Mini Classifieds

Alloy Harmonic Balancer

Date: 07/10/2020 12:17 pm
t-5 2.3 trans and new flywheel cluch and pressure plate though out bearing for sale
Date: 09/12/2018 04:07 pm
Beautiful 1980 Pinto

Date: 04/13/2020 11:53 am
74 Pinto Hub Caps & Trim Rings

Date: 02/18/2017 04:47 pm
79 pinto driveshaft
Date: 08/18/2018 02:03 pm
1980 Ford AM radio
Date: 12/22/2019 11:57 am
1973 Pinto Runabout

Date: 03/25/2019 09:02 pm
71-73 2.0 4 speed transmission wanted
Date: 09/06/2020 01:57 am
Radiator
Date: 05/27/2018 06:07 am

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: 583
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 433
  • Total: 433
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.

Another question from Newbie....

Started by beicholz, May 23, 2009, 08:21:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pintoguy76

I would avoid 71-73 models myself, any 2.0 models and any V6 models. Its just my personal preference but I do have reasons and apparently ford thought the way I did as the 2.3 was the ONLY engine available in 1980. Let me explain my self.

First of. 71-73 cars have a different suspension than the 74-80 pintos. The 74-80 suspensions are common, same as the mustang II and often wanted for street rods and race cars. Parts are not a problem for them. However, this is not the case for 71-73. Some of the suspension parts are available and not hard to get but some of them ARE. I believe it is mainly the lower ball joints that are tough to find, but because of that you can bet if you ever need a suspension part for a 71-73, that will be the one you need and you will have a hard time finding it.

Second. The 2.0 and 2.8 engines are solid lifter engines. While you may get away with rarely, if ever, adjusting the valves, the adjustment is still there and is still considered a maintainence item. The 2.3 has hydraulic lifters and requires no regular adjustments. I would also avoid a 74 2.3 (which basically means no 74, since they had only 2.0 and 2.3 engines). I have a 74 and dont mind working on it but you are worried about maintainence. The 74 2.3s had point type ignition systems and while some argue they are better because they are simpler and easier to fix, they are not high powered systems and they require lots of regular adjustment and replacement. Electronic ignition started it 75. I myself am tired of the points so an MSD ignition is in order for it, or else a fuel injected 2.3. Not sure which.

Anyways, this is my 2 cents. A 75-80 2.3L pinto would be best for you. Dont worry if you find a car with no power steering or no brakes. You don't need them, and it does not at all make it hard to drive. Dont worry about Auto vs 4 speed either. They are both great options. My automatic pinto actually has more power than my two 4 speed pintos, and it is NOT geared lower than the 4 speeds. All of my pintos are 2.3L powered. A/C would be nice to have but its a rare find. You can add aftermarket AC for around $1000.
1974 Ford Pinto Wagon with 1991 Mustang DIS EFI 2.3 and stock Pinto 4 Speed

1996 Chevy C2500 Suburban with 6.5L Turbo Diesel/4L80E 4x2

1980 Volvo 265 with 1997 S-10 4.3 and a modified 700R4

2010 GMC Sierra SLE 1500 4x2 5.3 6L80E

dholvrsn

They corrode, come un-soldered, and otherwise leak.
'80 MPG Pony, '80-'92
'79 porthole wagon, '06-on
'80 trunk model. '17-on
-----
'98 Dodge Ram 1500
'95 Buick Riviera
'63 Studebaker Champ
'57 Studebaker Silver Hawk
'51 Studebaker Commander Starlight
'47 Studebaker Champion
'41 Studebaker Commander Land Cruiser

r4pinto

I know mine had a big hole in it, but now that I replaced mine it doesn't matter... As long as it doesn't go bad again.
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

dave1987

Quick question, why dis on brass floats???
1978 Ford Pinto Sedan - Family owned since new

Remembering Jeff Fitcher with every drive in my 78 Sedan.

I am a Pinto Surgeon. Fixing problems and giving Pintos a chance to live again is more than a hobby, it's a passion!

r4pinto

That would make sense both my sedan & hatchback had the brass float. Not too sure about a wagon, but it sounds like it used a plastic float. Kinda stupid to use a brass float anyways. If I hadn't already fixed mine I would more than likely use a plastic float if possible.
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

popbumper

That's a very good point, someone else with a wagon would have to corroborate (that is, verify) that this is the case!

Chris
Restoring a 1976 MPG wagon - purchased 6/08

phils toys


having read all this about the sending unit   could it be that the wagon one has the plastic and the sedan has the brass. the sedning units hav a different # and supposedly are not interchangeable  as the tank size is different. the wagon  holding more fuel.
phil
2006, 07,08 ,10 Carlisle 3rd stock pinto 4 years same place
2007 PCCA East Regional Best Wagon
2008 CAHS Prom Coolest Ride
2011,2014 pinto stampede

popbumper

That's not rude at all, that's more information! OK, I guess maybe then there were at least two manufacturers that Ford used for these sending units - one with a brass float, one with a rectangular flat "plastic/foam" piece. Mine had the latter. YOur car can be fitted with either one, regardless of year.

The caution however stands - one should not buy a brass float assuming that their sending unit has one; they should pull it FIRST. I realize it's a cheap purchase, but I personally hate buying stuff I can't use - because I have done A LOT of that!

Chris
Restoring a 1976 MPG wagon - purchased 6/08

dave1987

Not to seems rude but I beg to differ, Chris.

My 78 has never had the tank worked on before and it has a round brass float on the sending unit. I know this because it has been in the family since it was new.

I do agree with you on the fact that they did change to plastic, but for which models and what year it was done, I do not know....The 77/78 (77 build) Bobcat wagon I pulled the sending unit from has a thin plastic rectangular float on it. Thin and rectangular due to the tank being slimmer most likely, but plastic, I have no clue.
1978 Ford Pinto Sedan - Family owned since new

Remembering Jeff Fitcher with every drive in my 78 Sedan.

I am a Pinto Surgeon. Fixing problems and giving Pintos a chance to live again is more than a hobby, it's a passion!

popbumper

Also the car will almost definitely need the sending unit float replaced. They were brass and almost always went bad by now, causing the gas gauge not to work.
[/quote]

Little bit of "trivia" to add here. All sending units did >not< have the brass float. The brass float was used on early models but the float was changed to a very light foam/plastic unit later on (not sure when). I know this only because I had to pull me sending unit from my '76 wagon, and it was different.

Not enough evidence? I found a NOS unit - it was exactly the same. Somewhere along the line the brass float was changed, so don't assume that buying one from SSC Enterprises will "fix you up".

Chris
Restoring a 1976 MPG wagon - purchased 6/08

Srt

Quote from: beegle55 on May 31, 2009, 08:44:54 PM
Very very early Pintos, as in the first run 1971 models, had bugs in the engine such as cam timing and carb issues. But I would say most of those have been serviced in the near 40 years they have had on the roads and that kind of issue would be the least of the problems associated with a car that old. Almost all Pinto's; however, were essentially the same and I don't think there is a bad one in the bunch  :P Just watch for frame rot in the rear and thoroughly inspect a car before buying, but that goes for anything not just a Pinto.  :welcome: and good luck!

   -beegle55

i bought my Pinto in late 1970.  i never had any problems with the carb &/or cam issues.  matter of fact, i swapped out the original cam for a hotter Isky very shortly after I bought the car and put on close to 10K miles before going back to the same stock cam (the original cam that came with the car) & carb & a turbo.

never had any problems
the only substitute for cubic inches is BOOST!!!

beegle55

Very very early Pintos, as in the first run 1971 models, had bugs in the engine such as cam timing and carb issues. But I would say most of those have been serviced in the near 40 years they have had on the roads and that kind of issue would be the least of the problems associated with a car that old. Almost all Pinto's; however, were essentially the same and I don't think there is a bad one in the bunch  :P Just watch for frame rot in the rear and thoroughly inspect a car before buying, but that goes for anything not just a Pinto.  :welcome: and good luck!

   -beegle55
2005 Jeep GC 5.7 HEMI
1993 Ford Mustang
1991 Ford Mustang GT
1988 Ford Mustang
1980 Ford Pinto Cruising- Mint, Fully documented
1979 Ford Pinto Trunk- 2.3L 4 speed
1978 Ford Pinto HB- 302 drag car
1976 Ford Pinto Runabout- 40,000 mi, V6
1972 Ford Maverick Grabber (real)
1970 Ford Mustang 302

r4pinto

On the 74-up years that have the 2.3 if it runs rough it could be a camshaft issue. The 2.3 engine used a slider cam/follower setup and it did create a bad running car when the cam wore out. That's not to say that is something to avoid, as they are easily swapped out with a roller setup out of a newer 2.3l engine. Also the car will almost definitely need the sending unit float replaced. They were brass and almost always went bad by now, causing the gas gauge not to work.
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

blupinto

Howdy Beicholz and  :welcome:.

I think every year Pinto had its own unique issues but I can't think of any that had "bugs" (like some Isuzu Troopers with their aluminum heads). Of course the '73 and earlier didn't have the smog stuff and the '71-'76s had the gas tank recall thing. Anyone think of anything?
One can never have too many Pintos!

Carolina Boy

Of course the older they are, where they're from, very high mileage are areas to check out. If there is a tree growing out of the hood, run away, but take parts. It's all in how much work you are willing to put in it. I myself like '76 and up because of the room in the engine bay for a SBF. But now I will always love the '71 as it was my first.
If life gives you a lemon, squeeze it in your moonshine and buy a Pinto.

beicholz

Are there any years / models to be avoided due to maintenance issues?   Other than rust, any problems I should watch out for in setting out to buy a Pinto (hatchback, sedan, or non-hatchback).
1973 Pinto Squire, 59K Miles, 2.0, Auto P/B, A/C
1972 VW Karmann Ghia Convert. (Red/Black), 2K Miles on restoration, One Owner
1972 Chevy Vega (virtual owner - in the junkyard)
2011 Subaru Outback 4WD
1 Yam. Golf Cart: Our "car" on Catalina Island