390-Equipped: 1971 Ford F-250 Ranger 4×4
Deciding which path to pursue with a project build is sometimes challenging, especially when an owner has no “lived” experience with the vehicle. There’s nothing like spending time behind the wheel to assess a vehicle’s needs, and that opportunity is available with this 1971 Ford F-250 Ranger 4×4. It is mechanically healthy and structurally sound, allowing the new owner to understand its needs by slipping behind the wheel and hitting the road. The F-250 is set to head to a new home, with the seller listing it here on eBay in Darby, Montana. Bidding has raced past the reserve, sitting at $12,000 at the time of writing.
Ford produced its Fifth Generation F-Series range from 1967 until 1972, with this F-250 rolling off the line in 1971. It is unclear whether it has undergone restoration or if the existing Mallard Green paint is original. The accumulated scratches and defects suggest the latter, although the healthy shine allows the Pickup to present acceptably for a survivor-grade classic. It has spent its life as a farm truck in Montana, and that type of existence often leaves exteriors battered and bruised. This Ford isn’t perfect, but any visible dings and dents should be easily addressed. One thing it lacks is significant rust. There is typical surface corrosion but no evidence of steel penetration. The chrome and trim look remarkably good, and there are no glass issues. The Ranger rolls on a set of wider 16″ steel wheels wrapped in excellent tires from the good folks at BF Goodrich.
The VIN indicates this F-250 rolled off the lot with a 360ci V8 under the hood, but the seller has verified that the engine bay now houses a 390ci powerplant. This is a worthwhile upgrade, lifting power and torque from 215hp and 327 ft/lbs to 255hp and 376 ft/lbs. The V8 is bolted to a four-speed manual transmission and a dual-range transfer case, allowing the Pickup to delve deep into the wilderness or function as an effective tow vehicle. The lack of rust was the first piece of positive news, and this continues when we examine the vehicle’s mechanical health. The seller admits there is a slight oil leak from the front crankshaft seal, but that appears to be the most serious issue. The drivetrain is in excellent health, with the 4×4 running and driving extremely well. It cruises effortlessly on the open road at 70mph, proving it has more than one string to its bow. The transfer case has a PTO, and the seller will include a winch and matching bumper if the winning bidder wants them. That is an offer worth accepting if the buyer plans on off-road adventures.
This F-250’s interior is a mixed bag because while the door trims look pretty good, there are shortcomings the buyer will probably tackle to improve its presentation. The painted surfaces sport the typical scratches and marks, and the pad is cracked. The seatcover is an unknown quantity, and the wheel is cracked. There are no insurmountable problems, and how the new owner tackles them will depend on their vision and budget. A new seatcover will lighten their wallet by around $400, with a pad adding $530 to the tally. A wheel restoration kit retails for approximately $50, but the interior would look like a million dollars with those items installed and the painted surfaces refreshed.
This 1971 Ford F-250 Ranger 4×4 has much to offer a new owner, and the winning bidder could enjoy it untouched for adventure during the upcoming summer months. The bidding action has been relatively restrained, with only twelve submitted at the time of writing. It could remain affordable if it doesn’t intensify, bringing us to a point to ponder. It needs work to present at its best, but history shows that older Pickups are an appreciating asset in the classic market. Even if the purchase and restoration costs $25,000 all up, the value will almost certainly climb. Those without the patience to tackle a build could buy a new F-250, which will lighten their wallet by at least $55,000. In that case, the knock-out blow isn’t the price but the mind-numbing depreciation during the first five years. Hmm, spend $25,000 on an appreciating classic or $55,000 on a new one that will drop in value? I know which I’d choose. What about you?
Auctions Ending Soon
2002 Subaru Impreza WRXBid Now1 days$333
1975 Chevrolet Corvette ConvertibleBid Now1 days$4,000
1964 Ford F-100 Camper CustomBid Now1 days$2,000
2006 Jeep Wrangler SportBid Now3 days$11,000
1974 Datsun 260ZBid Now5 days$750
Comments
Now this is my kind of work truck. ..I would love to own this.
❤️❤️
IMO, this truck needs nothing but a Saturday worth of cleaning. These are real trucks perfect for a conversation piece on my weekly trip to the feed mill during the nice weather months. Keep it clean and out of the mud, snow and salt and preserve it as is. If it really is as good as it is presented, 15K would seem like a pretty fair price. Unfortunately the logistics are preventing me from pursuing it.
The 67-72 F Series was the best of all worlds in a pick-up. Utility oriented with the sleekness of and comfort for a nice ride in style. Bought a 76 new and only worthy “refinement” over the 67-72 version was placing the fuel tank underneath, not behind the seat. Reminisce when a pickup was a sign of a “working guy” and not a payment bound over priced high lift prestige toy hot rod for someone that needs to confirm their masculinity. Of course that’s just my humble opinion.
Your 76 also got you front disc brakes.
But the ’76 and up open-knuckle front axle seemed to be less durable than the older closed-knuckle design, which was the only type available for many years. I prefer this truck’s design, because of the front axle, but also the front drum brakes. A frozen caliper with a dragging brake is not something I would enjoy on a truck capable of being far off-road, and that just doesn’t happen to drum brakes. Nevertheless, this truck is a gem!!
The fuel tank behind the seat wasn’t such a bad idea for a working truck, although the fuel sloshing might be slightly annoying, at times. The great advantage was that it was hard to damage the tank or fuel lines when it was protected by a structure designed to contain and protect the driver and passenger, since the driver was more aware of the cab’s integrity than he might have been about a rock, a root, or other peril to a frame-mounted tank. With an in-cab tank, likely the driver or passenger would have been injured before the tank was imperiled. Fewer rust problems with the tank and fuel line, too.
It was actually a great heavy duty F250 390 4 speed but didn’t survive my 3 sons making it “their truck” if you know what I mean.
In the 1970s I lived in a remote, mountainous area with a 17 mile unimproved, rarely maintained dirt road to town. We had just about every kind of 4WD vehicle at one time or another: Land Rovers, WWII Power Wagons, International Scouts, Willys, you name it, we had one. The Ford F-250 was the best, all around, most capable of all of them. This example would be the ideal truck for that place, then or now. The new ones are better on the highway, but not where you really need a 4WD.
This is the perfect truck, but I’d be hard pressed to pay $12-15k for one. Not that it’s not worth it, but it’s just a surprising amount of money.
Then again, 25 years ago in school I bought a 72 F250 2wd out of a barn for $600, rebuilt the engine and trans, swapped beds for something less rusty, did the brakes, tires, radiator, cleaned the fuel tank…and in today’s dollars I had eventually spent about $10k. The 360 with a mild cam, headers and alum intake was a great engine too.
So, in reality this is a much better truck for not much more money I guess.
The rust was an issue, in those years. Ford was slow to get E-Coating paint onto its lines – odd, because they invented the process – but the truck lines were among the last to get it.
I was out of school, living and working in the snow belt of Southwestern New York State; and these trucks were popular with dairy farmers and contractors. Unfortunately for them, salt was popular with highway departments and village DPWs. The way those 1967-72 models rusted, was just fearful.
And I saw how it went, as several of my co-workers owned Fords of that generation. They weren’t even that old – four to nine years old – but some were so gone with the tin worm, they were little more than scrap.
It’s worth remembering with this one. Montana is a dry climate, three seasons a year; and careful use will keep the rust at bay; but to buy it and drive it as a work truck, will involve a lot of corrosion or a lot of preventative work.
This is the perfect truck, but I’d be hard pressed to pay $12-15k for one. Not that it’s not worth it, but it’s just a surprising amount of money.
Then again, 25 years ago in school I bought a 72 F250 2wd out of a barn for $600, rebuilt the engine and trans, swapped beds for something less rusty, did the brakes, tires, radiator, cleaned the fuel tank…and in today’s dollars I had eventually spent about $10k. The 360 with a mild cam, headers and alum intake was a great engine too.
So, in reality this is a much better truck for not much more money I guess.
Same, im still stuck in 80s term of limit too how much I would pay for a capable truck. Im debating about a conundrum I just got myself into ref a FJ62 in really good condition i picked up for 4800. drive it like it is or dump further cash in for a future investment for my kid.
Are you sitting down? Some of these are selling for as high as 40-70 grand on certain auction platforms where people have more money than brains. And then in the comments they say it was a great deal.They’ve gotten crazy like early Bronco prices.
To me this 390 4 speed 4 wd and the 1970 350 4bbl Chevy 3/4 ton 4 speed 4 wheel drives were how it was done ( before the Cummins)
I crunched this exact same truck with a rod knock, and a couple rusty cab corners, it was the 90s and I had my 64 F. Power steering by Armstrong.
Looks like a solid truck,you get about 9mpg highway or city,and as far cruising the open road at 70mph,you will be running at about 3500rpm when you do….The 255hp rating would be for the 1971 390 2v if that is of the same year…For 1972 the hp really nose dived down to just 160hp…
My boss who owned a gas station back in the day bought a 1972 F-100 can’t remember if it had the 360 or the 390. It was a 3 on the tree. No power steering. No power brakes. It was the same color as the one for sale. He was kinda a Jack of all trades. It was a Texaco gas station. He was a U-Haul dealer. Chicago Motor Club service. Repaired lawn mowers. That poor half ton truck wore a lot of hats. The biggest issue was backing trailers namely 6×12’s or 6×14’s with no power steering. You learned the hard way and real fast what to do.
It was in Peoria Illinois and back then I remember him running tire chains on the snow tires. Inevitable to run down to where he stored extra trailers and a chain would break and take a bunch of paint off the rear quarters.
A lot of good times working for him while in high school
Really nice truck. Would love to own this
Nice looking truck, but how can you say “no evidence of steel penetration”? Obviously contributed to by road salt accumulation along the right side of the roadway, behind the right front tire shows a hole in the front fender that you could put 3 or 4 fingers through. Also concerning is the hole in the front of the passenger rocker/door sill that is visible in the open door picture. No undercarriage photos combined with these really make me wonder of the overall condition underneath.
my fav vehicle. Looks, use, more. Kinda like the 400M as the largest ‘square motor’ (12v if used on rd haulin tho; 300 if off rd). Justa ZF S5-47 swap-in if needed (I like the NP435’s 6.68:1 1st tho) again change if interstate haulin (allison auto transmis). But the haulers should B the 350 not 2 (and above).
Right color 2. May B a pipe bumper up frnt along w/ 1 of the 2 PTOs from the ZF out there too? I like ‘sleeper dump beds’. May B the 2nd could go there?
These 5th generation highboys are rare, there is maybe 1 at a car show, 3 or 4 2wd’s and 8 56 f100’s. These and power wagons will always have a percentage of followers including I.