I'm looking to get an easy to work on 'lil truck that gets 20+ mpg is the Ranchero right for me? I live in the Dallas area if anyone is selling one.
(That sounds to comercial. O well.)
Inspect closely for rust. Ranchero's are known as rust buckets.
Underneath the bed floor is the second row seat footwells and the spare tire well...both of these are from the station wagons, because that's what Rancheros were made from.
Ford CAULKED the bed floor to the front and side inner bed sheet metal, the caulk wore out, water seeped in and because it's hidden from view...ppl don't know it's there till either the gas tank falls out (it's under the tire well on some), or you get a wind whistle that's hard to track down.
The whistle comes along when the second row footwells rust thru.
All of this has happened...it happened to 1957's, 1967's and 1979's, and every other model in between.
Look for a 1965/66 Falcon or 1967/70 Fairlane with a 200 6 banger engine and a C4, or the all syncro 3 speed manual.
The 1960/64's are either 144's or 170's, with 2 speed Fordomatics, or 3 speed sticks with a crash first gear...neither engine is very good.
The V8's first offered in 1963, won't get anywhere near the gas mileage the 6's do.
__________________ Bill / Retired Ford Parts Manager ~ 1962/1997
Part Number Research: Trucks: 1928/2002 / Cars: 1928/2003
1963 Galaxie 500XL / 1965 F100 / 2008 Fusion S / 2008 Edge SEL
I very rarely ever see a Ranchero. Saw a '59 a couple of days ago, saw a '70's a couple of years ago. Reading NumberDummy's post about the rust problem, I guess provides the answer.
I see a few, though not many El Camino's. I wonder if Chevy did things differently, although I don't know.
I very rarely ever see a Ranchero. Saw a '59 a couple of days ago, saw a '70's a couple of years ago. Reading NumberDummy's post about the rust problem, I guess provides the answer.
I see a few, though not many El Camino's. I wonder if Chevy did things differently, although I don't know.
The ElC was built out of station wagon parts also. Not sure about the under bed leaks, as the ElC was always full frame, vs. the uni-body & much smaller early Ranchero. BUT, the leak that has killed a lot of them is the rear window. Our '67 leaked there, and it went down in the interior behind the passenger side and ruined the carpet etc. My dad, being possessed of the idea that there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with the design of the car, blamed "us" for spilling something in the back... But I digress. I spoke with a body shop guy years ago, and he said that's a big fix when doing restorations due to the rust all through the back of the cab.
BTW, same guy told me about one of his frame guys who bought two wrecked Rancheros. One in front, one in the back. He POP RIVITED the two halves together and drove it that way.... May have been a bit flexy I'd think...
Just to clarify, the 170s and 200s aren't bad engines at all, economical to drive and fix. Change the ignition to pertronix and it will be very dependable.
I've got a 62 Falcon, a 64 Falcon, and a 63 Falcon Ranchero.
Thge 64 and up has a more solid body, but watch for floor rust. The bed is installed over the back seat area and the the back wall leaks into the carpet and rots the floor. partial and entire floor pans are available. The Ranchero,s are based on a standaed sedan body as is the wagon, nothing special about it. The 2 speed is a piece of junk, try to find a 3 speed manual, and some had a four speed, but don't get a Dagenhiem, there's no parts for it.
Mileage varies because the six cylinder carbs were crap, a good one might give 30 miles per gal., the 260 cu. in. that came out later was OK but it's hard to find, 289s came later but there goes mileage.
Don't know much about later Ranchero's, it's a fun car, not a truck thats for sure, but a fun car.
Just to clarify, the 170s and 200s aren't bad engines at all, economical to drive and fix. Change the ignition to pertronix and it will be very dependable.
I've got a 62 Falcon, a 64 Falcon, and a 63 Falcon Ranchero.
Thge 64 and up has a more solid body, but watch for floor rust. The bed is installed over the back seat area and the the back wall leaks into the carpet and rots the floor. partial and entire floor pans are available. The Ranchero,s are based on a standaed sedan body as is the wagon, nothing special about it. The 2 speed is a piece of junk, try to find a 3 speed manual, and some had a four speed, but don't get a Dagenhiem, there's no parts for it.
Mileage varies because the six cylinder carbs were crap, a good one might give 30 miles per gal., the 260 cu. in. that came out later was OK but it's hard to find, 289s came later but there goes mileage.
Don't know much about later Ranchero's, it's a fun car, not a truck thats for sure, but a fun car.
Did you work for Ford in the early 1960's? If not, you prolly don't know that the 144 was an oil burning, overheating terd of an engine, also affected by piston slap...the same maladies that affected the early 170's. Both these engines also have a tendency to crack exhaust manifolds.
The 200 was light years ahead of both these two and while introduced in 1963, wasn't available in Falcons till late in 1964.
The Dagenham 4 speed trans was not available till 1962 and it only came with 170 engines. It was used thru 1965 on Falcons and Mustangs, and some Econolines used it as well. The trans was common in English Fords because Dagenham, England (east of London) is where the vast English Ford plant is located.
The 221 & 260 V8's were introduced in 1962, Falcon Sprints could be ordered with the 260 V8 beginning in midyear 1963 (called 1963 1/2 by Ford), it was available on all models thru 1965. The early 1965 Mustangs also used this engine, but only thru 8/30/1964.
260 equipped 1963/65 Falcons, and the three 289 engines (2V, 4V, HiPo) available in 1965's, could be ordered with the Borg-Warner T-10 4 speed, also used in 1963/65 Fairlanes and 1965/66 Mustangs. The Ford 4 speed toploader was first offered in 1964, but wasn't available till 1965 on Falcons and then only on 289 V8's.
1966, the whole thing changed. Gone were the optional 4 speeds, and both the A code 289 4V and K code 289 Hipo engine first offered in 1965. Also no longer available were the Hardtop & Convertible models introduced midyear 1963.
1966's came with the 170, 200 or 289 2V only. 1966 was the last year for the Falcon Ranchero.
__________________ Bill / Retired Ford Parts Manager ~ 1962/1997
Part Number Research: Trucks: 1928/2002 / Cars: 1928/2003
1963 Galaxie 500XL / 1965 F100 / 2008 Fusion S / 2008 Edge SEL
So I assume you did work there, and you must be in your late 60s or 70 years old?
And since I did not work for Ford, and I'm not sure how that makes someone an expert on the engine, and I only drive one as daily transportation, I don't don't know it to be oil burning or piston slapping.
Whatever, I just joined this forum and already a bunch of nit pickers.
I'm signin off boys.
Well, I just bought a 64' Ranchero with a 170 and Fordomatic, I got it to drive everyday. I'm thinkin' it will be just fine if you don't expect it to be a race car. I do agree that the 3 or 4 speed manual would be better than the Fordomatic, but should work fine. I had a 61' Falcon w/ the 144 and 3-speed and never had one problem with it and I drove the hell outta it. Never burned oil or had piston slap. It was slow, but reliable and got over 30mpg's but as with anything you get the good and the bad.
I agree about the rust, I'm currently replacing the complete driver side floor and will be doing partial for the passenger. As well as parts of quarters later down the road. If your able to fix some "issues" yourself I wouldn't hesitate to get one.
__________________ 2006 F150 Scab XLT Darkstone, 5.4l, 3.73 LS 1955 Ford Country Sedan Wagon 6-pass 301"y-block C4 Manual Valvebody 1958 Chevy Impala 348 "W" block, TH350 1964 Ranchero 170", Fordomatic
IMO the Ranger shouldn't be a real head scratcher. OBDII so it will tell you where it hurts. Is it 4 cylinder? I had an '86 with the 2.9 and it wasn't like working on a 390 Mustang or anything....
I'm looking to get an easy to work on 'lil truck that gets 20+ mpg is the Ranchero right for me? I live in the Dallas area if anyone is selling one.
