Mini Classifieds

72 Pinto
Date: 03/07/2019 12:07 pm
Seeking reveal molding for driver's door for a 1980 Squire Wagon
Date: 11/08/2020 02:10 pm
1978 ford pinto carb
Date: 02/04/2018 06:09 pm
1973 Bobcat Cruzin Wagon for Sale $4000 obo

Date: 04/13/2018 11:30 am
1972 Pinto for sale

Date: 05/19/2021 12:41 am
'79 Ford Pinto, Green,

Date: 10/29/2019 11:50 am
72 Pinto parts
Date: 12/04/2018 09:56 pm
1973 Pinto hatchback for sale

Date: 11/13/2023 11:30 am
71 72 front bumper brackets
Date: 06/10/2020 10:55 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: 466
  • Total: 466
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.

2.3l cam timing

Started by slowride, April 22, 2009, 10:26:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

slowride

I have an affliction.... I can't stop when I get started on a project. It's happening to this one too. I have the new timing belt and tensioner coming Monday, so I'll continue with my plan to try advancing the cam, then replace the belt. I doubt I'll pick up the advance I need on the cam with just teh belt replacement, so I'll be getting an adjustable cam gear (actually it's a sprocket.. I HATE it being known as a gear, but anyways) and seeing how much advance it takes to overcome the smog grind.
Any preferences on gears? I've seen the Esslinger and Racer Walsh (favorite $o far), and the Summit multi-key. 

pintoguy76

My 2.3 auto pinto will leave my two 2.3 4 speed pintos in the dust. I dont know why. The engine i put in that car (the one with the auto) is from an old junk pinto that hadnt run in years  when i got ahold of it for free. It has blowby which the other two dont have. It has a 3.08 ratio and the two 4 speed cars have 3.00 (on the 76) and 3.55 on the 74. I dont understand it unless it has an aftermarket cam or something. I wouldnt think so tho. I am extremely surprised at the power it has, i was afraid the auto would really kill it. But it will burn the tires and the two 2.3/4 spd ones wont. Even the 74 with 3.55s.  Anyways I sort of digress. The 74 doesnt have much power at all, I am not sure what is wrong with it. It bogs down when you take off and even with your foot on the floor it feels like you could run faster. I dont know if its a cam timing issue or what. It has had the head shaved a bit when i had the head rebuilt, that may effect it some. It may also be the point type ignition. I dont think it burns anywhere near as hot. It has always shook violently when you rev it up with no load on it, mainly when cold. I dont understand that either. And it sort of makes a "farting" noise for lack of a better term when i let off the throttle to shift. Does this stuff sound like cam timing??
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

Wittsend

I won't argue with one's success. My experience has been mainly with Datsun 510's and Mopar 318's.  These are 1973 smog era cars and moving the timing produced no perceptible difference in my case.  At least in the 318 there are claims about the significant retardation built into the cam as well.  If the alteration works on the 2.3 that is great.

I'll certainly agree to the cars with automatics needing all the torque they can get.  My Auto, 2.0 couldn't even get on the trailer without human assistance.
Tom

71pintoracer

[.  But on the street it likely is imperceptible.
Tom

[/quote]
I have to respectfully disagree. An automatic Pinto needs all the low end help it can get. Add to that the cam is likely retarded to begin with, so even getting it back to zero is a big help. I advanced the cam on my wifes 2.0 Pinto 2 degrees, but the overall correction was 6 degrees and even she noticed the difference.
If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

slowride

Looking at the front of the engine, it rotates clockwise, so advancing the cam would be moving the cam clockwise.

pintoguy76

Which way is advanced on the cam gear? When its one tooth above (to the right of) the pointer, or when it is one tooth below (to the left) of the timing pointer?
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

slowride

Quote from: Wittsend on April 23, 2009, 01:51:40 PM
With 38 teeth on the cam sprocket I get 9.475 degrees at the cam or nearly 19 degrees at the crank per tooth.  Most offset keys only go to 4 degrees. So, I would assume much more and a different grind would be more in order.

With such little torque from the 2.3 and the fact that degreeing only moves, not creates more torque I'd think changes would show little difference. Yes, maybe in a race that is won by a few feet all other thing being equal the timing could make the difference.  But on the street it likely is imperceptible.
Tom
Keep one thing in mind.... I'm working with a stock cam. They were ground retarded 4 degrees and often more. Most aftermarket cams are ground advanced, so you wouldn't NEED more than 4 degrees at the crank.

slowride

Theoretically, advancing the cam (to a point) builds more cylinder pressure as you are closing the intake valve sooner. I suspect the result of advancing the cam 1 tooth will bring torque in sooner, but will flatten whatever powerband there is drastically. My main focus will be when I replace the belt..... advancing the cam on the old belt first will just be playing.

Wittsend

With 38 teeth on the cam sprocket I get 9.475 degrees at the cam or nearly 19 degrees at the crank per tooth.  Most offset keys only go to 4 degrees. So, I would assume much more and a different grind would be more in order.

With such little torque from the 2.3 and the fact that degreeing only moves, not creates more torque I'd think changes would show little difference. Yes, maybe in a race that is won by a few feet all other thing being equal the timing could make the difference.  But on the street it likely is imperceptible.
Tom

71pintoracer

.030" = about 2 degrees. I think one tooth advanced will be too much, but hey, it's worth a try. I think timing belts do stretch with age, I've replaced belts on many cars (mine included) and they ran better. Longer belt = retarded cam timing.
If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

slowride

Quote from: dick1172762 on April 22, 2009, 05:34:56 PM
One tooth is 12deg.
So let's see if my math is right.
12 degrees minus 4 degrees (retard ground into the cam for smog back then)= 8, minus 2 degrees advance (over "straight up") I want would leave it 6 degrees advanced. Any surfacing or milling done in the past would decrease that figure also. Problem is, I don't know if it's been surfaced before... I was told the engine is untouched, but I've had sellers tell me THAT before.
Does anyone have a guess as to how many degrees it retards the came with a .010" (for instance) surface?

slowride

Quote from: 71pintoracer on April 22, 2009, 08:24:10 PM
Look at my post under "Your Projects" called "Cam Timing 101"
This should help answer your questions. Currently on page 2.
I read the thread... very informative. I don't know that I want to replace the cam sprocket with an adjustable at this time, but I'll replace the belt and tensioner, then see if there's any difference. Buying a 35 year old car leaves a lot of questions to be answered.... has the head been surfaced/milled and how much among others.
I did advance the timing again just shy of detonation under load and it's better. There's a very small timing range with an automatic, so hopefully the new belt will help. I've heard belts don't stretch, they break, so we'll see. 

71pintoracer

Look at my post under "Your Projects" called "Cam Timing 101"
This should help answer your questions. Currently on page 2.
If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

Mike Modified

Stolen from http://forum.merkurclub.com/forum/index.php on setting cam timing without an outer cover:

"If you run a string from center of cam bolt to the center of the aux sprocket bolt, line up the pointer on the cam gear to this. Obviously there are a few steps you must do first to get it to TDC, but it is a way to set your timing without the rear timing cover with the pointers."

Mike

dick1172762

Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

slowride

After reading a bit more here and other places, 1 tooth may be too much, so I'm going to do 2 things. First, advance the cam 1 tooth and try it. Second, I have a timing belt and tensioner coming and will replace the old one. I don't know how old this one is, how stretched it is, or even if it IS stretched. when I'm done I should be able to tell what the problem was and what ultimately fixed it. Worst case scenario is I will have a new belt and tensioner and won't have to worry about it breaking for some time.   

slowride

Since I got the wagon I have been less than impressed with the low end torque. Granted it's a 2.3l 4 cyl and I'm used to built big blocks, but I'm 99% sure the cam timing is retarded. My outer cover is missing, so I chose a spot next to the damper, found TDC and marked it. I checked the mark on the cam sprocket and it appears to be correct, however, since I opened up the exhaust and backed the ign timing off a couple degrees (to eliminate a slight ping on accel), it has developed a "sneeze" when I punch it at low rpm. On any one of my other cars, this would indicate a retarded cam. I should degree it, but in the interest of saving time, I'm considering just advancing the cam 1 tooth and testing it. I seem to remember that the 2.3 is a non interference engine, so there shouldn't be any downside to doing this other than a possible waste of time.
Has anyone else tried this shortcut or have any info?