t be reading this blog if I didn’t want the Cutlass.
Hands off the F-85. It’s mine all mine.
I’d take the 1962 Olds, but I’m worried about how that aluminum V-8 fared with such minimal use. If it has been repainted, I have to wonder if it sat outside for a long period at some point in its life.
I’d take the Olds
Queue up, I came first ! 🙂
I’d have it as well!
The Taurus isn’t that great. The auction says it has 111,800 miles.
Our 1994 has 130,000 and it’s straight. And the air conditioning works (the Tauri prior to 1993 tend to leak refrigerant).
I will leave Laurence, Geeber and Gem to fight over the F-85. I wouldn’t consider one of these in the late 1970s, with its troublesome combo of the aluminum V8 and RotoHM tranny. Neither of those components has gotten any better with age. Funny how much more I appreciate the inner beauty of a Lark with a 259 V8 all these years later.
As I think about it, neither of the Fords really pulls my chain, either. But I can’t feel cheated here, after all you did find me that nice solid 59 Plymouth that I passed on.
My heart wants the F-85, but my head tells me that I would quickly regret that choice, for the reasons you mentioned.
Finding a ’59 Plymouth does rather outrank encountering a five-year old pickup with 400 miles. The fuel is both is probably about the same!
That Taurus screams one elderly owner. Everything from the lower miles, condition and colour. That said it needs to age another 10 years before I find it interesting.
I wonder what the story is on that truck. They usually left alone like that.
The house has been part of a seperate auction; I had considered bidding. From the appearances and what I’ve learned, it all belonged to an elderly couple whose health rapidly declined. I suspect both are now deceased.
The F-85 is calling a siren song to me (up to $2050 already – Laurence must be bidding it up), but the single-cab, longbed, 4WD F-150 would be of interest, too, if the price were in the “fire sale” range. Wonder if it has 2009-era gasoline still in the tank? Could be a mess to sort out.
The 1992 Taurus hands down. I have always liked the Taurus(yes I am even starting to like the 96-99 version) and it has been years since I saw one of the 92-95 era in such good shape. The good news that chocolate brown was a popular color for those cars and finding a fender and two bumpers should be easy to find.
The Olds is nice but I like the 4 door of that era and as for the truck, I would rather have an old pickup like that C10 or a Ford F100/F150 with bare bones no frills then the latest trucks in which I think are too damn plush. If I want to drive a vehicle that drives and feels like a Buick, I will drive my LeSabre.
Of those three I like the Olds, though I do feel like you’d be tempting fate after all those years with the 215. The truck is nice in that it’s a basically new 4×4 single cab long-bed V8, low optioned but not straight-up fleet spec. An honest truck, or what passes for one in the last five years. The Taurus does nothing for me–I like the styling of the 1st-gen better, and a friend in college plus a girlfriend just after who had 2nd-gen Taurii soured me on their merits (or lack thereof).
One does wonder how a car accumulates so few miles over the years. Earlier this year my father purchased a 2010 Corolla with ~8000 miles on the clock and I thought *that* was low-mileage. 15K on a 1962 is ridiculous–that’s an average of less than 300 miles a year! Though that F150 even makes the Olds look well-traveled…
F-85, the engine/transmission swap will be much easier in a car of that era.
I would take my chances with the Olds. All Roto Hydra-Matics have to be rebuilt at some point sooner than later (mostly sooner), so I’d expect slippage and/or a hemmorage of ATF. I would ‘baby’ the aluminum V-8 and would believe it might fare better with today’s grade of coolant, but would keep a diligent eye on the temp gauge and have a spare set of gaskets on hand . . . just in case.
Only real trouble point that has potential ugliness would be proper lubrication of the two-piece drive shaft, if lube (which by now, has turned into clay) hasn’t been replaced or has been inadequately greased, should that bearing go out, there ARE no replacements other than junkyards and some machining would take place. Back in the mid 1980s, I obtained a very good running ’63 Buick Special with a shot u-joint/bearing in the split. Found a replacement from a ’62 F-85, but it required some machining to get things right. That was in ’86.
The 4×4 Ford is cool. Virtually brand new.
I’d take the Olds if the alloy motor dies there are thousands of Rover updates here to replace it with cheap and readily available I could keep it going forever.
I’m with you!
Drop a LR V8 in it and a different transmission and call it done.
Me too! A five speed stick, please, with a 3.9 would be very nice.
Me too,loads of Rover V8s in scrappies and replacement parts in the UK.it’s not often hot enough to boil one here!
I wonder, what’s that King Ranch “Running W” doing on the F-150’s gauge cluster?
The list of options just screams “grandpa’s last truck.” Bought brand new, the smaller of the two V8s, XL but with 4×4 and optional cloth seats, essentially no miles on it…all it’s missing is the topper!
That’s one I found online to show the 398 isn’t the trip odometer.
Okay, I feel kinda stupid now for not having noticed there were two pictures. ◔_◔
And the 2 valve 4.6 at that!
I’ve always loved the styling on the little 62 Olds, probably because I knew someone who had a red Cutlass coupe from new. I would prefer the upscale Cutlass but this one is very nice and it’s good to learn that it will have a CA home when Laurence wins the bid;-)
I’m not actually bidding on it!
(Sigh) You declare your unbridled lust for a car once, and the whole world puts a Scarlet “O” on your chest and your other classic accuses you of infidelity.
(There was a Maroon ’62 Cutlass in Sacramento 6 weeks ago, tho…..)
the 215 can be rebuilt by people who specialize in it to be as reliable anything. you can even get them bored and stroked to 305 CI. these motors got very popular to put in the 240-Z cars and many more. As I remember the olds were preferable to the Buick “Olds engineers went their own route with cylinder head design, preferring a Chevy small block-like combustion chamber and an extra bolt (six in all) around each cylinder to mount the head. The valve cover was also more conventional looking. (Ken Costello built his first MGB V8 using an Olds engine picked up in Belgium !). The valve train is also different. Old used different heads with the same pistons to produce higher compression ratios. An Olds head will not work on a Buick block because of the extra head bolts. For performance applications, you’ll want either 829 heads (10.25:1 C.R. for ’61-’62 4 bbl auto and manual cars, ’63 4 bbl manual cars), or 534 heads (10.75:1 ’63 4-bbl automatics). Two bbl heads (No. 746) have low compression ratios and aren’t suitable for any performance work.”
The Aussies bored them out to 4.4 litre for the P76 it was the best piece of the car.
The Olds, hands down. The F-150 is nice, but loses points for being a longbed. And a Tauruses are just appliances. Ive got as much use for a 4 door sedan as a pallet of Kotex.
One of the photos from the auction site got my attention, as every vehicle I remember my paternal grandparents owning had the oil capacity and recommended tire pressure hand-scribbled somewhere under the hood. Was that some sort of Depression-era thing?
I’ve seen this on some old cars too, along with the date that the coolant was last flushed.
I admired the F-85 even as a kid when it was brand new. But I fear another pretty face/high maintenance auto affair which I’m getting too old to tolerate. I sure hope whoever wins it leaves it alone – and that the Foose admirers go find a victim from the late 1970’s instead.
Two valve 4.6 was an excellent choice for daily use. I bet the truck was bought in mind to pull the tractor with a bush hog on a trailer and the guy got sick before he could carry out his plan. It was easier to get in and out of the car and that’s the reason for the bumps. I really should be bidding on that tractor btw. Not a popular brand in Arkansas but damn thats cheap for a running tractor!
If I were an Allis man, I’d probably be seriously thinking about it.
The Olds, in a heartbeat. The rear side window on the Taurus looks familar.
Similar to the NF Fairlane Ford Australia produced for the blue rinse & lawn bowls demographic.