Mini Classifieds

1973 Pinto Pangra

Date: 07/08/2019 10:09 pm
Wanted 71-73 Pinto grill
Date: 03/09/2019 10:45 pm
78 Cruising Wagon at Mecum Chattanooga

Date: 09/02/2021 08:21 am
Leaf Spring Mount Rubber Insulator
Date: 08/05/2018 01:58 pm
Need lower control arms for 1973 pinto
Date: 02/27/2017 10:10 pm
Rear brake shoes

Date: 01/23/2017 05:01 pm
1973 Interior parts wanted
Date: 01/02/2017 11:02 pm
Chilton's Repair & Tune-up Guide 1971-1979 Pinto and Bobcat

Date: 03/06/2017 01:24 am
Wanted - 71-73 Pinto grill
Date: 12/15/2016 03:32 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: 139,600
  • Total Topics: 16,271
  • Online today: 246
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 186
  • Total: 186
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.

Heater Hoses?

Started by pintoguy76, November 02, 2007, 04:16:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pintoguy76

I think i did a 3rd last year didnt do much. Ill do atleast half this time. And go from there. But ill wait until it gets cool enough out constantly before i do. It was 70 here today. And tuesday.... it will be in the 40s with a low of 25. AH the missouri weather. Wait 5 minutes and it will change.
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

earthquake

depends on the car.My 73 we had to block the whole thing off.Start with half and go from there.
   Doc.
73 sedan parts car,80 crusin wagon conversion,76 F 250 460 SCJ,74 Ranchero 4x4,88 mustang lx convertable,and the readheaded step child 86 uhhh Chevy 4x4(Sorry guys it was cheap)

pintoguy76

I dont have the nerve to totally remove my fan altho as long as you're moving you dont need it. Id like to have an electric fan that i could just switch off in the winter. That'd save on gas, too. Im sure it would pay for itself relativly easy. I am going to try the cardboard tho. How much of the radiator did you block off?
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

fast34

My 78 runs cool to in cooler temps. I put the cardboard in front and now it runs warm, 180-190. also have a 195 stat. In the winter, I take off the fan totally too.

pintoguy76

Coolant level was fine. Earthquakes suggestion that the heater core doesnt fill up properly  when reversed does make sense. Because thats when the level dropped was after i changed the hoses over. and i didnt lose much coolant when i removed the hoses. Afterwards when i drove around for a bit and came home i checked it again and it was a tad low, you could see it in the tubes of the radiator  but it wasnt pooled above the fins anymore. i poured an 1/8th maybe 1/4 of a gallon in it  to fill; it back up. The heat isnt as hot as the 74, still, but i think thats because the engine simply wont get to temp. It was like 50 degrees when i drove it tonite and it wouldnt get over 140-150 degrees. Has a 195 degree tstat in it. Its still TONS better than it was. the REAL test will be to see how the heat works when its in the teens or single digits. Still pondering the cardboard thing but its still too warm to think about that yet. Some funny weather we're having here. it froze last night...barely... not even gonna get into the 30s tonite... and talking about 70s again on sunday. Most of the leaves havnt even changed colors yet.. let alone falling from the trees. But thats just me rambling.
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

77turbopinto

Quote from: pintoguy76 on November 02, 2007, 07:05:32 PM
Well actually it appears switching the hoses around did help the heat alot. the heat would work a little on low but on high it would pretty much blow cold air. After switching the hoses around i did have to add a somewhat significant amount of antifreeze. That makes me wonder if the heater core indeed wasnt filling up right. It wasnt low before because nothing leaks. Everything is new except the engine itself and the heater hoses, and i had just flushed and filled the radiator before my trip to texas... and i didnt lose much antifreeze to speak of changing the hoses around.  After i started it up and let the heat run i checked the level and it was a bit low. I might have added 1/4 of a gallon.

Low coolant will cause similar issues. 

I also belive that if there was some opstruction in the core, reversing the flow would have helped to unclog it. The bad part of that is now the clog could be elswhere in the system.

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

pintoguy76

Well actually it appears switching the hoses around did help the heat alot. the heat would work a little on low but on high it would pretty much blow cold air. After switching the hoses around i did have to add a somewhat significant amount of antifreeze. That makes me wonder if the heater core indeed wasnt filling up right. It wasnt low before because nothing leaks. Everything is new except the engine itself and the heater hoses, and i had just flushed and filled the radiator before my trip to texas... and i didnt lose much antifreeze to speak of changing the hoses around.  After i started it up and let the heat run i checked the level and it was a bit low. I might have added 1/4 of a gallon.
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

77turbopinto

I dissagree.

The coolant flows through the core, the core does not direct the coolant so it will travel as it should. I have noticed that some years, the CORE has two sizes for the tubes, but on all of mine with the ORIGINAL hoses, both the 'engine sides' have been the same (tapered), so I don't think that is the issue.

Yes, the radiator has the 'return' at the top to aid heat transfer, but the core is much smaller and in a confined space. IMHO and experience, if you are not getting good heat from it, don't assume it is just reversed lines.

If the car does not have A/C the core is easy to change (dispite what you were told) and should at least be inspected as they are prone to failure and clogging. Also inspect the control cables and doors, and keep in mind that "kritters" like heater boxes.

My question is: Does it blow hot air at a decreased volume (CFM), or is the air cooler at a regular volume?

Another good way to check is with one of those "temp" things with the laser on them (can't think of the name of them). If you are not getting HOT air: test both hoses, if they have about the same (hot) temp with the heat full on, you have an 'air' or box issue, if they are different (one hot one cool) you have a part clogged or box/control issue. If they are both cooler than they should be, the core is mostly or fully clogged.


Bill


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

pintoguy76

Quote from: hellfirejim on November 02, 2007, 11:16:48 AM
Here's the way it is on my 75.  the water comes out of my intake manifold, around the back of the engine and into the heater out let.  Then back out the outlet and back to the water pump.

Hope this helps.
jim

Thats how it is on my 74 and on the 76 too, but the hoses are switched around on the 76. That explains the mysterious heat problem. Thanks for all the replys guys. :)
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

pintoguy76

My hoses must be backwards then. My heat doesnt work for crap in that car. It worked great in the 74 tho. So the lower hose must come in from the water pump then? Thats how it is on the 74. The 79 has the late style hoses as you mentioned. Its got two big  lines, one from pump to the lower inlet on the core, and one to the t-stat housing. The line to the tstat housing has a very small outlet on the side of the steel tube back in the back that runs to the intake. I'll get these hoses switched around. I gotta drive this today. The outlet on the bottom of the radiator broke on the 74 last night when i was trying to take the radiator out to replace the water pump which i thought was leaking but isnt. Its probably the radiator itself leaking.
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

earthquake

If the hoses are backwards the heat wont work well.The coolant has to come in the bottom fitting which is usually a bigger tube,this fills the core completely allowing the transfer of heat to the core.The outlet is usually smaller to help hold the coolant in the core longer for better heat transfer.If the hoses are backwards the coolant flows into the core at a reduced rate falling to the bottom and out of the core faster than it can flow in.This means the core never fills completely so you end up with little heat transfer.there is 2 different hose routings,Early and late,I believe late model went to the thermostat housing.I can send pics of my setup but i have an oil cooler and it may just serve to confuse further,then again maybe not.Let me know.As for the motor runnin cool when you figure it out let me know,I have the same problem,160 to 170 winter 195 summer and thats with a 195 deg thermostat.
73 sedan parts car,80 crusin wagon conversion,76 F 250 460 SCJ,74 Ranchero 4x4,88 mustang lx convertable,and the readheaded step child 86 uhhh Chevy 4x4(Sorry guys it was cheap)

hellfirejim

Here's the way it is on my 75.  the water comes out of my intake manifold, around the back of the engine and into the heater out let.  Then back out the outlet and back to the water pump.

Hope this helps.
jim
It's a good day to be alive!
PCCA Pinto Number #385


Pintony

Hello pintoguy76,
The heater hoses sound sdrawkcab to me...
From Pintony

pintoguy76

Ok heres the deal. I have three pintos. One 74 wagon, one 76 sedan, and one 79 sedan. All 2.3 engines. Today i was sort of winterizing the 74 and the 79 since they only had water in them, and checked on the 76 even tho i knew it was fine.  That is when i noticed that the heater hoses on my 76 are hooked up differently than those on the 74. The 79 is similar to the 74 but it has a BIG hose that goes to the thermostat housing, and a little hose off the big hose over to the intake (electric/vacuum choke), where as the 75 and 76 have the big line running over to the intake to run the hot water choke. Now. The thing is is that the 74 has its lower heater hose going to the water pump and the upper heater hose going to the intake. The lower hose on the 79 also goes strait to the water pump. But on the 76 the hoses are opposite of that. The lower heater hose is going to the intake and the upper hose is going to the water pump. I tend to think that it is the one thats backwards since the 74 and the 79 are both the same and the 79 since its been off the road for so many years until now, its had less chance to be messed with. It even has the original 1979 plug wires. :O.  The heat and defrost hasnt worked very good on the 76 since ive had it. Ive always assumed the heater core was plugged up. Altho the temp doesnt get over 140/160 ish in the winter, and runs a normal 195 in the summer, i still feel like the heat could do better in the 76 than it does. It will barly keep it tolerable and yer fingers still freeze. Could the hoses having  been switched around be causing me heat problems? I really dont look forward to replacing the heater core if thats the problem. The car is non AC but everyone says me and the car will have a cussing match replacing the heater core. Still also cant figure out why the temp wont  get up to what its supposed to be when its cool/cold out. Ive tried probably 5 or 6 new thermostats. The core of the radiator is a few inches bigger than the original. Its got a new replacement radiator in it. Maybe i need a BIG piece of cardboard to help it out. With it getting cold out id like to fix the heat if its not too big of a deal. If not ill tolerate it or drive something else. :(
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