One of the biggest challenges with a pickup has always been how to make something that can carry heavy loads not ride like the mechanical bull in Gilley’s when the bed is empty. It’s extremely difficult to have a suspension that allows a vehicle to drive just as well unloaded as it does with 1000 pounds of rocks in the bed. With an empty bed being the worst-riding option, it’s easy to understand why non-truck-enthusiasts considering a pickup truck for everyday use may have decided after a test-drive that a truck was not for them.
The problem of ride quality varying with load is not one without a solution. The modern answer is usually to add air shocks or some other kind of variable system with pumps and hoses that add more weight and complexity, but in the sixties and seventies Ford offered a rather brilliant solution that did the same task in an amazingly simple way.
Ford had already worked up a solution in 1965 for independent front suspension that would give a better ride than a live axle but maintain the rugged durability expected of a Ford truck. The famous “Twin I-Beam” was an innovative solution that many people are well aware of, but how Ford dealt with the rear suspension was just as ingenious, though not as well known.

Dubbed “Flex-O-Matic,” the name alone tells you that it appeared in the mid-century era where everything had to have a Jetsons-like name that included “matic.” Indeed, it debuted in late 1967 on Ford’s fifth-generation F-series trucks, affectionately known as the “bumpside.” Flex-O-Matic suspension was standard on F-250s and optional on other models.

The heart of the Flex-O-Matic was a special pivoting shackle at the back of each rear leaf spring. The shackle stayed in an upward position with lighter loads, allowing it to use a softer portion of the spring rate to absorb minor bumps and give a car-like ride. However, if you loaded a bunch of stuff in the bed, that shackle rotated downward into a secondary, stiffer position to let you handle stiffer payloads.

Here’s a video that demonstrates the system better than words could do.
After the 1967 “Bumpside” series was replaced in 1973 with the sixth-generation “Dentside,” the Flex-O-Matic remained as a feature, at least in the early years of this series. I couldn’t find the exact last year it was offered, but it was certainly well before it was replaced by the boxy seventh-generation in 1980.

You can see the shackles in this Ford parts drawing from a catalog dated 1975, so it was still available at least then:

Why was it dropped? I’ve read various stories. Some say that later multi-leaf springs did the job as well or almost as well, or that optional air shocks were a better solution. My feeling? More than likely, the cost of the extra parts required for the Flex-O-Matic design was deemed not worth the investment when it came time for the inevitable decontenting that was regularly done for cost savings. I can’t prove it, of course, but it would sadly seem like a logical reason.
Before the sixties, most companies really couldn’t care less if a truck was “comfortable.” In many ways, Flex-O-Matic was a major step in making the trucks more palatable to regular consumers as everyday cars, starting a trend that continues to this day.
Like old Ford trucks in general, the Flex-O-Matic just did its job quietly and unnoticed, which is yet another reason why these old pickups are so loved today.
Top graphic image: Ford









I wish Ford had kept this feature. My 2002 F150 has a very comfortable ride but a miserable payload, and Flex-O-Matic or some helper leaves would have kept the ride and upped capacity. Fortunately most of hauling is bulky rather than heavy and it’s amusing to run away from Tacomas on potholed forest roads because I’m not shaken to pieces. Handling is good since this,was the generation with A arms instead of Twin I-Beam. FWIW our 93 Ranger with the handling package was a comfortable back road commuter.
This has me wondering about the 1960s name for Torch’s “broadband router” featured in a recent “Tales from the Slack” Possibly the Slurp-o-matic?
Think I need a Veg-o-matic for my flex-o-matic.
Rhythmatic, Flex-O-Matic ride control
Magnetic, genetic, demands your soul!
So there’s the Slickside, Styleside, Bumpside, Dentside, Bullnose, Bricknose, OBS (“Old Body Style”—creative!), and Jellybean… But we stopped having nicknames for Ford truck generations after that. Is it because they’re given retrospectively down the road when they’re classics? Methinksnot. I think we should come up with names for 11th-14th body styles right here on The Autopian.
Ford switching from doing revolutionary redesigns way back then to doing evolutionary redesigns today may be a factor.
I don’t know if I agree that all the generations were “revolutionary”…after all Dent-sides and Bump-sides were basically the same truck, and Bull- Brick-nose and BOS are all the same truck underneath as well.
This reminds me of the argument that seems to come up every generation with car-people, that “all modern cars look alike”. I challenge anyone to put the outline of profile of cars from 1946 on a piece of paper and pick out a Ford vs Pontiac vs. Plymouth. Hell, GM cars were shared three basic platforms with a lot of the same architecture, the main difference was how and were the chrome was slathered on, at least from the outward appearances.
But I support The Autopian developing the names for the newer generations whole-heartedly.
In 73 ford changed the wheel base and made the cab 3″ longer and then widened the rear frame rails. That basic chassis ran until 96 with various improvements.
The kind of jounce-steer these things had was legendary. Those massive camber changes over big undulations combined with the super slow steering made driving these pretty “truckish”.
Today we expect our trucks to steer like crummy cars, not miniature UPS trucks.
And they accomplish that part excellently, steering and handling (and braking) like crummy cars.
They really do, I have a new RAM 1500 for work, and its a handful in traffic and on narrow roads and tight corners, and rides like total shit on anything that isnt glass smooth, I can’t imagine driving the thing as my only vehicle, that would suck completely. The car I own that most closely compares to it in terms of handling is a 1950 Chrysler, but, that one has a much more comfortable ride and better seats, so I think it actually has an edge
I still content that my 1990 Jeep Comanche rides better and drives better than any newer truck I’ve been in. It’s one of the things that sold me on seeking out a second one, the ride is quite good. It’s handling is decent too, though it’s tough to tell in the BFG KO2 tires. It’s amazing what taking a few point out of car design and putting them in a truck chassis will do to improve ride quality.
It amazes me that we still build most trucks as body in frame vehicles, it’s such a compromise in driving dynamics to have basically no torsional rigidity.
My Colorado ZR2 handles pretty dang well for an off-road package, having those fancy Multimatic shocks doesn’t hurt.
The reason it was discontinued was that it became abundantly clear that nobody was putting 1000lbs of rock or anything else in their beds. Why add the cost/complexity to accommodate the occasional cooler and fishing rod?
An issue that still persists today as far as cargo.
You just broke the internet with the dumbest comment of the day…..
And it worked.
Dad’s ’73 F100 Custom rode as nicely as Mom’s ’72 Monterey Custom.
It was okay, but I preferred the ride in the C10s of that era with the coil springs.
Cool! I feel Ford doesn’t often get enough credit for its suspension solutions. My Focus has its “control blade” setup that’s a nifty efficient marvel. So much so that Mazda and Toyota actually does/did license it from Ford for their own cars.
Whiskey Tango Ford?!? If sedan suspension on half-ton trucks was so important in 1970 why does my 2023 Ranger have all of the articulation of a roller skate and the compliance of a creeper? It’s been known to lift a leg on an abrupt driveway curb cut, if not taken at a wisely considered angle; like piloting an expensive Chris Craft into a low-budget slip.
Also, my 1970 F-250 must have had this system on it. Would that explain why I could stand in the bed and (with a bit of hip-swiveling I’m no longer capable of in this century) shove the bed left-to-right about four inches, and get a feedback loop going that threatened to tear the box off the frame? Or was that because it was 25 years old at the time?
I love it when Ford goes strangely backwards like on your Ranger. My SN95 Mustang has these questionable, 60s-esq bucket seats that while fine for what they are, are a total step down from the near-Recaro style ones that Ford offered in the Fox body Mustang a decade earlier.
I can’t speak with certainty on other years, but the 89 Fox body Mustang’s seats were genuine Recaro seats.
79 on up Cobras and GTs had Recaros…..Same for the Capri RSs. They were incredible…..way better than the Lears in the F bodies.
Oh, then you’ll love the ‘digital display’ in the center of my Ranger’s dashboard! It’s a monochromatic blue, non-touch screen with what appear to be 16-bit graphics.
I think they must have pulled these off the shelf marked “1996 Probe” down at the Ford factory.
Great, now I want a 90s Ford Probe…again.
Oh, you got a suspension for Flexo but not for Bender, huh?
Fine, I’ll go build my own suspension! With blackjack and hookers! In fact, forget the suspension! Eh, screw the whole thing.
https://youtu.be/DvyKpJZ4CRU
Damn that’s cool. I miss creative ads (as much as I can pine for what is still ultimately advertisement).
That was great
I remember seeing that ad on TV when I was a kid.
It was kind of a big deal.
I remember the I-Beam ads, I think they had a few similar to that. I call BS though, no doubt that cab was pretty stable, but I imagine the top row were duds just to be on the “safe” side.
That’s Neat-O-Matic.