Why the Ford Pinto didn’t suck

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suckThe Ford Pinto was born a low-rent, stumpy thing in Dearborn 40 years ago and grew to become one of the most infamous cars in history. The thing is that it didn't actually suck. Really.

Even after four decades, what's the first thing that comes to mind when most people think of the Ford Pinto? Ka-BLAM! The truth is the Pinto was more than that — and this is the story of how the exploding Pinto became a pre-apocalyptic narrative, how the myth was exposed, and why you should race one.

The Pinto was CEO Lee Iacocca's baby, a homegrown answer to the threat of compact-sized economy cars from Japan and Germany, the sales of which had grown significantly throughout the 1960s. Iacocca demanded the Pinto cost under $2,000, and weigh under 2,000 pounds. It was an all-hands-on-deck project, and Ford got it done in 25 months from concept to production.

Building its own small car meant Ford's buyers wouldn't have to hew to the Japanese government's size-tamping regulations; Ford would have the freedom to choose its own exterior dimensions and engine sizes based on market needs (as did Chevy with the Vega and AMC with the Gremlin). And people cold dug it.

When it was unveiled in late 1970 (ominously on September 11), US buyers noted the Pinto's pleasant shape — bringing to mind a certain tailless amphibian — and interior layout hinting at a hipster's sunken living room. Some call it one of the ugliest cars ever made, but like fans of Mischa Barton, Pinto lovers care not what others think. With its strong Kent OHV four (a distant cousin of the Lotus TwinCam), the Pinto could at least keep up with its peers, despite its drum brakes and as long as one looked past its Russian-roulette build quality.

But what of the elephant in the Pinto's room? Yes, the whole blowing-up-on-rear-end-impact thing. It all started a little more than a year after the Pinto's arrival.

 

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company

On May 28, 1972, Mrs. Lilly Gray and 13-year-old passenger Richard Grimshaw, set out from Anaheim, California toward Barstow in Gray's six-month-old Ford Pinto. Gray had been having trouble with the car since new, returning it to the dealer several times for stalling. After stopping in San Bernardino for gasoline, Gray got back on I-15 and accelerated to around 65 mph. Approaching traffic congestion, she moved from the left lane to the middle lane, where the car suddenly stalled and came to a stop. A 1962 Ford Galaxie, the driver unable to stop or swerve in time, rear-ended the Pinto. The Pinto's gas tank was driven forward, and punctured on the bolts of the differential housing.

As the rear wheel well sections separated from the floor pan, a full tank of fuel sprayed straight into the passenger compartment, which was engulfed in flames. Gray later died from congestive heart failure, a direct result of being nearly incinerated, while Grimshaw was burned severely and left permanently disfigured. Grimshaw and the Gray family sued Ford Motor Company (among others), and after a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned against Ford Motor Company. Ford did not contest amount of compensatory damages awarded to Grimshaw and the Gray family, and a jury awarded the plaintiffs $125 million, which the judge in the case subsequently reduced to the low seven figures. Other crashes and other lawsuits followed.

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

Mother Jones and Pinto Madness

In 1977, Mark Dowie, business manager of Mother Jones magazine published an article on the Pinto's "exploding gas tanks." It's the same article in which we first heard the chilling phrase, "How much does Ford think your life is worth?" Dowie had spent days sorting through filing cabinets at the Department of Transportation, examining paperwork Ford had produced as part of a lobbying effort to defeat a federal rear-end collision standard. That's where Dowie uncovered an innocuous-looking memo entitled "Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires."

The Car Talk blog describes why the memo proved so damning.

In it, Ford's director of auto safety estimated that equipping the Pinto with [an] $11 part would prevent 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries and 2,100 burned cars, for a total cost of $137 million. Paying out $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury and $700 per vehicle would cost only $49.15 million.

The government would, in 1978, demand Ford recall the million or so Pintos on the road to deal with the potential for gas-tank punctures. That "smoking gun" memo would become a symbol for corporate callousness and indifference to human life, haunting Ford (and other automakers) for decades. But despite the memo's cold calculations, was Ford characterized fairly as the Kevorkian of automakers?

Perhaps not. In 1991, A Rutgers Law Journal report [PDF] showed the total number of Pinto fires, out of 2 million cars and 10 years of production, stalled at 27. It was no more than any other vehicle, averaged out, and certainly not the thousand or more suggested by Mother Jones.

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

The big rebuttal, and vindication?

But what of the so-called "smoking gun" memo Dowie had unearthed? Surely Ford, and Lee Iacocca himself, were part of a ruthless establishment who didn't care if its customers lived or died, right? Well, not really. Remember that the memo was a lobbying document whose audience was intended to be the NHTSA. The memo didn't refer to Pintos, or even Ford products, specifically, but American cars in general. It also considered rollovers not rear-end collisions. And that chilling assignment of value to a human life? Indeed, it was federal regulators who often considered that startling concept in their own deliberations. The value figure used in Ford's memo was the same one regulators had themselves set forth.

In fact, measured by occupant fatalities per million cars in use during 1975 and 1976, the Pinto's safety record compared favorably to other subcompacts like the AMC Gremlin, Chevy Vega, Toyota Corolla and VW Beetle.

And what of Mother Jones' Dowie? As the Car Talk blog points out, Dowie now calls the Pinto, "a fabulous vehicle that got great gas mileage," if not for that one flaw: The legendary "$11 part."

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

Pinto Racing Doesn't Suck

Back in 1974, Car and Driver magazine created a Pinto for racing, an exercise to prove brains and common sense were more important than an unlimited budget and superstar power. As Patrick Bedard wrote in the March, 1975 issue of Car and Driver, "It's a great car to drive, this Pinto," referring to the racer the magazine prepared for the Goodrich Radial Challenge, an IMSA-sanctioned road racing series for small sedans.

Why'd they pick a Pinto over, say, a BMW 2002 or AMC Gremlin? Current owner of the prepped Pinto, Fox Motorsports says it was a matter of comparing the car's frontal area, weight, piston displacement, handling, wheel width, and horsepower to other cars of the day that would meet the entry criteria. (Racers like Jerry Walsh had by then already been fielding Pintos in IMSA's "Baby Grand" class.)

Bedard, along with Ron Nash and company procured a 30,000-mile 1972 Pinto two-door to transform. In addition to safety, chassis and differential mods, the team traded a 200-pound IMSA weight penalty for the power gain of Ford's 2.3-liter engine, which Bedard said "tipped the scales" in the Pinto's favor. But according to Bedard, it sounds like the real advantage was in the turns, thanks to some add-ons from Mssrs. Koni and Bilstein.

"The Pinto's advantage was cornering ability," Bedard wrote. "I don't think there was another car in the B. F. Goodrich series that was quicker through the turns on a dry track. The steering is light and quick, and the suspension is direct and predictable in a way that street cars never can be. It never darts over bumps, the axle is perfectly controlled and the suspension doesn't bottom."

Need more proof of the Pinto's lack of suck? Check out the SCCA Washington, DC region's spec-Pinto series.

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 139,600
  • Total Topics: 16,271
  • Online today: 587
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 304
  • Total: 304
F&I...more

My Somewhat Begrudging Apology To Ford Pinto

ford-pinto.jpg

I never thought I’d offer an apology to the Ford Pinto, but I guess I owe it one.

I had a Pinto in the 1970s. Actually, my wife bought it a few months before we got married. The car became sort of a wedding dowry. So did the remaining 80% of the outstanding auto loan.

During a relatively brief ownership, the Pinto’s repair costs exceeded the original price of the car. It wasn’t a question of if it would fail, but when. And where. Sometimes, it simply wouldn’t start in the driveway. Other times, it would conk out at a busy intersection.

It ranks as the worst car I ever had. That was back when some auto makers made quality something like Job 100, certainly not Job 1.

Despite my bad Pinto experience, I suppose an apology is in order because of a recent blog I wrote. It centered on Toyota’s sudden-acceleration problems. But in discussing those, I invoked the memory of exploding Pintos, perpetuating an inaccuracy.

The widespread allegation was that, due to a design flaw, Pinto fuel tanks could readily blow up in rear-end collisions, setting the car and its occupants afire.

People started calling the Pinto “the barbecue that seats four.” And the lawsuits spread like wild fire.

Responding to my blog, a Ford (“I would very much prefer to keep my name out of print”) manager contacted me to set the record straight.

He says exploding Pintos were a myth that an investigation debunked nearly 20 years ago. He cites Gary Schwartz’ 1991 Rutgers Law Review paper that cut through the wild claims and examined what really happened.

Schwartz methodically determined the actual number of Pinto rear-end explosion deaths was not in the thousands, as commonly thought, but 27.

In 1975-76, the Pinto averaged 310 fatalities a year. But the similar-size Toyota Corolla averaged 313, the VW Beetle 374 and the Datsun 1200/210 came in at 405.

Yes, there were cases such as a Pinto exploding while parked on the shoulder of the road and hit from behind by a speeding pickup truck. But fiery rear-end collisions comprised only 0.6% of all fatalities back then, and the Pinto had a lower death rate in that category than the average compact or subcompact, Schwartz said after crunching the numbers. Nor was there anything about the Pinto’s rear-end design that made it particularly unsafe.

Not content to portray the Pinto as an incendiary device, ABC’s 20/20 decided to really heat things up in a 1978 broadcast containing “startling new developments.” ABC breathlessly reported that, not just Pintos, but fullsize Fords could blow up if hit from behind.

20/20 thereupon aired a video, shot by UCLA researchers, showing a Ford sedan getting rear-ended and bursting into flames. A couple of problems with that video:

One, it was shot 10 years earlier.

Two, the UCLA researchers had openly said in a published report that they intentionally rigged the vehicle with an explosive.

That’s because the test was to determine how a crash fire affected the car’s interior, not to show how easily Fords became fire balls. They said they had to use an accelerant because crash blazes on their own are so rare. They had tried to induce a vehicle fire in a crash without using an igniter, but failed.

ABC failed to mention any of that when correspondent Sylvia Chase reported on “Ford’s secret rear-end crash tests.”

We could forgive ABC for that botched reporting job. After all, it was 32 years ago. But a few weeks ago, ABC, in another one of its rigged auto exposes, showed video of a Toyota apparently accelerating on its own.

Turns out, the “runaway” vehicle had help from an associate professor. He built a gizmo with an on-off switch to provide acceleration on demand. Well, at least ABC didn’t show the Toyota slamming into a wall and bursting into flames.

In my blog, I also mentioned that Ford’s woes got worse in the 1970s with the supposed uncovering of an internal memo by a Ford attorney who allegedly calculated it would cost less to pay off wrongful-death suits than to redesign the Pinto.

It became known as the “Ford Pinto memo,” a smoking gun. But Schwartz looked into that, too. He reported the memo did not pertain to Pintos or any Ford products. Instead, it had to do with American vehicles in general.

It dealt with rollovers, not rear-end crashes. It did not address tort liability at all, let alone advocate it as a cheaper alternative to a redesign. It put a value to human life because federal regulators themselves did so.

The memo was meant for regulators’ eyes only. But it was off to the races after Mother Jones magazine got a hold of a copy and reported what wasn’t the case.

The exploding-Pinto myth lives on, largely because more Americans watch 20/20 than read the Rutgers Law Review. One wonders what people will recollect in 2040 about Toyota’s sudden accelerations, which more and more look like driver error and, in some cases, driver shams.

So I guess I owe the Pinto an apology. But it’s half-hearted, because my Pinto gave me much grief, even though, as the Ford manager notes, “it was a cheap car, built long ago and lots of things have changed, almost all for the better.”

Here goes: If I said anything that offended you, Pinto, I’m sorry. And thanks for not blowing up on me.

Similar problem returns: slight bog down & backfiring when revving

Started by r4pinto, March 05, 2006, 09:26:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

r4pinto

First, I said in my original post it was a 5200. Second, I said in my last post the problem was fixed.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

ford guy

first what kind of carb?   if not holley it can be curb idel screws are set to lean/rich  ty rule of thumb 1 1/2 turns each side
if a holley you may have poped the power valve.

if holley does it have a back fire check valve in it?

wayne  johisaree@yahoo.com

r4pinto

Yup, & be there she will. I just gotta replace the rear axle & reassemble the interior. It's mostly sitting in pieces throughout my garage & the floor of the Pinto.

Thanx to everyones help my car is as healthy as it could be.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

77turbopinto

Good deal!

Now you have no reason not to be at Carlisle (you diddn't not understand that right?).

Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

r4pinto

Car now fixed. ignition timing was set wrong by some idiot (me) that forgot to unhook the vacuum advance  before setting it. Did that, & now she's got guts to her... Only problem is it will hesitate for a brief second before taking off.. then, WHEEE!!!!!! :fastcar:

Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

r4pinto

Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

fast34

If you have an auto trans. timing will be alot more sensitive.  Set it at around 12 to 15 degrees and try it there, that is where I have my auto car set at, WITHOUT VACUUM ADVANCE!!  I have found that if the vac advance is hooked up, it will ping or pre-detonate at part throttle operation.   Otherwise, set it close to where I said, then DRIVE the car with the dist. lock down loose enough to still move it , and set it to where the engine runs good and does not ping under heavy, but not full throttle.  Try it with AND without vac advance hooked up.  Also be sure that the vac port that goes to your dist from carb is a "timed" port, meaning it only pulls vacuum when the throttle is opening.  I think you will find that it is better without the vac. especially if it is an auto.  As to why your fast idle adjustment helped, I do not know, it should not have as the problem is no where near related to that part of the carbs operation.

BlueGoldPinto

well, like pintony said check the accelorator pump to make sure the check ball is in there, there IS supposed to be one. When we rebiult the carb on our 57 fairlane the check ball was actually hung up on the bottom of the accelorator pump. Do they still use the rubber and cloth things in those? If they do than I would definantly replace that, that would really cause the carb to seem like it's bogging. Also, check that spacer/gasket between the carb and intake. even a slight warpage in the intake could cause a vacuum leak, another problem so found on the 57. What we did is plug off the holes and take a block sander with some sandpaper and smoothed it out and we cleaned up the spacer and got a new gasket and then sealed it with some silicone, and she works great now. As for the backfiring... still sounds like timing to me. Oh yeah, there are lots of little passages in your carb. Something could be clogged
My theory on the Gas Tank of the Ford Pinto:
If it ain't fixed, don't break it!! :)

r4pinto

Well, it did. You say stock timing settings aren't the best? Then what is? 
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

fast34

Fast idle setting "should", have nothing to do with a problem you are experiencing.  Just remember that if you set your timing (ignition), to stock settings, it will probably not run at it's best. 

r4pinto

that actually was the first thing I did long ago. The volume turned out to be ok, but the pump was oe so I replaced it anyways. As for the rubber lines at the tank they exploded when I bought the car so they're pretty much brand new.

Friday after work I actually did some tooling around on the car thanks to some info I found in the Holley carb book by Haynes that we sell at work, & when it came to it ended adjusting the fast idle. It's seemed to have help somewhat, but not completely taken care of the problem. I'm gonna recheck timing & everything since that whole setting was messed up badly. It was set as per the rebuild kit, but aparently not set right. Thank god for customers that return a book that hasn't even been in stock for 2 weeks.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

Pintony

Quote from: fast34 on March 17, 2006, 02:10:58 PM
Pull fuel line at carb. and put it in a container of some sort, 1liter pop bottle is good.  Crank or start engine at let run or continue cranking for about 10-15 secs. and see how much fuel goes into container.  This will tell how much fuel pump volume is.  I would hope it would put out at least 16 ounces in that time frame.
That is an exelent idea Fast34!
Also check to make sure the short fuel line near the tank has not swelled-shutt from age.
From Pintony

fast34

Pull fuel line at carb. and put it in a container of some sort, 1liter pop bottle is good.  Crank or start engine at let run or continue cranking for about 10-15 secs. and see how much fuel goes into container.  This will tell how much fuel pump volume is.  I would hope it would put out at least 16 ounces in that time frame.

r4pinto

Where can I find that size drill bit at? I will check to see if the check balls are there & hopefully they are & also see if it is getting a good squirt. If all else fails I found out haynes makes a holley carb book so I'll go through that as well.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

Pintony

Hello r4,
That is right. Under the discharge nozel.
Double check that they are there.
Are you getting a good squirt. Check to make sure.
Engine not running is the best way to see, but be carefull not to foul out the plugs by flooding the engine.
If not pull the nozel and use a .019 drill bit to open up any clog.
a .021 will give you a better squirt.
From Pintony

r4pinto

There were no check balls in the accelerator pump when I took the carb apart to rebuild. just to make sure. The accelerator pump is on the side with the plunger right?

I know there were 2 check balls inder this wierd forked thingy held on by a screw & I'm about 98% sure I put them back in there.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

Pintony

Did you put the check balls back in the accelerator pump?

r4pinto

Anybody?? I know somebody has got to know what my car is doing. I've been told not getting fuel, but not how to fix it. I need help with this as I can't fix it on my own. I don't know these older cars. Get me a new fuel injection car & I can figure what's wrong, but get me a carburated car & I'm totally stupid. I'm asking the questions I am for 2 reasons. 1- to fix my car & 2- TO LEARN.

Somebody please give me some help!!!
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

r4pinto

Quote from: 80bobcat on March 16, 2006, 04:14:45 PM
R4.. I`m throwing this in although I`ve re read all the posts and you`ve not mentioned working on the carb.. but my Pinto (the 1 I should of never let go)did all the same...high idle at start up ..bogged down when reving and a big swoosh sometimes with flames out the carb when pressed..when I reassembled the carb I put the float in upside down...and I didn`t seat the needle all the way..not one of my proudest moments mind you ...hope this helps

I've actually rebuilt the carb & all was put back together the right way. I dbl checked it all when I noticed  a problem happening. The high idle I found to be caused by the curb idle was too high. I adjusted the idle down & now it idles fine but still bogs down & backfires if I try to give it too much gas.

It actually acts to me like it's out of gas, but it's got a full tank of fresh gas from Mobil.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

r4pinto

Quote from: 73pintogeek on March 16, 2006, 04:08:57 PM
Hey Matt,
This sound`s like a vacuum leak to me...have you thoroughly checked all line`s for crack`s or leak`s? Or a bad seal on the carb base gasket...check all  line`s running to charcoal canister`s and any vacuum motor`s...hope this help`s...
Rex

There's only a foil hose going to the air cleaner. It's beel like this since I bought the car & didn't have this kind of problem when I bought the car. The carb base gasket is brand new, but I'll check it to see if it might be loose.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

80bobcat

R4.. I`m throwing this in although I`ve re read all the posts and you`ve not mentioned working on the carb.. but my Pinto (the 1 I should of never let go)did all the same...high idle at start up ..bogged down when reving and a big swoosh sometimes with flames out the carb when pressed..when I reassembled the carb I put the float in upside down...and I didn`t seat the needle all the way..not one of my proudest moments mind you ...hope this helps
Look Officer..it`s a Pinto would YOU stop short?

73pintogeek

Hey Matt,
This sound`s like a vacuum leak to me...have you thoroughly checked all line`s for crack`s or leak`s? Or a bad seal on the carb base gasket...check all  line`s running to charcoal canister`s and any vacuum motor`s...hope this help`s...
Rex
A bad day workin` on my Pinto is better than a good day at work!

r4pinto

Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

fast34


r4pinto

When the engine's cold the choke plate is closed. When it warms up the plate opens up & will stay open till it cools down. Isn't this how it's supposed to operate? 
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

Pintony


r4pinto

 :accident: :text_yb_wtf: That damn car is running like $hit again!!! Here's what I  noticed after I got the radiator & transmission fluid back in it:

Starts great, but idles high. When I shut off the car it diesels. When I rev the engine it bogs down regardless how much gas I give it. If I try to give it more gas it backfires.

The timing (both cam & ignition) are set perfectly. No vecuum leaks. New plugs wires cap rotor. No play in the distributor. Could there be a problem with the vacuum advance causing it to not run right?

All I know is I need the car to run right, but it won't do that. HELP!!!! :text_yb_asap: :text_yb_please:
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

r4pinto

lol.. shocking idea!!  :evil: Now I just gotta track down the brat that did it. the neighborhood's crawling with them.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

dirt track demon

You're welcome, find out which kid it was and lay a charged condenser on his bicycle seat.
Favorite place to race:on the xbox

Fomoco's biggest achievement:
The PINTO!!

Fomoco's biggest mistake:
Not offering a V-8 Pinto!!!!!!!

r4pinto

Just got a chance to work on the car. It's been raining cats & dogs out here. Anyways,  I checked & I was getting spark.

For whatever reason I found the plug wires were swapped around. I had the hood down but not latched so some kids prolly messed with it, since I had not touched the plug wires since god knows when. Anyways, the car runs & I made an adjustment to the enrichment screw, thanks to some help from dirt track demon & it has seemed to help. I can't be too sure as I don't have the radiator in the car since it's being serviced but if the problem comes back I'll post it.
Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress