This one could be interesting. Deluxe wheel covers and cornering lamps generally indicate a high level of equipment, but the bottom of the line interior indicates otherwise. It could be well worth a good look, especially at that price.
hey, hey, hey At least it's not red inside, too... other than that, looks quite nice, all things considered.
This one has been for sale for over two years, and the price has yet to budge! https://nashville.craigslist.org/cto/5437969275.html
That's the 1st time I have seen seating capacity listed as 10! usually they only list 1 more than the actual capacity of 8. That is a lot of money for a car that will need Tires & a lot of TLC. More realistic would be $1500-$2000
Wait, aren't the Fords 10 capacity? My 1967 Ford brochure lists it at 10 (with the optional rear seats).
By the 1969 model year, the DFRS-equipped wagons were downgraded to only being 8 passengers, even though it was the same seat design. I don't know the actual reason, although you can bet the government had something to do with it.
Once seat belts were mandatory, they would have had to equip the vehicle with the same number of belt units that the vehicle was stated to hold. You couldn't say it was a '10-passenger' if you only put 8 seat belts in it.
Seat belts weren't mandatory until 1/1/1968 so they could say anything in a '67 brochure I guess. I looked at that brochure and it says it "offers seating for a family of ten", not ten adults. With kids in the back you could cram ten in. It also says "self-adjusting breaks" so who knows if it was proofread well. The way the third seats are made with the knee cut-outs on the opposite cushion the third seats really are only made for two adults IMO, making it an 8 passenger. The 91-96 GM B-body wagons all have two belts in the back and three for the back and front seats each, people are constantly calling them 9 passengers in for sale ads.