Mini Classifieds

Pinto 4-spd transmissions
Date: 06/15/2018 09:15 am
Pinto wagon Parts
Date: 06/23/2021 03:25 pm
73 rear hatchback glass
Date: 07/06/2017 11:33 am
Seeking parts
Date: 10/18/2020 10:35 am
Wanted instrument cluster lens for 74
Date: 04/30/2023 04:31 pm
1976 (non hatchback) pinto (90% complete project)

Date: 07/10/2016 10:17 am
MISC PINTO PARTS

Date: 08/27/2017 10:23 am
1972 Rallye wagon rebuild
Date: 11/14/2020 07:31 pm
1976 (non hatchback) pinto (90% complete project)

Date: 07/10/2016 10:17 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: 139,595
  • Total Topics: 16,270
  • Online today: 445
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 364
  • Total: 364
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.

what kind of mpg are you guys getting out of your pintos?

Started by poomwah, September 16, 2010, 01:01:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

apintonut


driving 2.0 auto 73 run about 25-28 mpg


2.3 4 speed wagon 22-27 mpg


towing
2.3t 5 speed about 1,xxx,xxx
playing

8-12 mpg
74 hatch soon to be turbo 2.3
73 sedan soon to be painted
stiletto parts(4 sale)
79 pinto wagon & beentoad
wtb 75 yellow w/ black int. (rally?) like profile pic.

blupinto

Too bad you don't live in southern California... there are a few north of me for sale at various prices. One is bound to show up and it'll come to you as if it were meant to be. Mine sure did! My fingers are crossed and good JuJu is headed your way. ;D
One can never have too many Pintos!

discolives78

Mine gets 37 on the freeway at 55, 30 at 65 and 25 around town if  it' a lot of stop and go. She's a stock 2.3, 4 speed 6.5 rear with tall 14's on the back.


A virtual version of my last Pinto. Was Registered Ride #111. Missed every day.

poomwah


blupinto

One can never have too many Pintos!

poomwah


Starliner

My 73 Pinto gets 42mpg at 55 mph.  39 mpg at 65mph & 36 mpg at 75mph.
It is a 1600 stick shift.  Original drivetrain.   Here are the low cost mods that help get the mileage:
* I added very tall 15 inch tires in the rear that creates 21% overdrive.
* Electric cooling fan that virtually never turns on except when stopped.
* Mallory electronic distributor with Bosch platinum plugs.
* Stock exhaust manifold casting was cleaned up inside, stock exhaust pipe size for velocity, easy flow muffler.
* Carburetor jets are actually drilled richer.
* 1 qt Mobil 1 0W-30 racing oil for zinc phosphorus protection mixed with 0W-40 Mobil 1.
* Front spoiler & rear spoiler.
* Timing set for 89 octane fuel. 

That said, wifey's 79 Pinto 2300 automatic gets terrible mileage!
1973 Pinto 1600 - Sold!  
1979 Pinto 2300 - Sold!
1984 Audi 5000 Avant - 60,000 original miles
1987 Audi 5000 S Quattro - The snowmobile
1973 Volvo 1800 ES wagon -  my project car
1976 Mustang II - Wifey's new toy

dga57

My original 1974 Runabout (that I purchased brand new) with a 2300 cc/4 spd. manual never broke 19 mpg, no matter what!

Dwayne :smile:
Pinto Car Club of America - Serving the Ford Pinto enthusiast since 1999.

Srt

For What It's Worth...
in 1971/72

my trunk model with a high compression 2.0, turbo, 4 spd, 4:11 (& a corrected speedo) with 185/70-sr13 dunlops was getting 24 on a so-cal freeway cruise.

around town it was most likely cut in 1/2 because of my extremely heavy foot & my out of control appetite for Saturday night street racing :o
the only substitute for cubic inches is BOOST!!!

dave1987

Last time I checked, my 78 sedan was getting 15-16mpg. 2.3l 4 speed with 2.71 gears.

That was ayear or two before I changed over to the 91' mustang roller cam, rebuilt the carburetor, removed the egr valve and changed the axle to a 73' pinto w/3.41 gears. From watching the odometer and driving it a lot, its around 20-25 now, depending on the roads I take from town to town.
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!

turbo74pinto

74 hatch back, modded efi/turbo 2.3, 4 banger t5, 3.40 gears and 185/75/13s.  i get mid 20s

bob
Take a job big or small, do it right or not at all.

dholvrsn

Wee Beastie got 17-18 MPG with a very tired 2.3 and slush box.

Now she's getting 22.5-27.5 MPG with a EFI turbo 2.3 plus WC T-5 and 3.25 gears.

I may tweak the baseline idle and TPS to get a few more MPG.

I'm wondering if originally setting the TPS voltage with an old Triplett VOM (like a Simpson) instead of a higher-Z DMM (and probably with a slightly low battery too) is throwing me off.

FWIW, my '98 Riveria (no supercharger) gets about the same MPG, but the turbo Pinto can run circles around it.
'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


blupinto

Quote from: poomwah on September 17, 2010, 09:18:20 PM
wheres a good place to find a pinto?  my "local" classifieds covers a VERY small town.  I don't want to use ebay because I don't want to buy without driving first

Then there's here... ;D   Two of my current Pintos were had via craigslist, and my lil' red '71 is a combination of CL and this site. The people selling her had an ad on both, but I did see Ruby here first.  ;D   I hope you find a sweet one! ;D
One can never have too many Pintos!

dga57

Quote from: poomwah on September 17, 2010, 09:18:20 PM
wheres a good place to find a pinto?  my "local" classifieds covers a VERY small town.  I don't want to use ebay because I don't want to buy without driving first

You might try Craigslist.  This site is also sometimes a good source for Pintos.  Good luck!

Dwayne :smile:
Pinto Car Club of America - Serving the Ford Pinto enthusiast since 1999.

poomwah

wheres a good place to find a pinto?  my "local" classifieds covers a VERY small town.  I don't want to use ebay because I don't want to buy without driving first

pintolovr

1973 cruising wagon with a 5.0 H.O. with a beefed C-4. I get right around 20 in the city. (If I keep my right foot under control). Driven daily cuz it gets better mileage than my Ram.
1973 Pinto Cruising Wagon (5.0 H.O.)
1977 Cutlass Y-19 (sold)
1974 2.0 4 speed 42,000 miles

randyg

I only get 3 miles to the gallon.  :hypno:  But that's around town. Havent taken it out on the highway yet. 110 octane. Built 289, toploader, and 5.43 gears. Make that smiles per gallon!!!!!
Randy
Just a 289......

r4pinto

1977 Ford Pinto, 2.3L engine, Ranger roller cam, ramanufactured carb for a 76 Pinto, stock timing, rebuilt engine.. Just found out I am getting 27mpg
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

poomwah

I'm getting really excited about these numbers, guy :]  thanks
now I just need to find one when the time comes.  The budget says that within 3 to 4 weeks , I'll be actively shopping :]

72Wagon

1972 Wagon, 122 cid, 4bbl Holley, headers, head shaved .100, MSD, 4 speed, 3:50 gears, etc.  25 mpg highway, under 20 in town.
1972 Wagon
2.0 (not stock), 4 Speed with Hurst shifter and roll control, Holley 390 4bbl, Spearco intake, MSD Ignition. 8 inch rearend 3.55 gears, custom dash and interior.

blupinto

So far... negatory. I just haven't gotten around to doing it. I really have no excuse for that.  :P   I know just to GET somewhere I probably use lots of gas because of all the signal lights. Once I hit the freeway I'm going faster than the recommended 55 mph.  :fastcar:
One can never have too many Pintos!

dga57

Quote from: blupinto on September 16, 2010, 05:55:51 PM
Mine is probably the same as Dwayne's... I haven't calculated mileage yet, and I'll wager my leadfoot doesn't help either! lol. 1971, 1600, 4-speed, no mods. ;D   I do drive 65 on the freeway- otherwise Ruby and I would be one big red pancake! People are in a hurry out here!

Any idea what kind of local mileage you're getting?  I haven't driven mine anywhere except on the Interstate!

Dwayne :smile:
Pinto Car Club of America - Serving the Ford Pinto enthusiast since 1999.

blupinto

Mine is probably the same as Dwayne's... I haven't calculated mileage yet, and I'll wager my leadfoot doesn't help either! lol. 1971, 1600, 4-speed, no mods. ;D   I do drive 65 on the freeway- otherwise Ruby and I would be one big red pancake! People are in a hurry out here!
One can never have too many Pintos!

dga57

1972, 1600 cc, 4 speed manual, no modifications. 
30 mpg highway.

DWayne :smile:
Pinto Car Club of America - Serving the Ford Pinto enthusiast since 1999.

entropy

1972 Hoonabout
SBF swap
-308 cid
-CNC ported Brodix heads
-Edelbrock Super Victor intake
-QuickFuel 750 double pumper built by Siebert
-Single stage NOS Cheater system
8" rear 4.11 posi
G-Force 5 Speed
10 point rollcage


450-ish rwhp on motor.....something a bit more than that on the spray

Bigtimmay

well im gunna guess my pinto is gunna get about the same as my Turbocoupe since that where the motors coming from and it got around 25-30 depending on how i felt like driving that day lol.

1978 Bobcat 2.3 turbo with a T5 5speed behing it.
1978 Mercury Bobcat 2.3t swapped.Always needs more parts!

78pinto

i don't think i want to figure that out....i'm sure it would be depressing to me though :o
** Jeff (78Pinto) is Missing from us but will always be a part of our community- We miss you Jeff **

Norman Bagi

Getting about 13 miles to the gallon, alot less in the quater mile  :lol:  302, four barrel with Cleveland heads. A Mock Boss, because Ford never made a Boss Pinto but should have.

poomwah

what year, model, engine are you using, what mods have been done, if any.  the more details, the better.
thanks guys