289 V8 Powered: 1964 Ford Econoline 1-Ton
“Shorter, lighter, and easier to maneuver”, The E-series pickup seems like it should have been such a big hit that they would still be made today. This example is a cool custom with a series of built-in tool boxes on the side and it’s a one-ton model. Oh yeah, it also has a 289 V8! This powerful pickup can be found here on Craigslist with an asking price of $5,500. It’s located in Colton, California. Thanks to Ikey H. for sending in another great tip!
It’s hard to tell from the photos, as is often the case, but this appears to be a pretty nice conversion to a tool-box-side Econoline pickup. Debuting for the 1961 model year, the Econoline pickup was made until 1967 and I can’t remember the last time that I saw a one-ton Heavy Duty version. It included reinforced structural members underneath, which the seller has thankfully added a photo of. Also, it added a front stabilizer bar, a 2,700-pound rear axle, heavy-duty brakes, 1,200-pound rear springs, 955-pound front springs, and heavy-duty shocks front and rear.
The seller hasn’t taken any overall exterior photos for this listing, every one of them has part of the vehicle cut off in the frame, but when the photos are pieced together it looks like a solid, straight pickup. The inside of the bed loses some cargo room due to the tool boxes on the passenger side but not enough to offset the useful and cool factor of having those toolboxes, at least in my opinion.
The interior of this forward-cab pickup has some added gauges and switches and a dash-mounted tach. The steering wheel looks a bit worn but overall it looks pretty good inside. I wonder what’s in-between those two high-back bucket seats?
The engine crammed inside the dog house is not the 100-hp 170 cubic-inch inline-six that most folks expected to see, the seller says that it’s a “289 V8 with a C4 transmission.” How’s that for an upgrade?! I don’t know what kind of power that V8 puts out but I’m guessing a solid 200 hp at least. Cool! I thought that my feet were big but I can’t imagine the shoehorn that they needed for this conversion. The seller says that this “Truck runs and have clean title and current registration. Perfect setup for a full restoration.” I couldn’t agree more, this would be one cool project pickup!
Auctions Ending Soon
2006 Ford Mustang Saleen S281 SCBid Now5 hours$16,000
2002 Subaru Impreza WRXBid Now3 days$333
1975 Chevrolet Corvette ConvertibleBid Now3 days$3,000
1964 Ford F-100 Camper CustomBid Now3 days$2,000
2006 Jeep Wrangler SportBid Now5 days$10,500
Comments
As they used to say about these things, the occupants are are always first at the scene of the accident…
Hopefully that 289 doesn’t make it too front heavy.
Those extra switches control the nitrous and transwarp drive…when you hit the second switch things get blurry really fast.
Does it get all the way to ‘Plaid’..? (It’s a reference from a Mel Brooks movie called ‘Spaceballs’.)
I’m sure someone would have a lot of fun owning it. Just the thing for a tradesperson to use as a ‘rolling calling card’.
I was thinking Millennium Falcon, but if you hit all of the switches then you go to plaid. LOL!
Ludicrous speed!
One brother had one of those years ago. Biggest issue was the amount of rust found in it. Once fixed, it was a fun vehicle for those that need to carry a little but not enough to justify a pickup truck.
Never seen one with an integrated toolbox.
No way is this a one ton. First off, they never made a 1 ton; all were considered 1/2 ton I think, and coverting it would involve a full floating rear and 8 lug to wheels. I would think its way overloaded with the weight of that tool box. Must corner like a bucket of bricks. hate to be so negative but you cant make chicken salad out of chicken doo doo. This thing looks dangerous My $.02 worth.
Cheers
GPC
BINGO! Nailed it. They were 1/4 ton, 1/2 ton at best, built around an Econoline van platform. And none came from the factory with a V-8 engine. This is someone’s cobbled up mess that they’re trying to unload
289 swap was common on these. That’s why a lot of folks favored them over vw buses and cabs. Don’t know much else about them though.
The most common 289 2V was rated 195 HP, with the 4V rated at 225 HP. The high performance 289 with a 4V and a solid lifter cam was rated at 271 HP. While the picture isn’t real clear, this looks like a 2V engine. The 289 / C-4 combination was available throughout the Ford line of cars in the mid 60’s. I drove one of these vans in the 60’s with the 170 engine and it was a real DOG!
Please remember that trucks (and vans) were rated at what the possible payload was. I can see 2,000 lbs. (properly distributed) carried in this vehicle. (remember 1 ton Toyota pick-ups with 5 lug wheels, 3/4 ton Dodge vans with 5 lug wheels, etc.) Because “man” has tended to overload vehicles since the invention of the wagon (“keep loading the wagon, as the mule is blind”) AND the fact that the previous mentioned vehicles were fairly light weight to begin with. These were accurate classifications for the time. (My GMC 2500HD which is considered a 3/4 ton and is rated at a GVWR of 9,200 lbs. with an empty weight of about 5,600 lbs. That makes a payload rating of 3,600 lbs.)
BUT, I would not to load one of these with 2,000 lbs of payload and then pull an 8,000 pound trailer! It does not have the suspension or brakes to handle the situation.
I had a customer that had purchased about everything that Banks sold for his Duramax 2500HD GMC. In 4X4 it would light all four tires in a glorious display of plumes of tire smoke. (what a fun thing it was!) He called me one day to discuss purchasing a new C5500 4X4 crew cab as his wife bought a new horse trailer with living quarters. I kidded him about not having enough “horse power” to pull the trailer. His answer was that the pulling power was not the issue. It was having to watch the 1 mile ahead in order to handle/stop the rig when needed!
I am restomodding a 1961 ePup. I will echo that in original shape these are kinda dangerous. The driving position is unique and fun.
This must be a very jarring ride when driven empty. Might want to keep your anvil collection in the tool boxes.
build a back bumper you can add weight to, drive like it has all drum brakes and no crash protection. it’s probably 60/40 weight dist.
Ford did build 1 ton versions. Here is another one.
http://topclassiccarsforsale.com/ford/246981-rare-1964-ford-econoline-pickup-1-ton-automatic.html
Frank
More BS. Not a one ton. Wouldn’t they use the same rear axle as the F-3/F-350? SHOW ME THE NAMEPLATE!
Definitely a 1/2 ton rear end. It’s a 5 lug bolt pattern. Ford used Dana rear ends on 3/4 & 1 ton vehicles, which were 8 lug bolt patterns. The 1/2 ton rear end can handle the 289 / C-4 combination alright, but being uni-body construction, I’d be careful about how much load that I’d try to carry! It would probably get up and go pretty good, because I really doubt the rear axle ratio was changed from the original 6 cylinder engine!
That might even be a 9 inch rear, like they put in all the Broncos. Even if its an 8 inch, they are extremely strong, never seen a broken one. Good luck with this project, Definitely one of a kind!!
Cheers
GPC