Hooniverse Truck Thursday – A 1952 Ford F-600 Cabover Resto-Mod on Craigslist

Jim Brennan
0

Comments

This is a 1954 Cab Over Ford, used for illustration purposes only.

Welcome to another edition of Truck Thursday, and I will NOT be doing a marathon edition of Truck Thursday because the weather cleared here, and I have to get some work done…..
But that doesn’t mean I can ignore actually writing a Truck Thursday Posting. We received this juicy tip from jeepy jayhawk (Thanks, Man!) about this particularly interesting 1952 Ford F-600 Cabover, that has been tweaked!


According to the listing:

1952 Ford F-600 ; 2-ton with flatbed ; bed is 7 ft. 4 in. by 15 ft. with PTO hydraulic hoist that works great ; 302 V-8 ; power windows ; power steering ; 4-speed with 2-speed rear axle ; bucket seats ; tilt steering wheel ;radial tires 60 % or better ; all the glass is good except driver’s side it has a crack but still in good condition ; truck is in excellant condition and is 95 % rust free

Now, part of me hates the resto-mod movement (that is dropping a modern power-train into a stock looking vintage vehicle), but I can’t deny the advantages of a modern V-8, or the convenience of having power accessories, but if you’re going to do a build this way, why not spring for the A/C? Anyway, this truck is being offered at $6,500. See the listing here.
Lead Image: Hemmings

About

Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here

  1. RichardKopf Avatar
    RichardKopf

    I much prefer the example given.

    Reply
  2. tonyola Avatar
    tonyola

    These old COE trucks are so odd-looking and cool at the same time. To me, the '38-'39 Ford COEs with the oval grille are the most desirable of all.
    <img src="http://i55.tinypic.com/jkhxti.jpg&quot; width=500>

    Reply
    1. zaddikim Avatar
      zaddikim

      Dead sexy. I saw a similar model (without the equipment in the back) hotrodded and dropped about fifteen years ago at a show'n'shine in Chilliwack beside two other COEs, Proper ugly trucks(tm) in the best sense of the term.
      Do want. The 'example given is very nice too.

      Reply
  3. muthalovin Avatar
    muthalovin

    I like it, but if you are going to resto-mod, thrown in A/C for Christ sake.

    Reply
    1. ZomBee Racer Avatar
      ZomBee Racer

      I believe these came standard with the old "2-55" air conditioning. Shouldn't be too hard to make functional.

      Reply
  4. CptSevere Avatar
    CptSevere

    Neat old truck. From what the ad says, all they really did with the mods is make it easier to live with. I don't really need that much truck, but I still wouldn't mind having this.

    Reply
  5. Froggmann_ Avatar
    Froggmann_

    Oh hi Clyde!
    A moving van version of this truck was part of my childhood. His name was Clyde. Despite the fact he would catch on fire once in a while he was a cool old truck.
    BTW here is what this truck could be with some fabbing, chassis stretching and an F-1 cab or two laying around:
    <img src="http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q53/Froggmann/Shows/Fab%20Fords%202010/IMG_4412.jpg&quot; width=600 /img>

    Reply
    1. CptSevere Avatar
      CptSevere

      Now, that's a car hauler. Do you have any pictures of Clyde?

      Reply
      1. Froggmann_ Avatar
        Froggmann_

        I wish, Clyde went to the junkyard in the sky back in 1989 or 90. Shame too, that old truck had so much potential.

        Reply
  6. Lotte Avatar
    Lotte

    Ooh! I want to see one in real life; I bet they are bigger than their smoothed-over-rampside-Econoline shape suggests.
    I've this image saved to my computer. I am still in love; they are like the Bettys of the auto world. Albeit a very big, muscular Betty who's more capable than you'll ever be and can outdrink you with ease, but anywho…
    <img src="http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4618/cabover002.jpg&quot; width="500">

    Reply
    1. tonyola Avatar
      tonyola

      These COE trucks are quite tall. Both the featured Ford and the Chevy you pictured use the basic pickup cab and doors, so you get an idea of how high these things sit. Here's the standard Chevy pickup for comparison.
      <img src="http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1947-1955-chevrolet-trucks-1947-1.jpg&quot; width=400>

      Reply
      1. Lotte Avatar
        Lotte

        Judging from these two photos, it looks to be about a foot taller. It also seems like they'd also had to cut the doors to fit the front wheel arches if they were using the same ones from the standard one.
        Thanks for the info, Tonyola! Honestly, you're a walking car encyclopedia.

        Reply
        1. Froggmann_ Avatar
          Froggmann_

          Also to give you some perspective the red car hauler I have pictured above has the cab of a 52 F-1 grafted onto the back of it along with the doors to create a crew cab.

          Reply
  7. $kaycog Avatar
    $kaycog

    I've seen several COE car haulers at car shows, but I've never seen a double-decker like this '38 Ford.
    <img src="http://www.hotrodhotline.com/feature/2008show/08chipsforkids/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_1766AA1.jpg"width="500"/&gt;

    Reply
    1. Vavon Avatar
      Vavon

      WOW!!!!!!!! That's absolutely awesome!!!

      Reply
      1. zsm Avatar
        zsm

        Pssst… click if you want to chase some storms You might need to expand BuickBoy92's comment.

        Reply
    2. zsm Avatar
      zsm

      Pssst… click if you want to chase some storms

      Reply
  8. Age_of_Aerostar Avatar
    Age_of_Aerostar

    Power Windows? DAYUM!

    Reply
    1. zsm Avatar
      zsm

      Pssst… Friends! You might need to expand BuickBoy92's comment.

      Reply
  9. tonyola Avatar
    tonyola

    Don't forget that this truck would originally had maybe 130 hp maximum. A 302 would work just fine.

    Reply
  10. sam Avatar
    sam

    coyote is a modern power plant. 302 is older than I am and I ain't no spring chicken.

    Reply
  11. dustin_driver Avatar
    dustin_driver

    302? Hmm. Diesel. Needs diesel.

    Reply
    1. Tomsk Avatar
      Tomsk

      Hot-rodded Powerstroke 7.3 FTW.

      Reply
      1. dustin_driver Avatar
        dustin_driver

        bankspower.com

        Reply
  12. CptSevere Avatar
    CptSevere

    It's got enough gearing with the two speed rear end and the four speed that the 302 probably is adequate.

    Reply
  13. dukeisduke Avatar
    dukeisduke

    It needs either 7.3 Power Stroke, or a 460. But a 302? No.

    Reply
  14. Van Sarockin Avatar
    Van Sarockin

    Nice truck. Nicer unrestored. Get it working. Then use it to haul some stuff. If you think you ought to wax it, it's time to sell it.

    Reply
  15. William Avatar
    William

    Maybe I'm too young to understand(born in 1981) but what was the reason behind cab-over trucks in the 1930s, 40s, and 50's? Wouldn't standard cabs (with conventional engine access) have worked just as well for medium-duty trucks, like the '51 Chevy at the link below?
    http://www.tripacer.org/truck/index.html

    Reply
    1. Froggmann_ Avatar
      Froggmann_

      Cab-over-engine trucks offer better visibility and maneuverability since the wheelbase can be shorter. It's the same reason why you see mostly cab-overs in more condensed settings like Cities.

      Reply
    2. topdeadcentre Avatar
      topdeadcentre

      Truck length limits played a big part. If you can save three feet by putting the cab over the engine, then you can build in three more feet of length in the payload area, and increase the amount of cargo capacity.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_over

      Reply
      1. Van sarockin Avatar
        Van sarockin

        Bingo.
        The higher seating position also aids visibility and keeps you above headlights.

        Reply
    3. coupeZ600 Avatar
      coupeZ600

      It all had to do with overall length limits- I think it was 65 ft total with two trailers and 55ft with one. That meant with two twenty-eight foot trailers and the converter gear that connects them you only had about five feet to work with for the tractor, so COE's (almost always w/o sleepers) were mandatory. A single forty-five foot trailer allowed ten feet for the tractor, so this allowed for a Conventional tractor and a sleeper. Management favored the Doubles, because this allowed for 56 ft. of deck space vs. the 45 ft. of a single long trailer. Drivers on the other hand favored the Conv/Single combo for numerous reasons; They ride nicer because you're in between the axles, instead of right over the steer-axle, They're more user-friendly, because you get in/out by climbing on, not straight up a ladder (Try that with a pack, clipboard, ice-chest and lunch-box!), Tipping the Cab to check the engine is a royal pain, especially when you hear that one loose thing you forgot vault up and hit the windshield, Plus pulling one trailer is more than twice as as easy as pulling two. Gawd, I could go on forever about how lame Cab-Overs are……
      That being said, I drove a KW K100 COE for 10+ years, and I loved that Truck.

      Reply
%d bloggers like this: