I also posted this in the appropriate 67-72 forum but I'm interested in what you folks think, too. I currently have a 1997 Ford Ranger 4x4. Our second child is on the way and I need a bigger truck. Something to hold two child seats. As you know, I am currently restoring a '53 and am thinking about going with an older truck. I found a 1968 F-100 for sale about an hour away.

This would be my daily driver in central Illinois. I wonder how it will compare to my current vehicle? Obviously it won't handle snow and ice as well as my 4x4 but I would think a set of snow tires and some weight in the bed would help in that regard. Was power steering/power brakes common by 1968? What year did the crumple zone frame/bodywork start showing up (not that I plan on crashing it!)? Would the in-cab gas tank be a safety concern? How about heating/cooling? I don't believe it has AC. Probably have to make do with the old 2/65.

I'm guessing it would drive pretty well. Will it be eaten alive by road salt in the winter? What about parts availability such as alternator, water pump, brakes, common engine parts, etc. I'm pretty mechanically inclined and could probably fix most problems without much trouble. And if I can't fix it, I have friends that can. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Kevin Kessler
1953 Ford F-100

 

Yo Kevin, I'm a little confused. Were you going to keep your other trucks or replace one with something bigger? Consider a Bronco or Explorer? When my kids were little I found 4 doors to be infinitely handy. Congratulations,by the way.

 

I would be selling the 4x4 leaving this as my sole mode of transportation. My wife drives a VW wagon which is what we use when we go places as a family. I need the space to get the kids to day care safely. I think the general public would frown on me strapping the seats into the bed! What was the old import with the jump seats?

I'd really like to stay with a truck. I don't haul a lot but when I need it, it sure is nice to have it.

Kevin Kessler
1953 Ford F-100

 

Subaru Brat had the rear facing jump seats.

The '68 can make a fine daily driver as long as you realize it won't get the same gas mileage as your current Ranger. I've owned several and used them as daily drivers even in snow conditions. A little sand in the back for weight helps in snow conditions. Parts are very widely available.

I currently have a '71 F100 (same body series) and it's a great parts getting truck. My current daily driver is an '84 GW motorcycle and a '99 SHO as a backup when it rains. And I'm still working on my '56 F100 street rod.

 

Kevin

Two adults and two babyseats sounds like a crowd. You'll have to have a fourth seat belt unless you have a trick that is legal. Illinois is no tolerance for child restraint (as they should be IMO). Mid 60s truck is one rugged built vehicle. Several of my friends daily drive them. As Tim said, the mpg won't be near what a Ranger gets.

'fenders

 

We have my wife's VW wagon for family trips. I'll just need a way to get the kids to daycare across town in the morning (me and two car seats). The gas mileage might be an issue. What kind of numbers are we talking about? My 4x4 gets 17-20mpg.

Thanks!

Kevin Kessler
1953 Ford F-100

 

Hey The 68 will have enough room for you and 2 carseats but it will be tight. Always place the baby in a rear facing carseat up to one year old. They do'nt have the neck strength to face forward untill they're one. Also they need be one and at least 20lbs to face forward. Part of my job is to know this kind of stuff. The 67 to 1996 Ford trucks are all close kin. The 240-300 six cyls. were offered throuhout these years. 302s started in 1969. If the 68 has a V8 its either a 360 or 390. The 360 10-12mpg 390 8-12 mpg but they're my favorite ford engine. The 68 has no crumple zones. It comes from a time when seatbelts were just newly mandated for all passenger vehicles.Me being married with 2 small children I think if you can get a good old truck thats reliable with no mechancal problems go for it. I do'nt think you'll haft to put 300 to 700 dollars a month in it to drive it like you would a newer one for 5 years. As far as the gas tank in the cab, I look at it this way, If a wreck is bad enough to burst the tank or make it turn loose Then its probably fatal anyway . Ive seen lots of bad wrecks. In my 11 years of Fire and EMS I've only known of one firey crash that was a fatality and it was a horendus crash . He was in in a compact Japanese car. That stuff happens alot on CHiPs but it's rare in the real world. Do'nt Look at the truck with GOO GOO eyes. This is going to be your primary transpotation. IT does'nt matter if its a Model T,Sherman Tank or 2002 Lightning SVO if it can'nt get you to work on time or those babies to the doctor it aint worth havin! Travis

 

Congragulations on the new one. Parts will still be available at the common auto parts store for a 68.

 

Kevin

I agree with Travis on mpg. I would count on 10-12mpg and you won't be too far off. I hear of these miracle old big blocks that the owner claims get 18 mpg or something like that. I suppose its possible but it's never been my experience. My 95 F150 injected 300 I-6 won't even do that.

'fenders

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-Aug-02 AT 02:53 PM (EST)]Thanks for all the great advice and information! If anybody cares, this is the truck I'm looking at: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1854969923&rd=1

Can anyone tell from the picture what engine it has? I haven't received a reply back from the seller yet.

Thanks!

Kevin Kessler
1953 Ford F-100

 

It is either a 360 or 390 which is referred to as an "FE". The 360 was more common in pickups and most 390's had badges on the front fenders declaring that fact, so I'm betting on the 360.

 

There was a fairly lengthy article in a mag some years back about the 360 and poor mileage. Had to do with the distributor if I remember.

Anyway, I lived in Roselle, Ill 1969-72 and Ford trucks rotted away as you watched them. Drive it in the good weather and pick up a cheap 3.0 Taurus for the snow.
Call me a wus but all my toys go in hibernation for the winter, only the 54 F350 gets used when the roads are clear of salt.
The 94 Taurus is the 2nd most reliable car Ive owned and it goes thru anything, has ABS and 4 wheel discs. A 68 will be at a serious handling and braking disadvantage in snow.

The soccer mom in her SUV will stop and you will be skidding into her; think about it.

 

That's too nice a truck to abuse as a daily driver in the winter.
And not enough room for kids and the equipment for cleaning and maintaining them.

How about a Taurus wagon? I always thought the early ones would look sharp if they were dechromed, with nice rims, and tinted or filled the rear side windows.

 

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that an older truck isn't very practical right now. I haven't decided what to go with yet. Any full size truck or SUV will be a gas hog. I'm not thrilled about going back to a passenger car but that may be what happens.

At least I'll still have my Effie.

Kevin Kessler
1953 Ford F-100