Low Mileage 1960 Ford

[rick60]

I saw this car listed on Ebay. It was close to home, so I went to see it in person. It does appear to be a low mileage car. It has suffered from poor storage. There is absolutely no wear on the interior. There are no scuffs on the driver's side sill plate. Check out the auction.

Ford : Fairlane - eBay (item 170574715419 end time Dec-13-10 08:54:41 PST)

[92GTA]

Wow, very poor storage! Lots of rust on that thing, the frame and under body is terrible. How the heck could the engine possibly be that dirty and greasy?

Sure would be fun to clean up and drive though! Thanks for posting!

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Wow. Wonder why it only has 827 miles on it ? And what the heck happened to that RF bumper in only 827 miles ?

Odd combo of features: 352 cid V-8 "High performance with a two-barrel"(??!), A/C, PS, manual brakes and two-speed Dog-O-Matic ( Ford-O-Matic ).

The Buy-It-Now price is incredibly optimistic, IMHO.

If it were a Starliner 2-dr HT, that might help...

Hope it finds a good home...

[Jim Rohn]

Wow. Wonder why it only has 827 miles on it ? And what the heck happened to that RF bumper in only 827 miles ?

the original owner probably parked it after the incident with the right front ...

[Bob Hill]

From the pictures I don't believe it is a 827 mile original car - maybe a 100827 original car.

[Jim Rohn]

I beg to differ, 827 look right

all the normal wear areas are in perfect condition

a car of that vintage would not make it 108k miles without dust behind the gauges, wear on the arm rests, around the window cranks, etc

[Dave Henderson]

Just goes to show you, low mileage isn't everything. Personally, I've had better luck with used cars bought with over 100K miles than some of those with fewer miles. This includes an '88 Mazda that was bought at a yard sale for $300, driven for 10 years, and later, still running and without having had any major repairs, was sold for the same price. Care counts.

[ted sweet]

way over priced

[Bob Hill]

Well it may be an 827 mile car but it is the roughest looking 800 mile car I have ever seen.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I beg to differ, 827 look right

all the normal wear areas are in perfect condition

a car of that vintage would not make it 108k miles without dust behind the gauges, wear on the arm rests, around the window cranks, etc

Odometer miles may not reflect what is considered normal wear. A car used by a sales person making long trips will not show the same wear as one used as a daily commuter car. My Father had such a job and routinely put over 100K miles on a vehicle in two years and the interiors of those cars never had the signs of "typical wear." The seats of that car have an almost indestructible set of Haband clear seat covers from the times that have obviously protected the seats. Also not every part of the country is dust laden and most certainly a car with A/C is going to show less dust in out of the way places than one with 60 mph air. However there is dust around the turn signal indicators. There is also very significant wear on the driver side kick panel. The car is a 100827 mile car! I have yet to see a car with 827 miles on it that managed to loose all four nothing special about them hubcaps.

I'll suggest the odometer is a rollover given the amount of crud still on the engine after some sort of cleaning attempt. Actually the engine is not a 352 FE block engine of any nature. It is a 292 "Y" block as evidenced by the valve covers and the location of the distributor on the back of the block. The car is certainly not a $6,662.57 car. Maybe a $3,000.00 car, and certainly not a "museum" piece.

Jim

Edited December 9, 2010 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Larry Schramm]

I agree with the 100k+ based on the engine condition alone not to mention the other issues. Does not pass my "smell test" for a low mileage vehicle.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

I disagree on the 100,827 mile assessment:

1) No paint loss on steering wheel ( A high -mileage example would show paint-loss on the rim, and on the sides of the spokes where they meet the rim, due to contact of the drivers' hands.)

2) Little to no wear present on pedal pads

3) Little to no wear on original front mat/carpet and heel pad.

Now, that said, the speedo / odo might have quit at 00827 miles ( which would still be unusual ).

I think most of the damage to the driver's side cowl kick panel is from water leaking in at the windshield / cowl and running dow nthe door pillar and / or recently from muddy boots using the e-brake to stop the car, since the hydraulic service brakes are not working.

I still find it hard to concieve this example really has only 827 miles on it, but I don't think it has 100k on it either.

Storage was definitely not ideal; looks like a combination of high moisture, and possibly dirt floor ?

As for "what happened to the wheel covers", the may have been gone for a long, long time: note the presence of the chromed capped lug-nuts on all four wheels...

I am curious as to the purpose of the "starter button" under the left end of the dash, above the e-brake pedal ?

I am also curious why there are no pictures of the inside of the trunk?

If it was a Starliner hardtop, I could become interested, but as a "2-door post", it's just too homely for serious consideration.

[earl e rizer]

Well it may be an 827 mile car but it is the roughest looking 800 mile car I have ever seen.

I agree. It's pretty tough looking.

[oldford]

I think the 'starter button' is really a vent pull. I've had several 60's vintage Fords and all had vent pull in that location. I also think the 827 is bogus. Why would a car with 827 miles require a service tag on the A pillar? Also, notice the tires have different tread patterns. I smell a rat....

Frank

[Guest De Soto Frank]

I think the 'starter button' is really a vent pull. I've had several 60's vintage Fords and all had vent pull in that location. I also think the 827 is bogus. Why would a car with 827 miles require a service tag on the A pillar? Also, notice the tires have different tread patterns. I smell a rat....

Frank

Tires: the LR is an old bias ply, the other three are radials - later additions.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

I can't believe all you guys have missed the fact the claim of undercoating isn't exactly true. And then no one has raised the question of why in the heck a 1 gallon antifreeze jug would be wired to the underside of the body. Then you guys also missed the fact that apparently the fuel pump is a dead duck with the one gallon gas container with a fuel line protruding out of it is quite visible, or is it the fuel tank is Swiss cheese?

Most of all I'm truly surprised that no one other than myself has figured out the engine is not an FE block 352 of any nature, it is a 292 "Y" block as evidenced by the valve covers and location of the distributor.

Jim

[Guest Skyking]

Tires: the LR is an old bias ply, the other three are radials - later additions.

They are also narrow whites that didn't appear on Fords until 1962.

[trimacar]

This is a fun discussion. The car has led a life not pampered, that's a shame.

Remember that a speedometer is one of, maybe not the, easiest thing to replace on a car such as this.

So, ran it 80K miles, speedometer broke, put in another one turned back to zero, and then 800 some-odd miles later parked it.

Those magic numbers. What about the cars for sale, owner states "only 32000 miles, fully restored from a perfect original."

Huh?!?! So, if restored, then the miles have no meaning. If a perfect original, the restoration has no meaning.....

[Guest De Soto Frank]

"I can't believe all you guys have missed the fact the claim of undercoating isn't exactly true. And then no one has raised the question of why in the heck a 1 gallon antifreeze jug would be wired to the underside of the body. Then you guys also missed the fact that apparently the fuel pump is a dead duck with the one gallon gas container with a fuel line protruding out of it is quite visible, or is it the fuel tank is Swiss cheese? "

I didn't miss it; it seemed obvious from the photos, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

This is the first time I've seen an "auxiliary fuel tank" anti-freeze jug slung under the REAR of the vehicle; I usually place mine up front somewhere under the hood.

I would bet the fuel pump is okay; the presence of the red jug on the fender apron is probably for convenience of re-filling, rather than crawling under the car to the Prestone Jug.

And yes, the gas tank IS most likely Swiss-cheesed, whereever it now is (it is NOT under the car anymore, which is why you see rusty, non-undercoated flat- sheet-metal between the rear leaf springs).

The gas tank in my dear-departed '59 Edsel Villager Wagon ( read: re-badged Ford) was Swiss-cheese too: but on the TOP side. The wagon tank had a well in the top, to accommodate the spare tire well in the floor of the rear section of the wagon, and as the car go old, and the rear gate began to leak, water ponded first in the tire-well, then when that rusted-out, ponded on the top of the gas-tank, until THAT rusted-out too.

Didn't find this out until I drove it to the gas-station and filled-up the tank for the first time. :eek:

(Didn't start leaking until I had over 1/2 tank of gas into it... :mad: )

If it wasn't for the rusted-out gas-tank, I would have probably kept that car... :(

As for the engine, it looks similar the 352 V-8 that was in my Edsel, but perhaps I mis-remember.

Dad had a '62 Galaxy 500 with the 292, but that had the distributor up front, and I believe the valve-covers (blue) had bolts around the edge flanges ?

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

"I can't believe all you guys have missed the fact the claim of undercoating isn't exactly true. And then no one has raised the question of why in the heck a 1 gallon antifreeze jug would be wired to the underside of the body. Then you guys also missed the fact that apparently the fuel pump is a dead duck with the one gallon gas container with a fuel line protruding out of it is quite visible, or is it the fuel tank is Swiss cheese? "

I didn't miss it; it seemed obvious from the photos, so I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

This is the first time I've seen an "auxiliary fuel tank" anti-freeze jug slung under the REAR of the vehicle; I usually place mine up front somewhere under the hood.

I would bet the fuel pump is okay; the presence of the red jug on the fender apron is probably for convenience of re-filling, rather than crawling under the car to the Prestone Jug.

And yes, the gas tank IS most likely Swiss-cheesed, whereever it now is (it is NOT under the car anymore, which is why you see rusty, non-undercoated flat- sheet-metal between the rear leaf springs).

The gas tank in my dear-departed '59 Edsel Villager Wagon ( read: re-badged Ford) was Swiss-cheese too: but on the TOP side. The wagon tank had a well in the top, to accommodate the spare tire well in the floor of the rear section of the wagon, and as the car go old, and the rear gate began to leak, water ponded first in the tire-well, then when that rusted-out, ponded on the top of the gas-tank, until THAT rusted-out too.

Didn't find this out until I drove it to the gas-station and filled-up the tank for the first time. :eek:

(Didn't start leaking until I had over 1/2 tank of gas into it... :mad: )

If it wasn't for the rusted-out gas-tank, I would have probably kept that car... :(

As for the engine, it looks similar the 352 V-8 that was in my Edsel, but perhaps I mis-remember.

Dad had a '62 Galaxy 500 with the 292, but that had the distributor up front, and I believe the valve-covers (blue) had bolts around the edge flanges ?

Frank no variation of the "Y" block ever had the distributor located at the front of the engine. Period end of question!

And yes you misremember! Your '59 Edsel would not have had a 352 in it. It could have had a 292

"Y" block, a 332 FE block or a 361 MEL block.

FE block 332, 352, 390, 427, and 428s all had valve covers retained by six retention bolts, along with the distributor being located on the front of the engine.

I'm beginning to think you are the seller of that abortion the way you are defending it in the face of so many pointing out total inconsistency between the description of the car and what can be seen in the photos.

Jim

Edited December 10, 2010 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Guest billybird]

Although it is often difficult to evaluate a vehicle without seeing it, my opinion on this one is: not legit. Too many things don't add up.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Jim,

My Edsel probably had the 332 then. It's been gone nearly ten years.

And I have no connection to this E-bay Ford other han this thread here.

I'm not necessarily "Defending" the vehicle or its seller. I am suggesting that this vehicle does not seem to exhibit the requisite wear & tear to be a 100,827 mile car.

It's physical deterioration is obvious, and is a result of its storage environment; not how much it was used before it was mothballed.

And while my late-50's -early '60s Ford acumen might not be on par with yours, my eye-sight is pretty good, and I've certainly seen enough "barn / field-fresh" cars of this vintage (Fords included) to have some idea what I'm talking about.

Sorry if I've offended anyone by my comments on this thread...

Edited December 10, 2010 by De Soto Frank (see edit history)

[junkyardjeff]

When I was at Daytona Beach for the car show there was a 5000 mile 58 Ford 2 door sedan for sale at the Bell Aire plaza that was alot nicer then the 60,cant remember the price but the 58 needed nothing.

[rick60]

There is no rust on the body of this car. I own a '60 Ford and I'm very familiar with the body structure and locations that are prone to rust (everywhere). The paint on the top panels is faded badly, with areas that look as if something was splashed on it and caused the paint to lift. The rust streaks visible on the driver's side rocker panel are caused by surface rust on the front portion of the bottom of the driver's door. It appears that the factory did not fully cover the area with paint. The aluminum trim on the front is smooth. If the car was over 100k it would have a "sand blasted" appearance. The stainless trim does not have one dent. The pot metal parts are pitted. All glass is clear and perfect. The car was undercoated. There is no surface rust on the frame and under body. The core support has no rust out at the center mounting bolt. The core support and inner fenders are badly surface rusted where not covered with rust proofing. The paint applied to these parts at the factory was not intended to last 50 years. I have seen NOS inner fenders in similar condition. The paint on the engine is coming off in a similar fashion. This car still has its factory installed hoses and belts. The radiator clamps are original There are not a lot of oil leaks from the engine. The transmission appears to leak due to dried gaskets and seals. The power steering belt has been removed. It appears as if the slave cylinder is leaking from the shaft seal. The fuel tank is missing. Possibly sent out to be cleaned due to bad fuel and determined to be too far gone to repair. Just speculation on my part. The fuel pump is also missing. An electric pump is bolted to the left inner fender. The tires appear to be from about 1983. There are no pictures of the trunk because it won't open. The hub caps may be inside. The car was sold in Grays Lake Il. Then it went to Oak Park Il and finally Lombard Il. The condition of the interior convinces me that the miles are correct. Absolutely no wear. Looking under the dash looks factory fresh. No dust or dirt. The white grease on the parking brake assembly has no dirt accumulation. There are no little pieces of deterioated foam under the front seat. The trim panels are perfect. They look as fresh as the reproductions I purchased for my car. The rust on the driver's kick panel it caused by the metal wind lace retainer. Again, Ford didn't intend the paint on this item to last 50 years. No scuffs or wear on the rubber floor mat or sill plates. The instrument panel is perfect as is the headliner. The paint below the ignition switch is not worn from hanging keys. No paint wear on the shift lever. There is an after market item bolted to the left inner fender. It may be an alarm. I think the button under the dash is related to that unit The seller allowed me to look at the car as much as I wanted. He stated that he was unsure what to price to ask. Again, I think the miles are actual. The car has suffered from poor storage. Maybe it was in a carport. Out of the sun but exposed to the elements. The rust streaks indicate that the car has been wet. The owner wanted the buyer to see the car as it was found. That is the reason it is dirty. It will need quite a bit of work and money to put it back on the road. I would love to detail this car and take it to the survivor show in St Charles Il.

[keiser31]

I, for one, cannot give an honest opinion on whether the car has 827 miles on it without seeing it in person, but I will say that storage IS everything. Think back a bit when most of us watched through videos, the unearthing of a buried 1957 or '58 Plymouth in a "time capsule". Anyone remember what it looked like? It was paper thin and full of rust. Gee...when it went in, it had under 100 miles on it. Yes...water got into the capsule and pretty much destroyed a brand new car.

I remember a 1951 DeSoto limousine that lived in a funeral home garage in southern California. Low miles....near perfect....except, it lived at the beach. Eventually, the salt air got in through the garage vents and started eating away at this beautifully original car.

You never know about mileage sometimes...

[rick60]

After looking at the ad I fully expected the car to be over 100k. After seeing the car I'm convinced it is not over 100k. All of the issues with the car can be caused by poor storage, not use.

[keiser31]

There could be any number of reasons as to why the no hub caps and the chrome lug nuts and different tires. Maybe they just had to put tires on it to move it or did not feel like putting the caps back on? Who knows the real story? The seller.

[junkyardjeff]

The seller keeps insistiing it has a 352 high performance motor which it does not and has the base 292 V8 and was told so but does not want to listen.

[rick60]

I mentioned that it was a 292. He said "that is what everyone is saying. It must be true". It seems as if some members think the seller is trying to misrepresent the car. I didn't get that feeling when talking to him. He is not familiar with 1960 Fords. And no, I'm not working for him. I'd like to buy the car. I would need to get it for a low price because of the work needed to put it back on the road and the fact that even low mileage 1960 Ford Fairlanes are just not that valuable. Imagine if this was a Chevy!

[supersix]

A fully restored '60 Ford Fairlane 500 2-dr sedan with a 292/Auto wouldn't be worth $15,000.

[Dave@Moon]

A fully restored '60 Ford Fairlane 500 2-dr sedan with a 292/Auto wouldn't be worth $15,000.

I think a top condition 800 mile car (which this is not) would probably be worth more than a fully restored car. That said....#1 condition with a V8 is $9700 in my 2009 price guide. The Chevy Belair V8 2dr. sedan in #1 is condition, $16.400.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Rick 60,

Thanks for the additional info about the car.

:cool:

[OldsDoug]

Up to around $6600... caveat emptor. Anybody want to buy a bridge? Or a statue? Or the Washington Monument? Or the White House?