(first posted 3/232016) It suddenly popped into my head the other day that my truck is 50 years old this year. Wow; half a century old, and it still starts and hauls every time I need it to. In fact, it hasn’t needed any repair in some ten years now (knock on wood). I promise a very full write-up on the role it’s played in my life, soon.
Unlike just about any other vehicle made for 50 years, these two pickups have a direct lineage and fundamental similarity. So how about we do a bit of a comparison. Since the issue of the apparent increase in the size of newer trucks often comes up, we’ll start with that, and also look at them in terms of features, performance and even their pricing.
Since mine is an absolute stripper, let’s see how it stacks up to a totally base 2016 XL with regular cab and 8′ bed, starting with size:
The new trucks sure look big, what with their tall front ends and imposing heights. But the actual growth over 50 years has been quite modest: about a foot in overall length (assuming that an optional bumper on the ’66 would be about 6″ long), 5″ in height, and 2″ in width. Weight on the new truck is some 700lbs more than the ’66, but has come down some in this generation thanks to its aluminum body construction. But given the vastly greater content, complexity, capability and comfort of the 2016, that’s a reasonable number. There’s very little more to my ’66 than a frame, bare steel cab, bed, axles, engine, transmission and driveshaft. And a steering wheel.
The tailgate height is a serious issue with me, as I haul and shovel out materials regularly. In fact, hauling stuff, which implies loading and unloading, is what I bought it for and still use it for almost exclusively. And the difference in height (10″ for a new 4×4) means I’ll never have any use for a new one, and why I’ll probably keep mine running as long as I’m running. I can shovel right out the back comfortably, and still hop in the bed without some fold-out step or such.
Without having all the dimensions at hand, it’s quite obvious that all of that growth in length has been in the cab, to the benefit of greater interior space. The hood length actually looks to be shorter, which makes sense since there’s only V6 and V8 engines that have to fit. And the longer wheelbase allows the rear wheels to be located relatively further back for better weight distribution, both empty and especially when loaded.
Load capacity has been substantially improved. The 2016 LX with the 3.5 is rated for 1910 lbs of cargo, and 5,000 lbs of towing. The ’66 is rated for either 1045 or 1345 lbs, depending on whether it originally came with 7.75 15 or the optional 8.15 15 tires. A genuine half-tonner, although I haul two tons (or more) in it regularly. That does mean it’s riding on the rubber pads on the axles, and not the springs anymore, though. Towing? Well, I towed about 7500 lbs a couple of times, pulling an excavator on a trailer, but I’ve given up that kind of craziness in my more recent years. There’s no doubt that the 2016 can handle bigger loads and towing with much greater ease and safety.
A lot more has changed under the sheet metal. The standard 3.5 V6 engine is more than twice as powerful as the ’66’s 240 six. Having driven a U-Haul Transit van with this same 3.5 V6 and 6 speed automatic recently, the comparison is night and day, and it would be plenty powerful for all but the biggest jobs. Of course, more powerful engines are available.
I couldn’t find any performance stats (like 0-60) for the non-Eco-Boost 3.5 V6, but I’m guessing it’s around 8.5-9 seconds. The ’66? Add ten seconds to that. Seriously.
Fuel economy? The 2016 is EPA rated at 18/25/20 combined. I assume 20 mpg shouldn’t be too hard to hit with a bit of gentleness. My truck? I stopped tracking its consumption decades ago, as I use it almost exclusively for very short trips. But based on prior experience, about 13-15 mpg would be about right in normal driving, with higher teens possible on the highway at moderate speed, thanks to its overdrive. Not a huge improvement, but then the new truck does weigh 700 lbs more.
In terms of handling and especially brakes, the comparison becomes irrelevant. They just couldn’t be further apart, given the slow and heavy steering on my truck, as well as the crappy little drums borrowed from a Ford Galaxie. Never mind the shot shocks and creaky springs.
And there’s no point in comparing interior comfort, noise and convenience. My truck is absurdly noisy, since it has zero insulation, there’s holes in the floor (thanks to water trapped under the rubber floor), the windows rattle since the stuff in the channels is long gone, and the engine and drive train are all highly audible. A radio would be quite useless.
So now, to the pricing:
The 2016 F-150 XL with regular cab and 8′ bed has an MSRP of $26,730. I suspect one could get one for a few thousand less with a bit of effort (or not).
My ’66 F-100 with the 8′ bed listed at $2,121 ($15,653 adjusted). That’s quite a bit less, but the 2016 has vastly more content and features, even as a stripper. But just for fun, and because I found an options list with prices for the ’66, let’s add any and all options that would make it as closer to the 2016’s standard features (rounded to the nearest full dollar):
352 CID V8 208 gross hp (about 170 net hp): $128
3-speed automatic: $213
Air conditioning (dealer installed) $382
Power steering: $108
Power booster for drum brakes: $45
Rear bumper: $22
Armrests: $10
Tinted glass: $15
Laminated glass for side windows: $6
Right side outside mirror: $5
AM manual radio: $51
Foam cushioning for seat: $22
Right side sun visor: $5
Padding for sun visors: $5
Transistor ignition: $65
Two-speed wipers: $5
8.15 15 8PR tires $51
Total options: $1138
Total price: $3259 ($24,052 adjusted)
That does bring it mighty close to the 2016’s asking price ($26,730). But those options don’t begin to account for all of the other technology and features in the new truck. Well, fifty years of progress should amount to something, even if these two trucks are still quite similar in many ways; more so than just about any two other vehicles fifty years apart.
Recently. I watched a YouTube video of the 1941 Chrysler.
It had a six cylinder gasoline engine mounted up front, a transmission in the middle, and a live axle on leaf springs. The construction was body on frame.
Not a lot different than a 2016 F-150.
Paul, really impressive that you have a 50 year old truck, and that it sounds so reliable. How long have you had it? How many miles have you put on it, and how many does it have total?
Since 1987. Bought it for $500. It showed 88k on the odometer, but I’m quite certain that it had rolled over once. I’ve put on about 40k miles since then.
I wrote about this truck several times back at ttac. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2007/07/auto-biography-26-theres-a-future-in-your-ford/ You even left a comment there. I guess you forgot. 🙂
I did forget, but on seeing it again, I remember your wonderful old story, as well as my comment. It’s a story of a life well lived. I particularly liked the line about you and your kids leaning over each other in exaggerated fashion on the hairpins, and I liked how you just up and left los gatos when that world imploded. Please give my best regards to Stephanie and stay well and happy.
No doubt that the 2016 is a better truck.
But the question is, will the 2016 F-series be on the road in 2066?
And you could get bigger engines in 1966?
I think the 352 was the biggest on the 100. One thing to also note is that you could improve the 66 truck enormously if you wanted due to the aftermarket industry which exists for them, and I don’t mean by fully customizing it – such things as disk conversions, better insulation/sound deadening, aircon, seatbelts, PAS and optimized engine performance would go a long way towards making the 66 compatible with modern road conditions and modern expectations.
Interesting question. There is no doubt the 2016 is much better built, more reliable, and better resists corrosion. But it’s also more complex and expensive to fix…and it certainly would need to be fixed over the course of 50 years.
>>>But the question is, will the 2016 F-series be on the road in 2066?
My guess is no, because of the complexity of all the electronics. And possibly because driving your own vehicle on public roads might be illegal, or insurance for such might be prohibitively expensive by then. Nonetheless, I’d like to think that a 2016 vehicle COIULD still be on the road 50 years hence.
I don’t understand why all of these trucks have a bed instead of a flat tray because that type of body style is completely useless for a tradesman’s vehicle.
If I may be vulgar for a moment. If a “tradie” turned up at an Australian building site with one of these pick up trucks the reaction would immediately be….
What the fuck are you doing with that piece of shit?
Richard, this is the US of A, they have everything larger – they consider these as you would a Falcon ute in Aussie. There are flatbed ones but they usually ordered as the heavier 350-550: http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/chassis-cab/
This is a great question because it helps us all understand what works at home – wherever home may be!
For many in the US, a flatbed is far from being optimum. Part of that is the need to tie things down if using a flatbed whereas with a bed as seen above the need diminishes. For instance, last night I was out with a coworker in a company pickup doing some surprise inspections on a few facilities. Needing a few bulky but light items, we were able to throw them in the back and take off. With a flatbed, that would have required tying them down seven ways from Sunday.
Also, with a bed as seen above (I refrain from calling them “regular” beds because that isn’t the case globally) it is very conducive for helping keep items out of the weather and/or out of sight via a bed cover or a topper of some variety. Yes, vans do the same thing but with a van you have committed to having that roof there forever which limits the height of load. In a pickup, the only limitation on height is bridges and signal poles.
Back in ’07 I purchased an old Dodge pickup with a flatbed. For me, it was utterly useless and it went to the scrap pile (it was pretty rusted when I got it). I bought a factory type bed and it became a wonderful pickup for me.
There are definite advantages with a flatbed, but for many uses in the US, they simply aren’t as advantageous overall.
A flatbed also has a greater lift height because of the need to clear the rear tires. That could add to the fun of muscling heavy loads onto the truck.
We just switched out the bed on our ’08 F-350 farm truck with a flatbed, and because the frame rails aren’t flat, the flatbed ended up having a higher floor than the pickup bed was.
Strictly speaking hauling cargo ? There’s no one who can convince me that a a conventional pickup bed is more practical and useful than something like this below. And look how mighty low that bed is (from 3 sides), with the sideboards dropped down.
+1. The differentiating factor, though, is that the F-series type pickup is bought and enjoyed in the US as a car, whereas something like this is more like a truck. It’s a matter of semantics, but the purely rational purchaser is a figment of outdated economics theory. While practicality plays a major part in the purchasing decision – particularly with some of the CCommentariat – I’m not sure the US pickup consumer considers themselves in the market for this type of truck/van.
And I agree with Richarbl; something the size of an F-series is overkill for most tradies over here. For a while, we even had a rash of imported supersized versions with duallie rears and commensurate wide rear flares to cover the extra tyre width, but they are recognised (and ridiculed) for the most part as vanity pieces.
Absolutely. There’s the family car-aspect that a light flatbed truck, like the Volkswagen (even if it had a double cab) in the picture, doesn’t have.
The VW and similar light trucks are 100% pure commercial vehicles, nothing more, nothing less. That’s why they’re ideal for hauling cargo.
I think there are plenty of rational buyers, after all about the only people who buy a regular-cab 8′ F-150 XL are fleets and tradesmen. They just don’t have the option here for something like what Johannes posted.
Perhaps now that we have a European-style Transit something like this may follow someday. I’d be curious about a crew cab 1/2 ton Transit with a ~6′ long 20-24″ deep dropside bed…but only if it were as comfortable and pleasant to drive as the current domestic 1/2 tons.
The Transit (and competing vans) does come in a crew cab, with 4-across rear seating. The smallest size has a 9′ tray and 2800 lb payload, but the VW Transporter comes in a smaller package; the Transit is 80.7″ wide (without mirrors).
I doubt the comfort levels would match the ‘soft’ 1/2 ton US pickups but other than the van-type driving position the driving experience would probably be comparable. With a change of springs and shock absorbers plus some added sound insulation, they would probably be a lot better.
I see no reason why it won’t – spec it up and it’s very car like (see below – Transit FT250/350 Custom’s interior). Same for the VW, I’m usually being overtaken by them doing 80-90 MPH on the Autobahn…
Nowadays, almost all genuine tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile/counter guys, floor layers, etc….. use vans, for all the obvious reasons: security for all their tools and things, and to keep them out of the elements. Those that don’t use vans tow an enclosed trailer to the jobsite behind their pickups.
Pickups are used as work trucks mainly either by small-time handymen/craftsmen, who buy old ones cheap, or for other purposes but which rarely involve actually using the bed for regular/serious hauling.
Where does one see the most pickups? NOT on an actual worksite as working trucks, but driven by the guys to the worksite as their personal vehicles. Pickups are not very effective work trucks.
Serious work trucks are specialized in this day and age. A landscaper may have a tipping flatbed with side rails, so that he can haul rocks, trees, spoil, etc.
I could go on, but your point is irrelevant, since the overwhelming percentage of pickups are not used for regular hauling, except for the occasional refrigerator, or for recreational toys and such.
Here, ATVs are extremely popular with a certain crowd. They haul very large trailers that combine living quarters and ATV storage out to the coast for weekends, where they can run their ATVs over the dunes for days on end.
Also pickups are used commonly to haul large travel trailers; giant 5th wheel affairs. That’s more practical for many so that can unhook the pickup when they get the trailer set up at the campground.
I could go on….it’s the American lifestyle vehicle, not primarily a working/commercial vehicle.
“…the overwhelming percentage of pickups are not used for regular hauling”
Very true. What makes mine a practical choice is that I usually drive alone and so I have little need for passenger space but when I do need to haul something – about once a month – the truck is there.
Plus, I just wanted one. If ya gotta drive ya might as well drive something you love. Right?
I would say the situation is the same here in Australia, there are plenty of dual/crew cab pickups sold with a ‘normal’ bed that are used as family vehicles and transport for tradies. If they are actual work vehicles for the latter they will have a canopy/topper to secure tools.
On the other hand as Phil L said single/regular cabs are usually bought to do actual work, they are more likely to have a flat dropside tray, and apart from couriers usually with storage boxes to secure tools and a rack above to carry ladders of sheet material.
There are still a lot of tradies that will drive a Falcon with a ‘normal’ bed or a Commodore (they don’t come any other way), or even a station wagon, and tow a trailer for tools, this is the smallest type.
The other point about US fullsize pickups is the half-tons don’t get a look-in, the importers usually deal with 3/4 and up precisely because they have much better load & towing capacity.
Sounds like the comments/questions I used to hear on the jobsite when I worked construction with a crew of twenty-something knuckleheads…..”this Dodge will bury that Ford”….”that Dodge couldnt cary this Fords SHORTS”….It never occurred to those youngsters that it didnt matter what truck they assigned us to, the one that INVARIABLY out-performed the others was the one that was driven by the old-timer.
Sometimes I look back and wonder how old those idiots were when they figured out my secret.
If they could sort the load height out, the 2016 would be a better truck all round, but that extra 10″ of lifting isn’t good.
For lifting it’s fine because it’s at the height you usually carry most stuff. For shoveling or climbing into the bed not so much. Or for getting things in and out from the side.
It’s at the height you carry things like boxes. If you’re carrying something bulky/heavy, like furniture, with arms fully extended, it’s another thing entirely to have to lift it again to get it into a bed that tall.
Agreed. It depends on what you are hauling. Though most people don’t haul really heavy stuff like that on a regular basis.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather the load height be a bit lower, but it’s not all bad.
You can see current construction technique below in the ad for a 2010 F-150 aftermarket spring. Frames are thicker, there is more suspension travel than before, the bed is reinforced, and it sits on larger wheels. All that adds height. Although there are certainly more efficient ways to package, I don’t think it’s just a looks or style thing as many people seem to assume. It’s mostly the product of improved capability, performance, and comfort. Fords seem worse because they added a couple inches of bed depth in 2004, which is good or bad depending on how you use your truck.
It would be interesting to compare that shot to Paul’s.
This is what I found on a ’66. Looks like the position of the bump stops over the axle rather than the springs could account for several inches, and perhaps articulation isn’t as different as I assumed. Although I don’t know the strength and cost tradeoffs of each way.
GREAT comparison piece.
Is it possible to get another couple of measurements between the two? First, how deep is the load bed on each truck? Second, what’s the height of the top of the truck bed from the ground? I ask this because, as a younger guy, I remember being able to lean against the truck, and prop my elbows on the side of the truck bed when in conversation with other guys. I could also easily reach into the bed to grab stuff there. (I’m 5’11”, 34″ sleeve.) I know we shrink as we age, but with the current trucks, my elbows are at chin level, and it’s impossible to reach anything inside the bed–hafta crawl up inside to get it.
Again–a well done piece. Thank you!
I refer to the ability to reach into the bed from the sides as the “armpit test.” I don’t like the bedrails to exceed the height of my armpits as I’m standing next to the truck, and maybe even a few inches below.
At this time of year my Ranger (and prior to that, a ’90s F150 and an ’80s GMC Sierra) is used for yard and garden projects, and it’s handy to be able to reach in from the sides to grab a bag of soil, mulch, manure, sand, or a plant. Having had shoulder surgery, lifting overhead is not easy, and for my purposes it’s really unnecessary. Who knows? Perhaps I’m in a small minority of today’s pickup buyers.
So if and when I replace the Ranger, I’m hoping to find something with bedrails below the height of my armpits. And even at 6’1″ and some change, I’m not particularly hopeful that I’ll find anything full-sized that passes my test.
dang – wish we could get that F150 in Oz. I only need 3 seats.
Did Ford make a pickup version of the Model T in 1916? If so, another interesting comparison.
Ford made a truck chassis called the TT beginning in 1917, but it took several years for them to offer complete trucks for sale.
Yes, but they often had other names such as “roadster pickup”, “light delivery” or buckboard. I’ll have a go at the specifications:
Wheelbase: 100″
Length: 158″
Tailgate height: 29″ (est)
Height: 64″ (hood bows, not windshield)
Width: 66″
Weight: 1200-1500 lb
Engine: 177 ci or 2.9 L
Power: 22 hp (16 kW) @1600 rpm
Torque: 83 lb-ft (110 Nm) @ 900 rpm
Load capacity, maybe up to 550 lb? I don’t think I would want to tow more than 1000 lb with a Model T.
Thank you for making this comparison.
What is the height to the dropped tailgate on your ’66? Lift heights have definitely grown, but I’m wondering if it was around the time of Ford’s redesign in 1980 or 1981. My ’07 4×4 F-150 has a tailgate height of 34″ vs. the ’92 F-150 2wd owned by my grandfather has a tailgate height of 32″ or 33″.
Looking at them, the body meets the top level of the rear tire on yours whereas the ’92 and my ’07 have bodies well above the top of the rear tire.
Recently I helped someone load furniture into the bed of their 2500 series Dodge 4×4 – that was substantially taller than my F-150!
The first chart for “load height at tailgate” indicates 26.6″ as compared to 34.8″ for the new one.
Thank you. Maybe I should put on my glasses earlier in the day.
That’s for the 4×2. The 4×4 is 36+”
I wonder if they raised the height with the ’92 redesign. It always seemed like the original 1980 redesign was still normal height. That always seemed like a curious redesign, btw, given that GM kept its ’73 body through ’86, but then i remembered the previous F-Series went back to ’67.
As a Tradesman , I can attest to the uselessness of a flat deck instead of a proper pickup bed ~ I nearly lost an engine off a flat bed in heavy traffic once….
Americans tend to toss their tool boxes , toilets and lumber loosely in the bed then drive it like a car , a flatbed would leave everything scattered all over the roadway .
Yes , Ford made ‘T’ Model pickups , my buddy in Ct. bought one , a Roadster , rebuilt (not restored) it and drive it sans top year ’round , loving every moment as does his lovely wife .
Old pickups can be better insulated but , ones like this have a welded up upper cab so no insulation unless you want to shoot foam into the cavity above the headliner… not a good idea .
Every so often I look at modern trucks because a basic Fleet stripper 1/2 tonner is cheap and well equipped these days but I can’t get my mind around driving a modern truck all the time .
I already moved up to a late 1960’s rig with PS , PB , Slushbox , Radio and I’m adding factory AC to it , what more could one want ? .
-Nate
When people refer to flat deck trays, they have drop-sides that would prevent things sliding off! Plus rope rails to tie things down with. You do need to pay more attention to the possibility of something being thrown over the side by a bump in the road, because the sides are usually about 9-10″ high, but you generally want to stop things from sliding around anyway.
Exactly, nothing slides off thanks to the drop-sides. And ALL flatbed trucks, no matter size and weight segment, come with drop-sides.
You only drive a flatbed truck without the drop-sides (to take them off is a very easy job) if you haul a load that’s a bit wider than the cargo bed. Or with a low and heavy load that you have to tie down. And speaking of heavy loads, there’s the “forklift advantage” of a flatbed / flat deck tray; that’s loading and unloading from 3 sides and a perfectly flat and rectangular cargo bed.
Wow, when I was in high school, a 50 year old Ford truck was a Model A, and hardly anyone drove one regularly. I still see 60s trucks on the road (occasionally) today.
It will be interesting to see how many of these vastly more capable (and complex) trucks are on the road in another 50 years.
14″ in length seems like quite a bit, actually. Where is it? I mean the bed is an 8foot bed in both cases, you mentioned that the engine compartment is shorter since I-6’s don’t need to fit anymore, hence, the cab should already be larger. You’re 6’5″ or thereabouts already, do you fit well into your truck? Or is an extra 14″ readily noticeable in the cab of the new one?
I also wonder if floor height in the cab increased a similar amount as the overall height (5″ greater) and bed heights (8″ greater) in the new one.
A lot of it is in the cab. The ’16 has more fore/aft travel for seat adjustment, and the instrument panel is quite a bit deeper.
And while both beds are eight feet long inside, I’d bet the newer one is slightly longer, and the tailgate is thicker.
I dare say the front axle to steering wheel dimension is similar in both, but I bet the seat is further back in the 2016 than Paul’s comments plus the rear cab wall further back again – the cab is 8″ longer as noted below. I expect both the tailgate and the front of the bed are thicker on the 2016, there is 4.5″ extra length between that and the rear bumper compared to the 1966.
The front overhang for the 1966 F-100 is 30.7″ while the 2016 is 37.8″. The 1966 pickup bumper to back of cab dimension is 105.7″, for the 2016 it is 121.5″.
1966 dimensions, incidentally showing 207.6″ for the overall length.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/unclegal/3315624130
Sorry, 207.6″ does not include a rear bumper of course. That means the bed plus bumper is actually 1.5″ shorter than 1966. The 1966 had 6″ extra for the bumper, which is clearly more than the 2016 bumper.
I’d imagine any length saved by the shorter engine compartment/hood is lost again by the windshield laying farther back, and the resulting deep dash. If you look at the full-on side view, note how far back along the window line the steering wheel sits on the ’16.
I fit pretty well. But the rear window is right against the back of my head; it’s my headrest. The seat presumably moves forward a bit, but it hasn’t in the 29 years I’ve had it! The seat doesn’t tilt in the slightest. And there’s no storage behind the seat, since the long and thin gas tank sits back there. I can hear the sloshing around of fuel quite readily.
Needless to say, the steering wheel is mighty close to my chest.
There’s no doubt that the new truck has a longer cab. The seats recline to some extent, and there’s some meaningful storage behind the seats.
The rear window at the back of the head is the biggest thing I didn’t like about the trucks I rode in during the 70s. Coworker here has a new F150 extended cab, and what I really appreciated about it was not smacking into that window over bumps.
That is the thing I hated most about my Ford Ranger. My head was against the back window.
That’s why when we bought a Ranger 15 years ago (we’re still driving it), it had to be the extended cab version. We had tried a standard-cab Ranger, and were forced into an uncomfortably upright position with our heads against the back window.
Yes, the current model is better. After fifty years, I should hope so.
Just the same, all those improvements are (in my eyes) completely negated by that 10″ increase in ride height. Why is it necessary? The cab is more difficult to get into, the bed is more difficult to access, and every truck nowadays has to have the image of a jacked 4×4. Even if its the bottom of the line, 2wd stripper.
I’ve got a major bone against this for two reasons:
1. I ride two wheels (bicycle, scooter, motorcycle) heavily on my daily commute. And, for my own safety, I have learned to assume that the bigger and (especially) taller the vehicle, the more problem I’m going to potentially have with it. Needless to say, I absolutely despise 4×4’s with lift kits. People driving tall vehicles tend to be less caring and observant of the traffic around them.
2. During the years when my late wife was ill but still functional, I traded in our ’96 S-10 on an ’03 Ranger. Equal specs for both: Big V-6, automatic, stretch cab, 2wd, standard bed. Except that the Ranger had the floor 4″ higher off the road than the S-10, which made the Ranger way more difficult for her to get in and out. By the time she’d had her stroke, she was unable to get in and out of the truck unassisted. Granted, a lot had to do with her physical deterioration, but if I’d have had the foresight to have her with me when I traded trucks, the Ranger would have never come home with me.
In the end, the constant growns and up-butching of pickups has caused me to give up on them completely, and go to a minivan. And I’ll have someone else do the dirty hauling for me.
For that matter, why don’t they make minivans with hose-out interiors?
Well, for one, people who are in the market for a new minivan with a list price in the $30–$40K range are typically not the sort who would want to take a hose to the interior — in part because the rear cabin is probably going to be filled with all manner of child-pacifying electronics (some of them built in and thus hard to take out before washing the interior). People who use minivans in ways for which that would be beneficial are probably more likely to buy a well-used example, if only so no one cries when you scrape a hole in the headliner trying to wrestle the band’s amp into the van.
Once upon a time, there were work versions of the Chrysler minivans — C/V, I think they were called — and presumably the Chevrolet Astro/GMC Safari that had less or no trim in back and sometimes no seats or side windows, aimed at commercial buyers. I have no idea if such things still exist or if users have switched to stuff like the Ford Transit or the bigger GM vans.
Chrysler had a Ram C/V version of the GC/T&C in 2012, don’t see it on their website anymore though.
It’s been replaced by the Ram ProMaster City.
Well, there is the passenger version of the Transit Connect, Ram ProMaster City and other “mini-vans”.
The increase in size may be “modest” – but that modest increase means that any new full-size 4X4 truck for sale in the US market won’t fit in my garage. That means it’s useless to me as a daily driver. Period. I don’t need – or want! – a new truck bad enough to deal with 4+ months of scraping windows and clearing off snow just because the OEM marketing people think everyone wants a jacked-to-the-sky mini-Kenworth! I guess when the crummy OHC V-6 in my pudgy little Sport Trac trucklet dies I’ll be shopping at a GM store for a Colorado/Canyon – unless Ford gets wise and brings the world-market Ranger to the US…
Check the specs on that Colorado, the short box crew is within about 6″ of my ’06 F-150. The long bed is longer than mine.
The short-box Colorado just fits – the extended cab short-box Tacoma fits as well. If I feel the need for a manual gear box the Taco will be the most likely replacement for the Sport Trac. Though, since I’m not too far from retirement, a 5.0 V-8/5-speed swap into the Explorer isn’t out of the question. My Sport Trac is rust-free and the interior is almost perfect – the trade-in value is teetering on the brink of making it a project vehicle. I’m just starting to get cam chain adjuster rattle and weak shifts from the transmission – beginning of the end for the first gen Explorer drive train…
Not sure how much smaller the engine bay on the Sport Trac (2nd gen based, right?) is than on a 3rd gen Explorer, but they fit the DOHC 32v 4.6 into the Aviator, which was 3rd-gen based. That’d be quite the interesting swap, if perhaps a little more challenging package-wise than the 5.0.
Modular V8 is too wide for 2nd gen sport trac. 5.0l from Explorer or Mountaineer will fit. Most were AWD with a viscous clutch transfer case.
Also a good point. My current house has no garage (not that big a deal in central VA as our winters are mild) but the one I rented in 2009-12 did. And that garage admitted my Marauder, at 211″, with only a few inches to spare. A 228″ truck like the ’16 F-150 would not have fit at all, no chance. A friend’s house at the time had an even shorter garage. But, short of going forward control, I don’t know how much can be done with an 8′ bed and a passenger cabin of modern dimensions–it doesn’t look like there’s a lot of wasted space on the ’16.
You can find those F-150’s for under $20K advertised price. They are hard to find on a lot though.
Another fantastic story!
I spent the weekend with a new F-150 and found accessibility to the bed limited due to its height. It was ridiculously high. Put me down for a buyer interested in an American vehicle that remembers manual labor.
It’s all a matter of perspective. After using the L700 to haul gravel (the bed height is somewhere around 50″), an F-150 seems downright carlike.
Still, good to see a new-vs.-old comparison article that seeks out justification for all dimensional changes instead of immediately bashing everything new.
You sound like you could be like some of the folks I work with – they will refer to an F-150 as being a “little” truck. 🙂
Correct you are; it’s all a matter of perspective. Along with experience and need.
I wondered why both Ford and GM were providing optional egress aids to get into their pickup beds. In the good old days, the bed was low enough that it was much easier.
You know while so much has changed on pickup trucks in the past 50 years the general shape and look of the truck has not changed much. A person that time travels from 1960 to 2015 and exposed to a 2016 pickup truck would instantly know what it was unlike some of the cars parked around it.
Does the current F150 regular cab have that “half extended cab” look to them where there is a good size space behind the seats for storing crap that you would be afraid to leave in the bed like the 2005 era F150 did?
The 2004-08 had a 6″ longer cab than the 2003 models, This was enough that Ford decided to put a little clamshell door on the regular cab to access the behind-the-seat storage space. Notice that for this generation, the SuperCab has longer front doors than the ones shared by the regular cab and SuperCrew. The SuperCrew actually had a shorter WB than the SuperCab and regular cab (139″ vs. the new 145″).
For 2009, it was decided that all 3 cabs would have the same front doors. The SuperCrew was lengthened 6″, almost entirely in the front doors, so that the CC/5.5′, SC/6.5′ and RC/8′ bed models would be on the same WB. The regular cab was the same size, but there was no longer a little clamshell door–opening the front door exposed everything. I think this was a good aesthetic choice, at least, and it saved money on tooling costs.
For 2015, the regular cab was actually shortened by 4″ (141″ WB vs. 145″). I don’t know why this was done.
It’s a neat comparison but in my neck of the woods (southern Ontario) the reg. cab pickup is as rare as a unicorn, almost all pickup trucks are extended cab or quad cab.
I did a similar comparison with my 1995 F150 XLT recently.
1995 F150 XLT extended cab 4×4 all options except the 5.8 stickered around $22,500, (Adjusted it would be $35,006)
To get close to that number I had to build a “Base” 2016 F150 XL
2016 F150 XL extended cab 4×4 with the 2.7l Eco Boost and cruise/power windows/locks stickers at $35,680.
Really not too bad. What amazes me is that you can option that truck out to $65,000 or more!
I’m with you 100% on the bed height. That’s a deal breaker for me. I load ATVs in and out of the bed often and don’t want to carry ramps and/or a step ladder with me wherever I go.
There’s actually a place to store bed ramps on the new models. But wouldn’t you have to have ramps anyway, regardless of how tall the bed is?
Not really. I usually get the front wheels up on the tailgate and shove it up from there.
I didn’t see the optional ramps earlier. I like that idea a lot!
The ’70 C10 I bought in ’76 came with the receipt for $2750 new. I paid 18k new in 2004 for my Titan. In ’04 $2750 1970 dollars was $13445.00. Today it’s $17253.00.
The ’70 was a stripper with 200 HP (gross) 157 HP net 307 V8. The Titan is also a stripper 2wd XE model. Add in the standard AC/Tilt/ABS/CD/PS/PB/Carpet/rear bumper/traction control/airbags/fuel injection/5 speed auto trans/cruise control/locking tailgate/305HPV8 engine/ 4 wheels discs and it’s easily a better deal price wise.
One good thing about the higher ride height is the small wheel wells that take up less space in the bed. And the taller bed sides increase capacity as well.
The newer truck is comfortable on long trips, and will do 20 MPG vs 15 at best from the old, noisy, and cramped Chevy. The 8’ft bed vs the 6.7 bed is a good trade off for a folding back seat and 6 passenger capacity.
The lift height on the newer truck sucks. The Chevy’s tailgate could be dropped to rest on the rear step bumper, and when parked in the driveway dip to the street could be loaded with a hand truck and used as a built in ramp.
I weighed the ’70, it was 3750 lbs. The Titan, 4600. This is after subtracting my weight.
I considered restoring my old truck, but to get the features I wanted it really couldn’t be justified. And it never would have had the improved safety and stopping power of the new truck. It did have shoulder belt mounting points, which I installed but like Paul’s truck the rear window was my headrest.
I kept the old Chevy from ’76 to ’06. I do miss it sometimes, but 30 years was a good run for it.
Starting in 2017, the non-XD (regular half-ton) Titan will finally be available as a RCLB model.
One noticeable difference between the 1966 and the new truck is that the new truck’s engine is mounted so that half of it is under the cowl. It makes me wonder if the engine can be pulled without first removing the cab. The 1966 engine, whether a 6 or a V8, is well in front of the cab, thus much more accessible for servicing, which it admittedly needs more of than the engine in the new truck.
I dunno about F-150s, but for the Super Duty pickups, pretty much any engine work necessitates pulling the cab.
Engine work necessitates pulling the cab? Doesn’t surprise me. And the way things are designed nowadays you can only go to the dealership. I’m sure that’s intentional. Anything to drive up the cost to increase after-sale profitability for the dealership.
for the 2004-2014 F-150s, lifting the cab isn’t necessary but I’ve read it is the easiest way to do it…which isn’t to say it’s easy at all. Not sure on the 2015s.
I had to pull the valve covers off of a 04 Lincoln Navigator at a junkyard for the engine I’m building a few years ago and that was the tightest, most miserable, most time consuming, cuss laden, knuckle shredding, tool losing, bolt head rounding hell job I’ve ever experienced of the many cars I’ve ever worked on because of the cowl overhang. arrg!
When I used to work on my Ford Club Wagon van (with its engine centered under the cowl) I used to tell myself that I had learned my lesson and if I bought another truck-type vehicle, it would be more like an F-150 with decent engine access. And when I busted knuckles under the hood of my son’s 89 Grand Marquis, I told myself that if we had a pickup, there would be so much more room. You guys have burst my bubble.
Burst my bubble that’s for sure. I thought I stumbled on gold finding Mustang Cobra spec valve covers I was desperately trying to find without the necessary Mustang Cobra markup, After that I wish I just paid the 5x the price I paid that they’d go on eBay for.
Problem is those sloping windshields, the cab is pretty much where they’ve always been but the glass is pulled so far forward the accompanying structure ends up with that van like work environment you describe. For the F series that easy access ended with the 9th generation in 1996.
Just to rub it in a bit here’s the 5.4 3V. The worst part is between the COPs and plugs and oiling and variable cams it’s not a reliable or easily serviced engine to begin with. I wouldn’t recommend it to anybody.
Back in my dealership days lifting the cab (or entire body on Expeditions) was the only way to go for any serious engine work. Had it down to about 45 minutes. Lot of experience with the 3 valve Triton’s that had broken spark plugs.
Heck on 61-71 Dodge pickups you could pull the engine without removing the hood and the flat topped fenders were great for setting your tools on when you were working on the truck.
Try doing distributor work on a V8 Dodge from the ’90s. You can’t see back there, there is too much junk in the way, and everything has sharp edges. I love my truck, but working in the engine room is the pits.
I’ve had enough different Chevrolet pickups to be able to offer some thoughts on their evolution. They’ve all been half-ton trucks, and all but one were short-box regular-cab trucks. I had a 1960 long wide box truck that started life as a 6 3-speed, and got repowered with a 283 V8 out of a 57 3/4-ton truck my father had. Then there was an ex-forest service 1968 short narrow box truck with 6 and 4-speed. Next, a red on red 1976 Cheyenne short wide box truck with the 350 V8 and automatic. Then, my current 2003 Silverado.
Other than the wraparound windshield and the wide box, my 1960 truck didn’t strike me as being terribly different from older 1948-1954 trucks I’ve driven or ridden in. I did also have a 1959 short narrow box 6 3-speed Chevy, but I resold it soon enough not to have any real memories of it.
To my way of thinking, GM didn’t really get the truck door and window hardware right until the 1967-72 generation – from then on these items were pretty solid and long-lasting. Well, except that the 1976 shared the fast-wearing-out door hinge bushings with everything else GM was making in that era.
By 1976, the cab had become almost as quiet as that of a contemporary car, with slightly increased road noise through the doors being the only difference I noticed. Riding in a friend’s truck of the same generation showed me how much road noise came in through his sliding rear window even though it was closed. That generation was beginning to benefit from sharing interior pieces with the upwardly-moving Suburbans. And although the fuel tank had been moved out of the cab, it was so small at around 13 gallons that it seemed I was always stopping for gas – and having to lean over to put the gasoline into the too-low filler pipe.
My 2003 truck in its regular cab short box configuration isn’t all that tall or long – I see plenty of S-10’s and Tacomas that are longer and taller and have bigger tires. Its main loads have been craft-show booth furniture and dump runs. The interior isn’t really great-looking, but all the switches and handles work well and feel good, as they should for being shared with $40,000 Suburbans and Tahoes. It is civilized enough to make road trips enjoyable, being quieter inside than the 2009 Accord from the standpoint of road noise, and at least matching it in most other respects. The 22-gallon fuel tank helps there too. The 4.8-liter V8 is not any fuel mileage champion but since I’ve only been filling the tank three to five times a year that’s not really a problem.
Your comment about your 1960 Chevrolet not being too different from the 1948-54 trucks reminded me of my Dad’s truck.
It was a 1968 GMC CS1500. It was stripdown model except for the 8-ftl long bed with wood floor, 292 inline six, 4-sp manual and gauges; otherwise no power steering, brakes, radio, air conditioner, fancy trim. Gawd I wish I still had the truck.
One day I saw a 1941 Chevrolet coupe. Looked at it closely and noticed the parking brake (hand), was the same as the 1968 truck. The owner showed me the engine and that ol’ stovebolt six doesn’t look too different than the 1968 edition. Neither did the front suspension and drum brakes. Drove the car too. Yep, felt very familiar. Had the same nonsynchronized first gear setup, drum brakes all around.
In other words, my dad’s 1968 GMC truck wasn’t fundamentally different from a 1940s vehicle.
Agree with you that since 73 Chevrolets trucks are more civilized. But sure miss that functional no-nonsense straightforward bareness that impressed one that “this is a TRUCK, NOT A CAR!”
Paul, I always enjoy your comparison posts, which are (like this one) invariably thoughtful and well-reasoned. If I may wander off-topic a bit, I know that the name of this web site generally defines its mission–the appreciation of vehicles from the recent and not-so-recent past–but an article like this one reminds us that on a purely objective basis, today’s vehicles are vastly superior to those of even 30 or 40 years ago. In addition to incomparably better build quality, fit and finish, even the least expensive cars currently sold have radial tires, electronic fuel injection, myriad safety features and electronic engine control, all considered exotic technologies not that long ago. Today’s family sedans routinely pack 300 horsepower and transmissions with six speeds or better–and that’s not to mention what’s available in the realm of true exotics. My passion is for the beautiful and elegant automobiles of past decades, but when it comes to the golden age of automobiles, we’re living in it. It’s a great time to be a car (and truck) lover.
A very interesting comparison. I have noted that a number of people are “adjusting” prices using the CPI (I assume). But the CPI really does not, as we see here, correspond exactly on a single item. The CPI is a collection of items. The median income was about $7000 around 1966, while today it is around $53,000. The CPI shows the value of the dollar to have changed by a factor of about 7.3. So the median income has changed about as much inflation. Today’s 150 is about half the median income, while in 1966 probably less than half.
There’s usually a substantial difference between median and mean, however, and an enormous amount of wage stagnation for working-class and medium-class jobs over the last 20 years at least. So, I’d be wary of making a comparison based on median income.
When I googled average I got median. But the average vehicle 50 years ago is not the average vehicle today. I am not sure that there is a CPI for motor vehicles, but it would not be the same the the CPI for all goods. Wages on the other hand, in the long run, should keep up with the inflation index, otherwise where does the money come from to inflate prices?
I owned a ’65 F100 for about ten years. Wonderful truck, and I used it for truck stuff. Towed my BMW race car with it too. Yes, I did convert it to disc brakes (manual) but it still had the armstrong steering and manual column shift. Slow from a start but would cruise happily on the highway – towing – at 70mph.
Alas, my advancing age and lower tolerance for vintage ‘charm’ turned me to look for something newer. I now have a ’93 Lightning (cost less than what I sold the ’65 for) that is comfy, faster and less frightening to drive in traffic. Bonus: it has air conditioning! Its a really nice truck and perfect for my needs…but I still miss the ’65.
Why such bad mileage from the ’66 Paul? I had a ’65 Chev half ton with an 8 foot stepside 230 inline 6, 3 on the column with a factory overdrive that would regularly hit 20 mpg. Fantastic truck. It was hit head on and totaled but the motor went on to two other vehicles and the trans is still languishing in the shed. In my high school youth I drove a ’47 Studebaker half ton. We loaded 2,000 lbs of concrete mix in it one day and it sagged enough to just bring the second set of leaves into play. Even at double its load rating it could easily have taken more without bottoming. Try that with the 2016. The technology of today makes for a nice vehicle, but you are screwed when it breaks.
Paul’s truck probably had a low geared (i.e., numerically high like a 3:73 or 4:10) rear axle. Also no overdrive. My dad’s ’68 GMC had a 292 inline and 3:73 rear axle ratio. The best I got out of the truck was about 12mpg unloaded and going downhill. Having a 4-sp manual didn’t help either.
Actually, some F-150s have a payload rating of around 3000 lbs.
The 66 just plain looks better with a dog in the front seat than the new one would. In fact, I really can’t picture the new one with a dog in it.
That’s the owner-installed anti-theft device. Even 50 year old P/Us need one.
Great comparo, Paul! Of course, the accumulated 50 years of character: priceless. I’ve always been a base model kind of guy…something attractive about the simplicity, or maybe because I grew up in Puritanical New England.
I often wonder if the assembly line workers ever wonder about the fate of their product or not. Probably not since they often have a rote job to do dozens of times a day.
“the windows rattle since the stuff in the channels is long gone”…see, this techno-babble is at my level….
Just try and find a stripper; 2016 Ford F150 2 wheel drive, regular cab, long box, with no options on a dealers lot today. Ain’t gonna happen. Scarce as hens’ teeth. Have to custom order one.
Actually, a 2WD XL (work truck) model would be fairly easy to find on a dealer lot, provided it was a fleet dealer. What’s really hard to find is a well-equipped XLT RCLB 4×4 with one of the “premium” engine options (5.0 V8 or 3.5 EB). You can find plenty of short bed 4×2 or 4×4 Sport models.
Great comparison, looking forward to a full 66 F100 article.
Just got back in from Costa Rica today (CRCC article coming soon) and enjoyed the medium sized pickups there, Ford Ranger, Mitubishi DMax…
Paul,
Great article and great comparative analysis. Glad to see your ’66 Ford (or any 1960s or earlier vintage) truck still going strong. No doubt with parts available and regular maintenance it will soldier on for another 50 years.
But I’ll bet that 2016 Ford won’t last 50 years, let alone 10 years, especially with all the computer and electronics that’s loaded into it. When they give up, you’ll pretty much have a 4000 lb paper weight or driveway ornament.
No doubt trucks since the mid-1970s are more civilized, comfortable and easier to drive with standard power steering, brakes (disc), air conditioning, radio, more comfortable seats, etc. But at the cost of rugged durability, straightforward design and repairable/replaceable maintainability.
Best wishes for your ’66 Ford and many more years of faithful service.
Here’s a cheap and _FAR_ less rusty plus better equipped ( ! radio !) one for sale locally :
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-F-100-/391413780780?forcerrptr=true&hash=item5b2214512c:g:880AAOSwAvJW80Sk&item=391413780780
Better act fast .
-Nate
Not so cheap when you read the fine print.
All auctions are subject to a doc fee as follows:
o $85.00 for vehicles under $1,000
o $110.00 for vehicles over $1,000 and $60.00 for every $1,000 thereafter
Basically a 6 to 10% surcharge on the auction, The only people making any real money on cars today are the auction sites, they soak both the sellers and the buyers
I still dont get the height of a new F-150 4×2. My current truck is a 2000 Chevy K2500HD 4×4 regular cab long bed, 131″ wb. Even with the C6P payload option, which gives it the 3500 series suspension, but with single rear wheels, it is just under 34″ tailgate height.
“Armpit height” is reasonable enough for this 5’6″ guy to reach into the bed from the side. Empty weight is a hefty 5075 lbs, even with the smallest gas engine (5.7L), but it can carry over 3500 lbs payload. It somtimes carries a cab-over slide-in camper, but mostly its used for hauling building materials or trips to the dump with landscaping waste. A flat bed with short, tip-down sides like a VW transporter pickup would only work for one of those three tasks.
What about tires? Modern pickups rarely come with anything smaller than 17″ wheels and base trucks often have a 70 or 75 aspect ratio tires. That alone might account for 3-4″ of additional height.
That could be compensated for, if that was desired. Modern sedans have huge wheels and tires too, but don’t sit taller, right?
Ride height is not a slave to tire size; it’s a deliberate design/engineering decision.
What I find great about my 65 or Paul’s 66 is that at 6’1″ tall my armpit is about 5″ higher than the bed rail. That means I can stand next to the bed and reach over the rail and reach in as far as the middle easily from either side. That and the lower tailgate top all else. The manual steering is no big deal and my now new power drum brakes with dual master and new suspension have made a drive much nicer although 12 mpg makes for shorter drives.
It’s kind of heartbreaking to look back at 2016 and realize that you could still buy a basic pickup for a price that corresponded to what it had cost fifty years earlier, even before considering equipment and capability enhancements. Now 2016 is closer to 1966 than it is to 2022. Heck, 2019 is as well. The money that would buy a real full-sized truck two years ago might get you on the waiting list for a Maverick, but they might have closed the list by now too.
I had a ’66 F250 Camper Special for several years. It looked like Paul’s F100 but had a stronger frame, heavier suspension, and bigger brakes. It also had a 390 that replaced the 352 sometime in the past. Automatic with power brakes but that was it. Very heavy slow speed steering. It was my first truck which I contrasted with my Dad’s ’75 short bed Chevy purchased new. The Chevy had a 350/auto with power disc brakes and steering, and a/c. The interior was much plusher but I found it to be more cramped than my old Ford. Fuel economy was pretty poor in the Chevy and it was irrelevant in the F 250 which was only driven locally. I never liked the short bed of the Chevy and preferred the long bed of the Ford. I needed a truck for travelling to Southern Ca. and bought a new V6 2007 long bed F150 with the access cab. Mine is very basic, with crank up windows and rubber floor mats, but it has a/c and more importantly ABS. A very comfortable, quiet, good riding/driving truck that I’ve driven all over the West Coast. It’s just a great truck that fills all my needs and gets 20 mpg. on the highway. Much superior to my Dad’s old stepside and my old F250. I would never buy a short bed crew cab, I know that they are popular with families, but I use my truck as a work truck. I would choose something else to carry passengers.
Minor detail, but the F250 did not have a stronger frame than the F100. Stiffer springs, bigger rear axle, bigger brakes and wheels, but the same frame.
That probably explains why my frame hasn’t bent one iota even when I had 3400 lbs of rock in it. 🙂
The manual steering is significantly heavier with the V8 and automatic. It adds several hundred pounds on the front end. It’s one of the reasons I looked for a six and stick.
I’m a CA contractor, own a 1966 F100 “Flareside” with 240 six and 3sp manual (with about 60k mi – and yes documented) and although I would never use it for heavy stuff, It is exactly what I wanted – a great looking truck that appeals to my love of vehicles in general, it carries lots of building stuff, and it has FAR exceeded what I expected mechanically. This one weighs all of 3300 lbs.
I’ve owned the newer Ford trucks, and yes they are more comfortable, quiet, and of course more refined in every way – but to me it’s like comparing a new VW with an old one. Yes the old is outclassed but who cares? The newer truck will be outclassed soon enough. There is a boring factor that is important to me – I was just tired of driving a boring truck mile after mile.
Just like the VW, the 66 has an organic quality about it – everything works well together. The brakes are much better than I thought they’d be, the shifting/clutch is fine. The steering is decent too, and if you want power steering, just add air to the front tires!
The ’66 is plenty quiet (I have a good stereo that covers any sound it might make), it starts right up, and I have found a real secret to pepping it up without ruining the mileage – a “dual plane” intake manifold coupled with headers has increased the power remarkably. I have been able to easily stay up with the large jacked up today’s truck, the ones that have a small motor and a HUGE grill. I even built a box where a floor shifter would be, and I can carry everything I was able to carry in the extended cab. I also raised the seat a bit so the cab could accommodate my 6’3″ frame and I have no trouble with the sun on my neck as I did with my ’80 300ci truck years back.
And most importantly I actually look forward to driving it, and always have a smile when I get home. Something about “exceeding expectations”. Really, the worst aspect of the truck is what would happen in a major accident – I try not to think about it, but drive more sanely just in case…..
Nice to hear someone else is using a ’66 F100 as a genuine work truck. I have been using mine since 1987, also with the 240 six and three-speed manual and overdrive. I’ve written about it here many time over the years.
Here’s one that I wrote a few years back:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/truck-of-a-lifetime-1966-ford-f100-thirty-years-of-hauling-shit-cheaply/
If you search for “1966 F100” in our search bar, you’ll find many others.