Junkyard Find: 1977 Ford Econoline 150 Campaign Van

Murilee Martin
by Murilee Martin
During the 2016 American presidential election, those voters who loathed both Trump and Clinton had the option of voting for one of a couple of long-shot third-party candidates, or perhaps the far more rational fourth-party candidate. Those rebellious souls who opted for the fourteenth-party candidate in 2016 went for that Econoline-driving Californian: Jussy G.G. Prussly.Here is Jussy’s once-glorious van, now retired in a Central Valley self-service wrecking yard.
Sadly, Mx. Prussly (we cannot determine the gender, if any, deployed by this reclusive politician) lacked the corporate backing needed to reach an audience broader than, say, a few square blocks of West Sacramento, and this van had to serve as the Prusssly campaign’s media blitz.
The www.jussyforpresident2020.com URL on the van doesn’t exist, and the Wayback Machine indicates that it never did exist. There’s a “Jussy for President” reference on a Czech snowboarding blog, which seems about right, and the Urban Dictionary entry for “Jussy” doesn’t do much to clear up the Jussy G.G. Prussly mystery.
Since we don’t know much about the Prussly ’16 or ’20 campaigns, let’s talk about this Econoline itself, which ended its life as the chariot of a highly quixotic presidential hopeful somewhere between the Coast Range and the Sierras. It’s an early third-generation E-150 half-ton cargo van, and it worked hard during its 40 years on the road.
With a five-digit odometer, we can’t tell the difference between 14,062 miles and 714,062 miles. The engine is gone, but the VIN indicates that this Econoline was built in March, 1977, with a 351 Windsor V8, at the Lorain Assembly Plant in Ohio.
The interior is quite grotacious, featuring plenty of hanta-tastic rodent poop and chewed-up bits of seat foam.
No doubt due to dirty tricks by the black-bag operatives of the Vermin Supreme campaign, the Prussly van appears to have been abandoned from a time beginning even before the November 2016 balloting.
Rest in piece, veteran Econoline.
Room for bags, and boats, and beauties.
Murilee Martin
Murilee Martin

Murilee Martin is the pen name of Phil Greden, a writer who has lived in Minnesota, California, Georgia and (now) Colorado. He has toiled at copywriting, technical writing, junkmail writing, fiction writing and now automotive writing. He has owned many terrible vehicles and some good ones. He spends a great deal of time in self-service junkyards. These days, he writes for publications including Autoweek, Autoblog, Hagerty, The Truth About Cars and Capital One.

More by Murilee Martin

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 12 comments
  • 28-Cars-Later 2018 Toyota Auris: Pads front and back, K&N air filter and four tires @ 30K, US made Goodyears already seem inferior to JDM spec tires it came with. 36K on the clock.2004 Volvo C70: Somewhere between $6,5 to $8 in it all told, car was $3500 but with a wrecked fender, damaged hood, cracked glass headlight, and broken power window motor. Headlight was $80 from a yard, we bought a $100 door literally for the power window assembly, bodywork with fender was roughly a grand, brakes/pads, timing belt/coolant and pre-inspection was a grand. Roof later broke, parts/labor after two repair trips was probably about $1200-1500 my cost. Four 16in Cooper tires $62 apiece in 2022 from Wal Mart of all places, battery in 2021 $200, 6qts tranny fluid @ 20 is $120, maybe $200 in labor last year for tranny fluid change, oil change, and tire install. Car otherwise perfect, 43K on the clock found at 38.5K.1993 Volvo 244: Battery $65, four 15in Cooper tires @ $55 apiece, 4 alum 940 wheels @ roughly $45 apiece with shipping. Fixes for random leaks in power steering and fuel lines, don't remember. Needs rear door and further body work, rear door from yard in Gettysburg was $250 in 2022 (runs and drives fine, looks OK, I'm just a perfectionist). TMU, driven maybe 500 miles since re-acquisition in 2021.
  • 1995 SC I never hated these. Typical GM though. They put the wrong engine in it to start with, fixed it, and then killed it. I say that as a big fan of the aluminum 5.3, but for how they were marketing this it should have gotten the Corvette Motor at the start. Would be a nice cruiser though even with the little motor. The 5.3 without the convertible in a package meant to be used as a truck would have been great in my mind, but I suspect they'd have sold about 7 of them.
  • Rochester I'd rather have a slow-as-mud Plymouth Prowler than this thing. At least the Prowler looked cool.
  • Kcflyer Don't understand the appeal of this engine combo at all.
  • Dave M. This and the HHR were GM's "retro" failures. Not sure what they were smoking....
Next