We'll, I finally joined FTE, although I've been utilizing this site for a while. Let me say thanks to all of you who have taught, helped, and informed me just by answering other members questions. Now I could use some feedback specific to my situation. I'm preparing to buy one of these trucks and any advice will be appreciated. Looking at a 1) 65 f250 with the original 352 & cruise-o- matic. Truck is in great shape, 80% sure I'd be 3rd owner, seller claims engine has been rebuilt by first owner. Runs well, asking $2500. I'm guessing truck has either 124k or 224k miles. 2) 64 f100 with 74k miles. Seller thinks the 302 in it is from 90 f150. Efi to carb, Holley intake, and Holley 4bbl/650. He's throwing in a set of headers and HEI. This truck is nice as well. Asking &3k. Gonna be a daily driver, 75mi RT daily LA traffic. What do you guys think? (Aside from not using it as daily driver) thanks again. Oh the 64 has an AOD tranny.

 

My opinion, hands down, is the '65, even though it is an F-250.
The biggest reason is the differences Ford introduced in '65. Ford truck upgrades up to '79 can be easily installed from '65 on, but there is no backwards compatibility before '65, without major modifications.
'66 F-250
Easily upgraded to power steering, power disc brakes and other creature comforts. Almost everything is reproduced for partial or full restorations. Most factory truck engine and transmission options available up to '96 can be transplanted with relative ease. My '66, for example, has an '80s 460 and C-6, and it is the same as a factory installation. One concern I have with the COM transmission in the F-250 is that they are getting more expensive to rebuild, but you can replace it with a more modern C6 relatively easily, should the need arise. The 352 is thirsty though, and with an F-250 geared rearend, you will not be able to get any decent mileage at highway speeds. I see no value difference in the mileage between the two trucks, and would discount any claims of low mileage.
'64 F-100
My concern here is the quality of the work done on the engine transplant. Was the frame properly modified and is the engine mount system a high quality one? Cheap ones have been known to have failed weldings. EFI to carb conversions can be tricky, depending on cam choices and so forth - I am not an expert in this, but decided against such a conversion for similar reasons. Personally, I would rather try to upgrade a worn out factory system rather than discover and try to solve poor modifications done by someone else. Not to mention the 650 CFM on a 302 - that's a lot of CFM. Was it raced? Rode hard and put away wet? Perhaps I am wrong, but this seems to be a truck someone is trying to unload.

These are just my opinions, and I wish you the best! These old trucks are quite nice to drive and fool with, regardless.

EDIT: My comments are based on the experience that these trucks are so drivable, neat and cool, that everyone who gets one wants to modernize it, so to speak, while keeping it relatively stock. And with the '65, that is pretty easy to do. In fact, you might research the legal means and possibility of buying a '73 - '79 F-150 with the options you want, and transplanting the '65 sheet metal over to it. (....but you can't do this with the '64, by the way.)


John

 

Thank you Sir

 

Banjopicker makes some good points. The F250 with cruise-o, if it has its original gearing, is likely to have 4.10s in back. That's not a good gearset for commuting. The 352 is usually not going to win any economy prizes. F250s were meant for work more than comfort - the ride harshness might get old with a 75 mile daily commute. Sounds like a great truck, but maybe not for the purpose you have in mind. I agree with Banjo that the quality of workmanship of the mods done to the '64 has everything to do with how much work you may need to do to make it right. The 302/AOD combination should be much more fuel efficient than the 352, especially with F250 standard gearing. And I agree with Banjo that a 650 CFM carb on the 302 is too big. The straight axle suspension ride in the '64 may not be any better than than the HD set up in the '65. I'd look at the conversion engineering quality in the '64 very carefully. Are you in a big hurry to have one of these trucks? There should be plenty of nice riding '65 and '66 F100s available that might be more suitable to your daily commute, and can more easily be upgraded in the future than a '64 or earlier. Good luck with whatever you choose.

 

Welcome to FTE

The '64 F100's engine/trans has been swapped. 302 not available in F100's until 1969, AOD introduced in 1981 F100/150 w/302.

The 1965 F250 would be a better choice, but the brakes are horribly inadequate for L/A traffic (even when it was new!). It has 12 1/8" x 2" front/rear drum brakes.

Personally, I'd pass on both of these trucks (the F250 will ride and steer like an ox cart, P/S wasn't available in '65) and if you like 1961/66's...look for a 1965/66 F100 with 2WD.

1968, while working at Ralph Williams Ford in Encino, I bought a new F250 Ranger pickup: 390/4 speed, P/S, P/D/B & A/C

I made two mistakes, bought an F250 and rowing the 4 speed shifter back/forth while driving the 405 freeway from WLA to Encino and back...soon became a PITA!

Truck was totaled in 1971 after being T-boned by a drunk driver while it was parked in front of my gal pals house in Studio City. I replaced it with a 1971 Ranger XLT, 390/C6.

I also owned a 1965 F100 (352 3 speed O/D) that I bought new at Stockton Quincy Ford in Westwood. I decided to keep it, as 'ol Ralph only offered me 500 bucks as a trade-in.

 

I can say that I drove this old F250 2WD about 430 miles before I broke the shift lever off and the ride was about as fine as anything. Engine left something to be desired, but it was a fine ride...very comfy.


https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1...al-ranger.html


.

 

But you don't live in Los Angeles, while the OP does. The traffic here is almost as bad as Vancouver BC, Toronto, NYC and London UK

And...there are more potholes in the roads than there are illegal immigrants, so the F250's ride will be wanting. Gasoline is also much more expensive in CA than it is in WA

 

I was in CA at the time. Granted, not Los Angeles, though. Murrieta, Rialto, Stockton.

 

In retrospect, I think this is the best advice for the original poster. There should be better choices out there.

John

 

Go with what you want.. You may decide later to do some upgrades. Is changing out a rearend or even the gears a big deal? Maybe a little $ involved.. but it's doable. Also a ton of aftermarket parts. Get what tickles your fancy.. who says you're going to keep it forever anyway? You may decide later to change to a later model '66 - on... but you'll have that one as a reference point not to mention the experience you pickup driving and working on it. I dunno.. I've always gone with what I "Liked" and figured the rest out down the road. You are doing your research now .. which is a good thing so you know what you're getting yourself into. I lived in LA for 2 years.. (I'm a Washington State native).. and all I have to say is Blahhhh! That traffic was ridiculous! Only thing I'd make sure I had was an automatic if you're going to be in stop and go traffic. Good luck on whatever you decide. This is a great website.

 

My fellow Washingtonian (aaronsbicyclerepair) just hit a pothole large enough it swallow his F100 whole. OK, so it only wiped out his rear differential, but still.


At least the Dana 60 doesn't bend as easily...Lol


Just kidding....


.

 

Old man 23 Welcome to The Slick Form as a registered member. My suggestion is to buy 65 or newer because more options are available for upgrades. I agree with Bill, stay away from the tooth rattling bone jarring F250s, F100 will do most jobs just fine.

Don't rush take your time, find the best truck for you.


John

 

Some of you guys must have some loose teeth and old fragile bones. Even my F250 4x4 trucks don't rattle any of my teeth and rarely jars a bone. My 82 year old father went for a long ride with me in my white 4x4 and didn't mention a single word about being uncomfortable. Quite the opposite, he enjoyed the ride very much. I think you are exaggerating some for effect, but one can never tell around here.

.

 

Wouldn't say avoid the 64s necessarily, but for whatever reason it seems to be an "orphan" when it comes to certain parts. Time and again the catalogs will list whole swaths of years 48-63 and then 65-72 something like that. 61-63 were the Unibodies and they have their own set of problems, tho 64 is oddball. With the money have sank into this one could have bought a fully tricked out restomod 56 or whatever. My rig is tough as nails and Reliable but uglier than that feller from Bowlin' Green.

 

The mechanical and most of the body parts are the same 1961/64, the only real differences have to do with the front bumper (1961/63 is one type, 1964/66 is another) and there's 3 different Styleside beds.