 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / March 2007Am I insane?
I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. First candidate: '93 F150, extended cab, 6' bed, 300/automatic. Beautiful body. everything seems to work but A/C. Second candidate: '72 F100, "custom" trim, 6' bed, 302/3-speed. Pretty unmolested except hubcaps are missing and it's been converted to a crappy floor shift. It's also a bit of a rustbucket. The box is great but the cab floor has been repaired and the underhood (inner fenders, etc.) sheetmetal and hood need to be replaced, as well as the lower door skins. Seems to have zippy mechanical issues other than brakes however, and I have a drum brake rebuild down to a science (I've been helping a friend of mine resurrect "barn cars" for years.) Both trucks have current VA inspections and drive reasonably well; the '72 actually felt a little tighter than the '93, but both show signs of use. The '72 also has manual drum brakes and no P/S although it's not a HUGE issue for me, I know that the brakes were not working correctly when I test drove it so comments on their effectiveness when working well would be appreciated. The only vehicles with 4-wheel drums that I have real experience driving are Studebaker cars, and those are apparently some of the best from what I've heard, so I don't know how the Ford truck brakes stack up. I am really undecided... while this would be a no-brainer for most people, I am drawn to that cute little '72. My rationale is that it's old enough to be a "classic" so repro parts are readily available and cheap, as are maintenance parts like water pumps, fuel pumps, etc. plus it's dead nuts simple and also is easy to upgrade with things like maybe a modern 5-speed and some European headlights (I like seeing at night.) Plus the darn thing just has more CHARACTER than a generic '93 blahmobile. The smaller size is a plus for me as I have limited driveway space. Am I nuts for even considering the '72? Questions, comments, concerns? nate  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >Am I nuts for even considering the '72? Questions, comments, concerns? > >nate Yes, I am afraid that you are nuts. As a person that suffers from the same disease you do (old-car-gotta-have-it-its) I would say to remember the original goal. Get something reliable because you have enough projects with the cars you already have. If the '72 was pristine I would think about it for a while but you will end up dumping all your money in time in an ol' rust bucket and when you get done you will have a lonely Studebaker and an ol' rust bucket with some new parts. Get the '93 and save the car time and budget for something great like the Studebaker. Steve B. >>Am I nuts for even considering the '72? Questions, comments, concerns? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > As a person that suffers from the same disease you do > (old-car-gotta-have-it-its) So you'd buy the '72 then :) > I would say to remember the original goal. > Get something reliable because you have enough projects with the cars > you already have. See, this is where my warped mentality comes in. I figure that the '72 probably *will* be more reliable than the '93, and cheaper/easier to fix (i.e. I can probably do it in my driveway) when something mechanical *does* break. Is this a real concern? Or is a '93 Ford generally a pretty reliable truck, even with all the electronics? If it makes any difference, both are essentially "barn cars" at this point; the '72 was "resurrected" by a previous owner, and the current owner of the '93 has let it sit for the better part of the year. So I'd be doing the "change all the fluids and repack the bearings" drill on either one, either way. Theoretically the '72 should be in better shape mechanically because the current owner is a "car guy" while the '93's owner is not... but I trust no one when it comes to maintenance... nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >So you'd buy the '72 then :) No. I would want it really bad but rule #1 in my book now is no rust. Luckily I am in FL and no rust cars are everywhere at bargain prices. Probably not the same for you up there in the arctic tundra (anything past the georgia state line is arctic tundra for me now). >> I would say to remember the original goal. >> Get something reliable because you have enough projects with the cars [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Is this a real concern? Or is a '93 Ford generally a pretty reliable >truck, even with all the electronics? You wouldn't have any trouble with repairing the electronics if any problems arise. >If it makes any difference, both are essentially "barn cars" at this >point; the '72 was "resurrected" by a previous owner, and the current [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >nate This isn't the same barn truck you asked about a few weeks ago is it? The rust is just such a deal killer for me and I know I would get tired of not having power steering and brakes on that truck. Good luck and let us know which one you bring home!! Steve B. > I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. > First candidate: '93 F150, extended cab, 6' bed, 300/automatic. > Beautiful body. everything seems to work but A/C. Is this the same one as before or another one? > Second candidate: '72 F100, "custom" trim, 6' bed, 302/3-speed. Pretty > unmolested except hubcaps are missing and it's been converted to a > crappy floor shift. It's also a bit of a rustbucket. The box is great > but the cab floor has been repaired and the underhood (inner fenders, > etc.) sheetmetal and hood need to be replaced, as well as the lower door > skins. Seems to have zippy mechanical issues other than brakes however, > Both trucks have current VA inspections and drive reasonably well; the > '72 actually felt a little tighter than the '93, but both show signs of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > apparently some of the best from what I've heard, so I don't know how > the Ford truck brakes stack up. Not having driven such a truck I can't really say. What size are the drums? There are a number of ford 4-wheel drum brake cars with undersized drums (usually on 6 cylinder models though) that don't have a hope of dealing with modern traffic. Early 70s is when the cars equipped with the smaller engines finally got the bigger drums of the others. Like I said I don't really know the truck line so I don't know if something similiar was done. If they are big enough they should be good enough. Wouldn't commute everyday in it, but it should work alright. A good move might be to go somewhat wider wheels and good tires to get everything out of the drums. > I am really undecided... while this would be a no-brainer for most > people, I am drawn to that cute little '72. My rationale is that it's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > blahmobile. The smaller size is a plus for me as I have limited > driveway space. > Am I nuts for even considering the '72? Questions, comments, concerns? No, but it would be better if it weren't for the rust. Odds are the rust will be the battle you'll be fighting with it. > I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unmolested except hubcaps are missing and it's been converted to a > crappy floor shift. It's also a bit of a rustbucket. (snip) Depends on the initial cost, how long you intend to keep it, and how you intend to use it. Come to Texas. You can find 72's with no rust still being driven for around $1000. >>I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Come to Texas. You can find 72's with no rust still being driven for > around $1000. Yeah, I know. *sniffle* the problem is, that turns into $2K real fast to get it up here. That, and they don't seem to be advertised nationally. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel I'd opt for the newer truck. Mainly, there is a 20 year difference. On a car, that's a lot of age, dude. I grant you that the 72 is simple, per se, mechanically. But that's an almost 40 year old body and drivetrain!!!!!!!! If U into the 72 for restoration, cool. If you into it as a daily driver, I wouldn't. Unless, you okay with drive it until it dies, and scrap it. SignatureKnifeblade_03 http://www.automotiveforums.com > I'd opt for the newer truck. Mainly, there is a 20 year difference. On > a car, that's a lot of age, dude. I grant you that the 72 is simple, > per se, mechanically. But that's an almost 40 year old body and > drivetrain!!!!!!!! If it weren't for the rust, age would be a COMPLETE non-issue. 40 years is no worse than 5 years unless there's been abuse. Heck, my daily driver is 41 years old. > I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > nate The 72 *would* be my pick, but I'd run from it because of the rust issue. Nothing wrong with a 300 powered 93, though. Well, Steve, I hear ya re the rust issue. I disagree with the age issue. We could ad nauseum the issue, but I believe that a near 40-yr old ride will have more deterioration issues than a newer vehicle. Age is still age, and age deteriorates. SignatureKnifeblade_03 http://www.automotiveforums.com Skinny twin sister (she isn't my sister) next door to me said she is soon going to trade her little late model Ford car in on an older model Ford Ranger pickup truck.I own a longgggg wheelbase 1978 Dodge van.I reccomend any old lonnnnggg wheelbase vans (Ford,Chevrolet,GMC,Dodge) which date back to the 1970's.That is only me opinionated opinion though. cuhulin I hate to barge in (well,I really don't hate it) like this again.But,speaking about Studebakers,when I was a kid oh so long ago,some of us kids,when we saw a Studebaker car or truck,we used to sing,,,,, Studebaker,Studebaker,ten feet tall,Studebaker,Studebaker,spit on the wall. I own a few Studebaker thingys. cuhulin >Well, Steve, I hear ya re the rust issue. I disagree with the age issue. > >We could ad nauseum the issue, but I believe that a near 40-yr old ride >will have more deterioration issues than a newer vehicle. Age is still >age, and age deteriorates. Yes, but for the most part what deteroriates on a 40-year-old vehicle is rubber and plastic, not metal. The nice thing about the '72 is that there isn't a lot of rubber and plastic on it. Buying an old '72, you will almost certainly need to replace every rubber seal on the thing, from the window seals and door gaskets on down to the engine mounts. You may have to replace a lot of plastic junk in the interior as well. But once you've done that, there isn't a lot else to go wrong. --scott (STILL finding weird rubber failures on his '74...) Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. <snip> > Am I nuts for even considering the '72? Questions, comments, concerns? > > nate No, you're not nuts, you're a car guy. That said, if you need a pickup truck for pickup type stuff, I'd probably go for the 93 if they're around the same price just because it'll be able to be a truck (abused and neglected) for longer than the 72 will because it's 20 years newer. And the other guys are right - if you buy it as a project truck, it'll cut into your Stude time... That's why we bought an 02 Subaru wagon as a family car instead of a mid 90's Impala SS or a WRX or anything that was even remotely project-able... I have two Trans Ams and a race Camaro - I need another project car like I need a hole in the head. Of course, I've already looked into the turbo kits for the Legacy... same engine as the WRX... you're not alone. :) Ray I own a 12 horsepower electric start Briggs & Stratton twin cylinder air cooled engine,,, I need to build me a simple three wheeler car for running back and forth to the food store on them old slow poke back roads. cuhulin > First candidate: '93 F150, extended cab, 6' bed, 300/automatic. > Beautiful body. everything seems to work but A/C. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and I have a drum brake rebuild down to a science (I've been helping a > friend of mine resurrect "barn cars" for years.) Hello Nate, I figured I'd chime in here with my own $.02. I'm not terribly impressed with either truck. The '72 does sound cool, and those things are generally tough as nails. But a rusted out, red-necked-out pickup truck can be a money pit. How's the wiring? Personally I hate cleaning up someone else's mess, and if the truck has a floor shifter conversion and who knows whatelse, I'll bet the wiring is a nightmare. Meanwhile, the '93 sounds pretty sloppy. You say you want a modern 5 speed and headlights that work...so why not buy a truck that has those things to start with? You seem to like Fords, so I'd look for a late 80's or early 90's with the 300 six and a five speed. Stone reliable and I'm pretty sure at least the early ones still had glass headlights (instead of the horrible '90s plastic that turns to a yellow haze). You should be able to find a good runner for a couple thou. If such trucks aren't readily available in your area, we've got a ton of them sitting around here in the deep south. Peace, Harry >>First candidate: '93 F150, extended cab, 6' bed, 300/automatic. >>Beautiful body. everything seems to work but A/C. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Peace, > Harry Actually I hate Fords, I really want... well, anything else... preference would be Studebaker, IH, Dodge, or Chevy in that order but my budget is such that I can't ship anything in and apparently I live in Ford country :/ I have literally been looking for weeks and I have seen *ONE* Chevy locally (with "minor rust and dents" - heh - but it did run great) and none of any other brands, at least not in the price range I'm looking at (i.e. dirt cheap.) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. Just going through chicago CL listings looking to see what interesting and odd things are out there when two reminded me of this thread. Now here's a project: http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/car/298405340.html http://new.photos.yahoo.com/wholesale2u2004/album/576460762393454487 Then there also was this: http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/car/298940456.html >>I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now here's a project: > http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/car/298405340.html Now that's what I'm talking about! I could do without the crew cab (or the rust) but that's my idea of a proper beater truck. Plus my dad has a complete Scout II that has been "retired" for a decade or so due to rust but still runs great. > http://new.photos.yahoo.com/wholesale2u2004/album/576460762393454487 > > Then there also was this: > http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/car/298940456.html A little pricey, but that sure is cute. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > A little pricey, but that sure is cute. Another one that fits your requirements but probably asking more than you want to spend.... http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/car/300068452.html Just for giggles I searched DC CL for "1972" and got this match: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/car/300067500.html 1972 CHEVROLET CHEYENNE CAMPER SPECIAL CLASSIC TRUCK - $2500 And this: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/car/296774349.html 1972 GMC Pick Up 2500 Series - $2000 Switched to "1973" got this: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/car/299349541.html 1973 Ford Bronco Sport - $2500 looks a bit rusty though... "1974" yielded: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/car/299753020.html "1971" got: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/car/297786323.html A ford F-100 with a nice body but doesn't run. And lastly: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/car/296312189.html 1970 Chevy Truck Project Truck - $1200 >>>>I need a pickup. I've narrowed it down to two choices, both Fords. >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/car/296312189.html > 1970 Chevy Truck Project Truck - $1200 I like the Camper Special... that must be newly listed; I didn't see it last week. Clinton is a bit of a hike, though, but it is a 3/4 ton... (i.e. "real truck") that body style is my favorite to look at of all the Chevys, I didn't like the 73-up nearly as well. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel Saw this and thought of you poor guys up North with no good rust-free trucks. http://www.durhamauctions.com/april14_jacksoncounty.html I've bought two cars through this auction company and have had great experiences. Peace, Harry > Saw this and thought of you poor guys up North with no good rust-free > trucks. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Peace, > Harry yeah, rub it in :( nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.