1949 or 1950 F1
#31
#32
Oh EXCUUUUUUSE ME! - so I made a typo and added an extra zero...
There's not a word of constructive input from some of you clowns lately until someone else tries to help and makes a simple typographical error, then you come out of the wood work and it's "DOG PILE."
Focus and get on board with the point......Serial numbers started at ten thousand and one starting in 1951.
Vin information of these trucks from web sites is a reliable and varied as engine colors - completely unreliable.
quote a legitimate source (ie manufacturers page or drawing) or post a picture of legitimate documentation like Ross did.
Kripe almighty!
There's not a word of constructive input from some of you clowns lately until someone else tries to help and makes a simple typographical error, then you come out of the wood work and it's "DOG PILE."
Focus and get on board with the point......Serial numbers started at ten thousand and one starting in 1951.
Vin information of these trucks from web sites is a reliable and varied as engine colors - completely unreliable.
quote a legitimate source (ie manufacturers page or drawing) or post a picture of legitimate documentation like Ross did.
Kripe almighty!
I surely hope your little speech wasn't directed at me. All I did was ask you to double check your information, since it conflicted with my original Ford documentation. I was polite in my comment, and am not sure how you got a "dog pile" from it. If you had something different, I was interested in seeing it.
For the record, there were two posts in this thread where you clearly stated the consecutive unit numbers started with 100001, instead of the correct 10001.* That is not a typo, that is an error. We all make mistakes from time to time, but when someone asks for a clarification, that is no reason to go all medieval on one's ***. Either quote your source, as I did, and which Ross backed up with a photo, or apologize for the mistake and move on. Focus and get on board with the point, as someone recently said.
You are correct in that there is a lot of mis-information, on just about any subject, on the internet. And it is our duty, as a respected source for correct info, that we do our best to police ourselves and ensure our info is the most accurate and reliable possible. And I surely hope you can agree with me on that.
*
#33
Gee Julie,
I surely hope your little speech wasn't directed at me. All I did was ask you to double check your information, since it conflicted with my original Ford documentation. I was polite in my comment, and am not sure how you got a "dog pile" from it. If you had something different, I was interested in seeing it.
For the record, there were two posts in this thread where you clearly stated the consecutive unit numbers started with 100001, instead of the correct 10001.* That is not a typo, that is an error. We all make mistakes from time to time, but when someone asks for a clarification, that is no reason to go all medieval on one's ***. Either quote your source, as I did, and which Ross backed up with a photo, or apologize for the mistake and move on. Focus and get on board with the point, as someone recently said.
You are correct in that there is a lot of mis-information, on just about any subject, on the internet. And it is our duty, as a respected source for correct info, that we do our best to police ourselves and ensure our info is the most accurate and reliable possible. And I surely hope you can agree with me on that.
*
I surely hope your little speech wasn't directed at me. All I did was ask you to double check your information, since it conflicted with my original Ford documentation. I was polite in my comment, and am not sure how you got a "dog pile" from it. If you had something different, I was interested in seeing it.
For the record, there were two posts in this thread where you clearly stated the consecutive unit numbers started with 100001, instead of the correct 10001.* That is not a typo, that is an error. We all make mistakes from time to time, but when someone asks for a clarification, that is no reason to go all medieval on one's ***. Either quote your source, as I did, and which Ross backed up with a photo, or apologize for the mistake and move on. Focus and get on board with the point, as someone recently said.
You are correct in that there is a lot of mis-information, on just about any subject, on the internet. And it is our duty, as a respected source for correct info, that we do our best to police ourselves and ensure our info is the most accurate and reliable possible. And I surely hope you can agree with me on that.
*
Well, it's still a typo when you do alot of cut and paste like I do. But in reality, I just simply didn't check my work the way I should have and your right - It was an error. You'll have to forgive me. When you post as much information as I do, there's bound to be an error from time to time.
And this error didn't occure because I didn't know the correct answer, or because I didn't have the page Ross posted or you referenced, I've posted that myself about 20 times here (when no one else seemed to be interested) - it occured because it was a late post and I was simply too tired to go back and re read it.
But thank goodness I know that I can always count on a few of you guys to point those out when the occasion arises. Seems to be a mission by a few folks lately - I'm tired of the mission.
Given this post and our responsibility, especially since my posts have come under such scrutiny by a few folks lately, I'll do my best to shape up Merc! I'm just such a screw up. And I need guys like you to keep me in line.
If you would like to discuss this further feel free to send me a PM and we can have an honest discussion off line.
#34
#35
beforeOn January 12, 2010 I was passing the scap yard by my work and saw a guy hauling an old F1 to be crushed. I have always wanted that model so I swooped in literally 2 minutes it was to be crushed and bought it for $300. It is missing the bed and the engine, but is otherwise all there plus plenty of rust. So for a few weeks now I have been combing forums and websites to determine exactly what I have, but I need a little help with this one. Vin is 98RC494275. So I have determined that it is a '49, 50, or '51 with a V8 and is a half ton. I read that the main difference between a '49 & '50 was that they relocated the gear shift to the column sometime during the '50 year. Mine is on the floor, so I assumed it to be a '49. However today I was researching my rear-end. It is the Dana 41 with the optional 4.27 gearing. It has a production date of 9/16/50. Now I am wondering again what year I have. Probably a '50, but with a September date it might even be a '51 (but it has the small rear window I think). Anyway it looks to be the 494,275th truck produced with the "98RC" prefix, so I was wondering if anyone had any information about how many F1's were produced per year. Or are there any other clues I can look for to determine the year. Please feel free to correct any and all of my assumptions or bad research. Any help is greatly appreciated. RLF
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
zerfetzen
1973 - 1979 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
114
07-28-2022 03:38 AM
Rennat_2006
1948 - 1956 F1, F100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
33
09-25-2019 10:46 AM
Joeblowv1
1980 - 1986 Bullnose F100, F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
6
03-16-2016 09:32 AM
shep71804
1948 - 1956 F1, F100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
17
01-06-2013 05:41 PM