Mini Classifieds

Mustang II C4 Transmission
Date: 07/28/2017 06:26 am
looking for parts
Date: 06/19/2020 02:32 pm
Built 2.0
Date: 10/07/2018 05:27 pm
Ford 2.3 Bellhousing C4/C5 & Torque Converter

Date: 07/08/2022 11:51 pm
1975 Pinto bumpers
Date: 10/24/2019 01:43 pm
1974 Pinto Misc. moldings & parts

Date: 12/20/2016 10:47 pm
1977 Pinto Cruizin Wagon

Date: 04/11/2024 03:56 pm
Needed, 2.0 or 2.3 motors
Date: 09/30/2018 07:47 pm
Free 2.0L Valve Cover

Date: 01/03/2023 04:27 pm

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: 139,593
  • Total Topics: 16,270
  • Online today: 489
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 100
  • Total: 100
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.

How many miles?

Started by imhoppy, May 19, 2006, 09:51:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wantapinto

The morning after you soak the valve stems try this.

Also while you have the air pressure applyed to the cyl...Tap on the top of the valve stem hard enough that you hear a pop.Do this several times. I use a plastic mallet. When you tap on the valve stem or rocker you allow much more air to pass and that may allow the carbon or gook to pass.

When you are using a leak down tester I have seen Readings MANY times go from 50 or 60% leakage down to 5 or 10%. Tapping kind of allows the valve to get a better seal.

Dave
1972 Pinto.  Disc brakes, Blue,

imhoppy

Man goodolboy that is a very through and consice bunch of answers.
You are the man!
The engine did sit for years.And it is definitely possible that there is something like carbon or gasket materail stuck in the valves.When i did the leak down test i had the valve cover off.
I was able to move the the rocker arms freely so I'm pretty sure that they were supposed to be closed.I never thought about them sticking in the guides but know now  that you mention it it does make sense.Every thing is of the motor so it will be real easy to take the head off and look at the valves and cylinders.I just haven't gotten to it yet .I'm in the middle of knocking out door dings and small dents on my new wagon.I want to spray it before the 4th of July.Thats my target day to get her back on the road.
I will definitely post on this again as soon as i check it out.
Thanks again MIKE

goodolboydws

Pumping air into a cylinder through a spark plug hole when the valves for that cylinder are closed and the piston is a TDC  is exactly what is done in a leakdown test. The air pressure is measured as it is supplied (usually via a calibrated gauge) and compared with the amount of back pressure that is on the engine side,  (usually with a second gauge), with the difference being the amount of leakage.


in re a compression test:

To be safe and to get a meaningful result, you have to be absolutely certain that the piston is EXACTLY at TDC and that the valves are fully closed. If the piston is only a few degrees off from TDC, air pressure can force the piston down unexpectedly. On many engines the valves may start to open or fully close within a few degrees of TDC, so accuracy is important. If you have any doubts about a pistons' position, (this can happen if the cam to crank timing is off due to belt or chain related problems) use some sort of easily visible, calibrated probe to be sure.

Also, if anything is preventing a valve from seating fully, such as a bent valve stem or head, or a piece of carbon on the seating surface, there will be considerable leakage. Unless you have a good sized hole in piston, a head gasket blown out, a warped head,  a chunk of metal missing between the intake and exhaust valves, or a valve that is staying well off the seat or is very bent, having a ZERO psi reading would be unusual. Even having a good sized burned crack in an exhaust valve won't generally drop the reading to zero.

BTW, if the engine has been sitting for a long time, some of the valves may be sticking in their guides from rust or hardened/thickened oil, and may loosen up after the engine has been run or even cranked over for a short time. If this is what is happening, it may be helped along by using something like WD-40 or a small amount of penetrating oil placed on the tops of the valve guides/valve seals, and allowed to sit there, soak and run down along the valve stems overnight.  If you still have the manifolds off, you can do this directly.

What sort of readings did you get from the other cylinders when you were doing the standard compression test?

imhoppy

Thanks for the replies,
I did a compression test and found out that #4 intake and exhaust where leaking. :wow:
I thought maybe my tester was bad when it said 0 in that cylinder.Since i had the manifolds off.I kind of did my own form of a leak down test.I pumped air into the sparkplug hole when the piston was on tdc.Thats when i figured out that the valves were bad.Lots of air coming out of the intake and exhaust ports,Oh well what do you want for $100.Still got a nice clutch out of the deal. ;D

goodolboydws

If you're so inclined, and you don't have the oil pan buttoned up yet, you could pull off one each of the main and rod bearing caps and use Plastigage to see what the clearances there measure. Even on an engine with a fair number of miles accumulated, (say up to 100k) if the oil and filter have always been being changed on time, using a decent oil, there should be minimal wear to the bearings, and they should still be within allowable tolerances. Plus, if they are out of tolerance, now would be the time to change them, before the engine is installed.

Without doing a compete teardown, that and a compression plus leakdown test are probably the best ways to tell in what working shape the engine is now, overall. 

One more thing: Check out the valve train.
One easy thing to check is to look for shims under the valve springs. Another is deteriorating/hardened valve stem seals. On most engines that have had a decent valve job done, the valve seats will have been machined more deeply into the head, requiring at least some of the springs to have shims to restore the proper assembled spring height and/or pressure, and the valve stem seals will have been replaced.  OEM engines generally do not need to have the shims, due to them starting with a raw casting, doing the original machining under very tight tolerances, and using brand new springs.  If you DO see the shims, there is good chance that at least that part of the engine was rebuilt. As a rule not many engines need their head(s) removed and a valve job done before 75K miles as a minimum. 100-125K miles would be much more common, with engines of this vintage. Many modern engines can easily go considerably farther than that before needing the same type of top end work.

It would be tough to guess mileage on a well maintained, factory stock engine that has no cylinder ridge wear, for example.

P.S. I'd check the timing belt and tensioner or chain and gears too, if you haven't already done so. If it has a cogged belt and it looks at all questionable, change it now, so at least you will have a fairly good idea as to how long it is liable to last.

imhoppy

Thanks guys,
  I have to look up the  leak down test it sounds pretty simple.I think this was maintained nicely just because of the condition of the oil galleys and the oil pan no sludge whatsoever.When i pulled of the trans i discovered a brand new centerforce pressure plate and the flywheel looks like it was just machined.Maybe its a pumped mill. ???
It think thats probally wishfull thinking but hey why not.Let me live my dream for now any way.
Ill keep you posted on the tests.  Mike

turbo toy

If you can,you might want to do a leak down test.It will give you a more accurate condition of the motor.

CHEAPRACER

I've had engines apart at 50k miles with massive wear and I've had my old 5.0 Mustang block apart at 229k miles that still had hone marks. My opinion would be it's impossible. You can tell proper maintenance by site.
Cheapracer is my personality but you can call me Jim '74 Pinto, stock 2.3 turbo, LA3, T-5, 8" 3:55 posi, Former (hot) cars: '71 383 Cuda, 67 440 Cuda, '73 340 Dart, '72 396 Vega, '72 327 El Camino, '84 SVO, '88 LX 5.0

imhoppy

Does anybody have any good ideas on how to check the milage on a engine that just bought.The guy didn't have any info on the the motor.On the outside it looks super clean.Took off the intake and exhaust manifolds and there is virtually no carbon in the manifolds.The water passages are really clean as well.The more stuff i took off the better i feel that this thing is really fresh.I'm going to do a compression check on it tomorrow.Are there any checks that i should do before i put it back together and put it in the wagon??

Thanks Mike           BTW i picked it up for $100 ;D