A good way to test the journalistic independence of an auto history writer is to see how he or she addresses a problematic product. So when I recently bought Patrick Foster’s book, Ford Tough: 100 Years of Ford Trucks (2023), I was curious about how he approached the controversial 1961-63 F-Series “Styleside” pickup.
Foster offered only a brief description of the truck’s key features when it was unveiled, such as a cargo area integrated with the cab so that the traditional break in sheetmetal between the two was eliminated.
Then, in a section about the 1962 model year, he noted that “(b)uyer resistance” forced Ford “to reintroduce the separate box style as seen on the earlier 1957 through 1960 trucks. Exactly what the problem was is difficult to learn at this distance, but worries about body flex causing rippled sheet metal were a likely concern” (p. 116).
That explanation was more vague and squishy than what I have found elsewhere, such as that body flex could result in the doors of fully loaded trucks either jamming shut or popping open while driving . . . and that the stylish, wrap-around back window on top-end models could fall out (go here).
An auto history writer might go as far as to state that the problems with the Styleside undercut Ford’s attempt to market its trucks as tough. But not Foster.
Instead, he noted that 1963 “was the last year for the Styleside integrated bed; as sharp-looking as always, they simply failed to catch on with buyers.” A photo caption added, “For some reason the fancy Styleside pickups never really caught on with the buying public. . . . It was too bad — just look how handsome and sleek this F-100 Custom Cab looks compared to an ordinary bed truck” (p. 117).
RE:SOURCES
- Foster, Patrick; 2023. Ford Tough: 100 Years of Ford Trucks. Chartwell Books.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Ford trucks (1962)
It’s tempting to say they only needed to call on Ford Australia.
We’d been building ‘unitary’ pickups in this sense since the 1934 Coupe Utility, with no problems. I remember them still on the road as a kid. Once Ford led, everyone got into the act, and Holden offered similar bodies on both car (Chevrolet) and truck (Chevrolet and GMC) chassis, as did Chrysler (Dodge and fargo), both pre- and post-war. Australian automotive bodies were locally made and diverged a lot from US bodies in the thirties and forties. I think Ford kept their ‘unitary’ pickups to the car chassis though.
With almost 30 years of in-house experience, why was this a problem for Ford?
So did they sell these in Australia for 1961, you ask? No, just the basic separate-bed pickup. We weren’t as prosperous as formerly and the demand wasn’t there for a high-style pickup. I doubt we would have tried for a wraparound rear window though. I think that area of the cab must have carried high stress loadings – though Holden’s ’57-64 car-based utes managed it (albeit with a three-piece rear glass), but that’s with a smaller payload.
I would guess with the demise of the full size Ranchero Ford wanted a stylish upscale pickup to remain in the line. I also agree that the integrated bed/cabin left potential buyers concerned about problems down the road.
Remember that Ford (U.S.) was also launching the Econoline vans and trucks series, which unless loaded, were fraught with problems related to (unloaded) front-end weight bias that initially could lead to the Econoline to flipping on its front-end under heavy braking (which Chevrolet aptly demonstrated in its dealer films). Ford’s fix for this was to put a 250-pound slab of metal in the rear end of the Econoline, which must have made those vehicles even more sluggish with their Falcon-based six. I wonder if Ford’s truck engineering staff was focused on complete development or if the pre-production testing was adequate. Obviously not !