I just bought a 1996 F250 extended cab short box. I don't know how rare these are in the rest of the world, but this is only the second one I have seen for sale.
Truck is from the coast so no rust, minor city body bruises, and minor accident history, also got the matching canopy.
I was a little worried about the 7.5 ltr. mileage, but driving home over a mountain pass I got 17.5 litres to 100K.
My 96 150 short box went down the road with it's new owner yesterday.

 

That is 13.4 mpg US which is about as good as it gets for that motor. The ext cab short bed(80") was a very common config for 1/2 ton trucks, probably not as common in the HD version but not unheard of.

 

2wd?

Those look pretty sweet with a low stance and the right wheels ...

BTW It's a Super Cab, Extended Cab is a Chevy thing.

-Enjoy
fh : )_~

 

Pardon me for the chevy speak!
It's a 4x4.
It's dual fuel gas/propane, the propane is going to go.

 

I never remember if the F-250HD SCSB started in '95 or '96 (whichever it was, the F-250HD CCSB started the other). As I understand both were only available with a 460 or a diesel.

 

I own 2. they were made from 95-97

both 97 power stokes
one 2wd auto
one 4wd stick(ONLY came with stick in 4wd)

 

I don't get the 17.5 liters to 100 K, here in the US 100 K = One hundred thousand. I could figure out gallons to liters but that other part really throws me ..... long drive home ....

 

This one came with the auto. They are pretty scarce up here. I thought I read somewhere they were only made 96/87.
New vehicles up here show mileage in liters per 100 kms or US miles per gallon.
I get a headache trying to figure US gallons to Imperial gallons to litres.
For comparison, I just sold a 2008 Super Duty 5.4 auto that averaged 16 litres per 100Kms.

 

I've read somewhere that the SCSB (or ECSB) was the lowest production number cab/bed combination of all.

BTW, what I still haven't gotten an answer to, if "extended cab" is a Chevy/GM term, during the eight or so years that Ford had the SuperCab, and Dodge had the Club Cab, and GMC/Chevy didn't have any equivalent, and my friends and I were referring to the Dodge and Ford collectively as "extended cab" trucks, were we misusing the GM/Chevy term in some sort of time warp?

 

I'm also from the US, but even in Canada "100K" means "one hundred thousand". But whether in the US or in Canada, you need to know "one hundred thousand" what? In the US it usually means 100,000 miles. In Canada it can either mean 100,000 kilometers (~62,150 miles) or 100,000 meters (~62.15 miles). When measuring fuel consumption in "liters per 100K" it's meaning how many liters (1 liter ~0.264 gal) of fuel it tales to go 100 kilometers (62.15 miles).

 

I don't know whether you and your friends were in a time warp (I doubt it, because I don't believe there are time warps, but I can't prove that so I'll just go with "I don't know"). But I do know that in the industry the term "extended cab" has only been used on GM trucks and "SuperCab" has always been used on Fords.

Obviously whatever term you use is useful as long as people know what you're talking about. We could all agree to call SuperCab trucks "Tim" if we wanted to. Then any time anyone referred to their Tim truck we'd all know exactly what they meant. But generally it stays easier if we stick with the terms the manufacturers used. (And I don't think anyone wants to use the name "Tim" here, so I'm not really suggesting we do that).

As far as whether using "extended cab" to refer to a Ford SuperCab is "wrong" or causes any problems, I have two small issues with it. First is that if this truck is an "ECSB", then what is a short box truck with a standard cab? People start referring to it as an "SCSB". But that's confusing because that means "SuperCab short box" to most of us. But if "SCSB" is already taken, then we realize that we can't abbreviate "standard cab" and we use "regular cab" instead: "RCSB". So even though everyone knows what you mean when you say "ECSB" it tends to lead to other confusions.

The other issue I have with it is less significant, but real never-the-less. Yes, people know what you mean when you talk about your "Ford extended cab." But they don't know because they knew what you and your friends called it before GM started using the term. They know because GM uses the term. It's like calling a "Flareside" a "Stepside", or a limited slip a "posi", or a big-block V8 a "rat motor". Like asking for a "Kleenex" when someone has a box of Puffs, it tends to imply that GM is the more significant manufacturer than Ford, and that GM terms therefore get to be used as the "generic" terms. Is it a useful way to communicate? Sure, people will know what you mean. But since this is a Ford site I personally tend to lean toward using the Ford terms and not admitting that GM is the #1 truck manufacturer (in spite of the fact that Ford trucks have never outsold GMs two brands combined).

 

Do you care what I call my vise-grip and channel lock pliers?


Extended cab means two doors and two rows to 99% of people. Crew cab means four doors and four rows. Everyone knew what he meant. Getting hung up on the difference between Ford/GM marketing speak from almost half a century ago is pointless. Everyone knew exactly what he meant.


Being **** about wording doesn't really help when it just makes the situation more complicated. If I said I have a extended cab flareside truck with a lunchbox locker up front and a Detroit out back then everyone knows my truck has two rows of seating, two doors, a lunchbox locker up front and a full carrier replacement locker out back. The only ambiguity is whether or not I paid big bucks for a Detroit brand locker in the rear or bought an off-brand equivalent.

 

Geez, I didn't mean to start an argument ... Peace my friends, Peace!

-Enjoy
fh : )_~

 

No. But I might if this was an Irwin Tools or Channellock Tools bulletin board.

I agree. And I said that in my earlier post.

To the extent that the age of the marketing speak matters, it's not "from almost a half-century ago", it's still current and has been used the entire time. Terminology that's been used that long is useful.

I gave the two examples of where I think it helps. Admittedly only the first one is a practical issue, but that's why I listed it first.

As far as being **** about this, I'm not. I was responding to madpogue's post, not calling the OP out.

I'll agree with most of that. The exception is that I've never considered that anyone might use "Detroit" as a generic term. To me that completely means that it's the Eaton product. Which points out the benefit of using the correct terms.

 

In keeping with this thread, that would be a "rare find" as well.....