Mini Classifieds

Wanted Postal Pinto
Date: 09/26/2019 05:31 pm
1978 pinto brake booster needed.
Date: 04/07/2021 06:12 pm
76 Pinto Wagon
Date: 07/08/2020 05:44 pm
Mallory Unilight dist 2.0
Date: 10/25/2019 03:44 pm
Need seals Pinto Wagon
Date: 02/16/2017 05:09 pm
Hoard of Pinto parts
Date: 12/17/2016 04:14 pm
74 Pinto Hub Caps & Trim Rings

Date: 02/28/2018 09:37 am
(3) 1980 Ford Pinto Station Wagon Projects

Date: 03/15/2023 02:16 pm
2.0 Mickey Thompson SUPER RARE Rocker cover and belt guard
Date: 08/22/2017 09:21 pm

Why the Ford Pinto didn’t suck

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suckThe Ford Pinto was born a low-rent, stumpy thing in Dearborn 40 years ago and grew to become one of the most infamous cars in history. The thing is that it didn't actually suck. Really.

Even after four decades, what's the first thing that comes to mind when most people think of the Ford Pinto? Ka-BLAM! The truth is the Pinto was more than that — and this is the story of how the exploding Pinto became a pre-apocalyptic narrative, how the myth was exposed, and why you should race one.

The Pinto was CEO Lee Iacocca's baby, a homegrown answer to the threat of compact-sized economy cars from Japan and Germany, the sales of which had grown significantly throughout the 1960s. Iacocca demanded the Pinto cost under $2,000, and weigh under 2,000 pounds. It was an all-hands-on-deck project, and Ford got it done in 25 months from concept to production.

Building its own small car meant Ford's buyers wouldn't have to hew to the Japanese government's size-tamping regulations; Ford would have the freedom to choose its own exterior dimensions and engine sizes based on market needs (as did Chevy with the Vega and AMC with the Gremlin). And people cold dug it.

When it was unveiled in late 1970 (ominously on September 11), US buyers noted the Pinto's pleasant shape — bringing to mind a certain tailless amphibian — and interior layout hinting at a hipster's sunken living room. Some call it one of the ugliest cars ever made, but like fans of Mischa Barton, Pinto lovers care not what others think. With its strong Kent OHV four (a distant cousin of the Lotus TwinCam), the Pinto could at least keep up with its peers, despite its drum brakes and as long as one looked past its Russian-roulette build quality.

But what of the elephant in the Pinto's room? Yes, the whole blowing-up-on-rear-end-impact thing. It all started a little more than a year after the Pinto's arrival.

 

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company

On May 28, 1972, Mrs. Lilly Gray and 13-year-old passenger Richard Grimshaw, set out from Anaheim, California toward Barstow in Gray's six-month-old Ford Pinto. Gray had been having trouble with the car since new, returning it to the dealer several times for stalling. After stopping in San Bernardino for gasoline, Gray got back on I-15 and accelerated to around 65 mph. Approaching traffic congestion, she moved from the left lane to the middle lane, where the car suddenly stalled and came to a stop. A 1962 Ford Galaxie, the driver unable to stop or swerve in time, rear-ended the Pinto. The Pinto's gas tank was driven forward, and punctured on the bolts of the differential housing.

As the rear wheel well sections separated from the floor pan, a full tank of fuel sprayed straight into the passenger compartment, which was engulfed in flames. Gray later died from congestive heart failure, a direct result of being nearly incinerated, while Grimshaw was burned severely and left permanently disfigured. Grimshaw and the Gray family sued Ford Motor Company (among others), and after a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned against Ford Motor Company. Ford did not contest amount of compensatory damages awarded to Grimshaw and the Gray family, and a jury awarded the plaintiffs $125 million, which the judge in the case subsequently reduced to the low seven figures. Other crashes and other lawsuits followed.

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

Mother Jones and Pinto Madness

In 1977, Mark Dowie, business manager of Mother Jones magazine published an article on the Pinto's "exploding gas tanks." It's the same article in which we first heard the chilling phrase, "How much does Ford think your life is worth?" Dowie had spent days sorting through filing cabinets at the Department of Transportation, examining paperwork Ford had produced as part of a lobbying effort to defeat a federal rear-end collision standard. That's where Dowie uncovered an innocuous-looking memo entitled "Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires."

The Car Talk blog describes why the memo proved so damning.

In it, Ford's director of auto safety estimated that equipping the Pinto with [an] $11 part would prevent 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries and 2,100 burned cars, for a total cost of $137 million. Paying out $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury and $700 per vehicle would cost only $49.15 million.

The government would, in 1978, demand Ford recall the million or so Pintos on the road to deal with the potential for gas-tank punctures. That "smoking gun" memo would become a symbol for corporate callousness and indifference to human life, haunting Ford (and other automakers) for decades. But despite the memo's cold calculations, was Ford characterized fairly as the Kevorkian of automakers?

Perhaps not. In 1991, A Rutgers Law Journal report [PDF] showed the total number of Pinto fires, out of 2 million cars and 10 years of production, stalled at 27. It was no more than any other vehicle, averaged out, and certainly not the thousand or more suggested by Mother Jones.

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

The big rebuttal, and vindication?

But what of the so-called "smoking gun" memo Dowie had unearthed? Surely Ford, and Lee Iacocca himself, were part of a ruthless establishment who didn't care if its customers lived or died, right? Well, not really. Remember that the memo was a lobbying document whose audience was intended to be the NHTSA. The memo didn't refer to Pintos, or even Ford products, specifically, but American cars in general. It also considered rollovers not rear-end collisions. And that chilling assignment of value to a human life? Indeed, it was federal regulators who often considered that startling concept in their own deliberations. The value figure used in Ford's memo was the same one regulators had themselves set forth.

In fact, measured by occupant fatalities per million cars in use during 1975 and 1976, the Pinto's safety record compared favorably to other subcompacts like the AMC Gremlin, Chevy Vega, Toyota Corolla and VW Beetle.

And what of Mother Jones' Dowie? As the Car Talk blog points out, Dowie now calls the Pinto, "a fabulous vehicle that got great gas mileage," if not for that one flaw: The legendary "$11 part."

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

Pinto Racing Doesn't Suck

Back in 1974, Car and Driver magazine created a Pinto for racing, an exercise to prove brains and common sense were more important than an unlimited budget and superstar power. As Patrick Bedard wrote in the March, 1975 issue of Car and Driver, "It's a great car to drive, this Pinto," referring to the racer the magazine prepared for the Goodrich Radial Challenge, an IMSA-sanctioned road racing series for small sedans.

Why'd they pick a Pinto over, say, a BMW 2002 or AMC Gremlin? Current owner of the prepped Pinto, Fox Motorsports says it was a matter of comparing the car's frontal area, weight, piston displacement, handling, wheel width, and horsepower to other cars of the day that would meet the entry criteria. (Racers like Jerry Walsh had by then already been fielding Pintos in IMSA's "Baby Grand" class.)

Bedard, along with Ron Nash and company procured a 30,000-mile 1972 Pinto two-door to transform. In addition to safety, chassis and differential mods, the team traded a 200-pound IMSA weight penalty for the power gain of Ford's 2.3-liter engine, which Bedard said "tipped the scales" in the Pinto's favor. But according to Bedard, it sounds like the real advantage was in the turns, thanks to some add-ons from Mssrs. Koni and Bilstein.

"The Pinto's advantage was cornering ability," Bedard wrote. "I don't think there was another car in the B. F. Goodrich series that was quicker through the turns on a dry track. The steering is light and quick, and the suspension is direct and predictable in a way that street cars never can be. It never darts over bumps, the axle is perfectly controlled and the suspension doesn't bottom."

Need more proof of the Pinto's lack of suck? Check out the SCCA Washington, DC region's spec-Pinto series.

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 139,593
  • Total Topics: 16,270
  • Online today: 489
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 162
  • Total: 162
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.

No spark?????

Started by 2point3turbo, January 06, 2007, 01:52:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

2point3turbo

I finally got it. I had to go back to my XR harness I bought and with Jerry's email on the TFI wiring info I got it running. Also I have to say that I am a MORON! The timing was WAY off for two days of very hard work on the Pinturbo. Thanks for every piece of info.... I needed it all!
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

It is possible but after the number of days you have tried it, I would think the gas would have cleared out.  If you have a leaky injector(s), that may flood a cylinder.  After turning off the engine, check that the fuel pressure does not decay significantly.  There is a schraider valve on the injector fuel log pipe for this check.  Also check that the distributor and cam are on the correct belt tooth.

Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

Thats what I was thinking after the post. I went ahead and took the head off for rebuild anyway. I have a ported head I have been wanting to put on so it gives me a reason to do so. When I tried to start it before tearing off the head it still would not start, could that be because there was to much gas in the cylinders? I may have also put the dist in one tooth wrong so I will do the whole shebang when I put the new head back on. I am just hoping that it was so flooded that that was the reason for no start. What do you think?
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

A head gasket should not do cause this.  Just speculating that you have got the injectors working but not the ignition and you have been turning it over repeatedly.  This will pump gas into the cylinders without igniting it.  The gas in the cylinders will run down past the rings into the oil pan diluting your oil.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

One problem after the next. I went to change the oil and it came out thin and smelt like gas. Is my head gasket shot? Maybe this is why I cant get it to start now.
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

I fixed the typo before sending it again to you this morning.  The typo was on line 46, the term "ECA self test connector, multiple" was replaced with "ECA power relay contact".

Your harness is apparently colored differently than the 87TC.  My dark blue maybe your brown.  On my 87TC harness, dark blue shielded wire is the PIP signal from the TFI top pin and goes to the ECU pin #56.  The 87TC does not have a brown wire on the TFI.

If by clutch your are referring to the transmission, there is a R/LB wire on the 87TC from the key start position +12V going thru the clutch safety switch to the starter solenoid relay small terminal and on to the TFI. The clutch switch is closed when the clutch is depressed so that you don't start the car with the clutch engaged. You can bypass (jumper across it) the clutch switch if you mentally provide this action. Grounding this on the 87TC harness would create a short (not good).

The 87TC has a solid state A/C clutch relay in the integrated controller module (box of 5 relays).  If this is the clutch you are referring to, leave it open circuited with the wires tape up.  If you plan to use A/C, I would recommend that you wait until the engine wiring is correct first.

Sounds like you are almost there, but be patient and do not let the magic smoke out of the compents.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

Let me know what the typo is so that I can fix it if need be. I thought the DB wire was the brown wire on the TFI so no w I need to know what the brown wire is for and I will need to change pins on the blue wire. Almost there.... it did want to start last night, got spark now! What should I do with the clutch relay, ground it out?
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

Congratulations on making "more power".  I found a typo in the spreadsheet  and will I send you a corrected one before you put it on your web site and again it was from a 87 turbo coupe.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

Thanks Jerry, you are the man!!! I got it running just moments ago and felt you should be the first to know.... other then my wife who heard my battle cry. If anyone needs help, ask Oldkayaker, he know best! That was a frustrating and time consuming venture but nothings to much for a Pinto. Thanks sooooooo much! I cant wait to get that T5 in now. WOOOOO HOOOO!!!! I found a pretty good recipe for the harness with all that time I had. That table you made up should be posted here. If you dont mind I could put it on my site and link it here. Thanks again and again.
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

That explains some of my confusion.  The spreadsheet I sent you has the pinout and wire colors for the turbocoupe LA2 which also works with the LA3.  I do not have any information on the PF3 pin out.  Since you are using a XR4Ti harness, I assume the PF3 is also a XR4Ti item.  If this is case, this site may help: http://www.merkurencyclopedia.com.  At the site click on EEC-IV at top and then click on 87/88 TC EEC-IV into XR on the left side.  This page gives instructions on how to install a LA3 into a XR4Ti including the pinout changes.  That site may also have the XR4Ti harness wire colors some where.

Keep going and soon you will have the "more power".
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

I am not running the LA3 for now. I have the PF3 I just got from a yard with the new harness. I can switch it all over to the LA3 if that would be easier for you to help me out. The plug swapping is the easy part. Can you give me pinouts for the PF3 to LA3? I want my car back!
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

I sent you the exel spreadsheets.  Since pin #1 is attached to the battery, you should at least have power there.  As 77turbopinto says, check the fuse link (assumes battery is good).

The LA3 came in the 88 turbocoupe.  For some reason Ford moved the pin assignments around some between models.  See http://www.gt350mustang.com/eecspecsturbo.htm for some of the changes (not 100% accurate).  Looking at your list there are a few items that need attention:

  • pin #27 should be connected to the VAM (VAF)
  • The BOOST wire should go to pin #31 on the LA3 instead of pin#32
  • The EGR shut off should go to pin #33 on the LA3 instead of pin #35
  • Pin #56 should go to the TFI module for the PIP signal
  • pin #57 is another +12V supply to the ECU (this is usually via the integrated relay module so it is only energized when the engine is running)

Keep plugging.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

I just tested other switches and plugs and there is no power anywhere. This is the wiring I followed:

Pin Location    Application/Name    Notes

1    Keep alive Power KAPWR            Attach to battery
4    Ignition Diag monitor IDM    
7    Engine coolant temp ECT    
10    A/C clutch ACC                    Not present
16    Ignition ground IGN GND    
17    Self test output STO    
20    Case Ground CSE GND            metal wiring
21    Idle Speed control ISC    
22    Fuel pump control FP    
23    Knock sensor KS    
25    Vane Air Temp VAT            Sensor in VAF
26    Voltage reference Vref    
29    Oxygen sensor EGO    
30    Nuetral drive switch NDS    Ground this wire
32    Boost control BOOST    
34    Data output link DOL    
35    EGR shutoff S/O    
36    Spark output SPOUT            near distributor
37    Vehicle power V PWR            12 from key
40    Battery ground BATT GND    ground anywhere
43    Vane air flow VAF    
45    Barometric pressure BP    
46    Signal return SIG RET    
47    Throttle position TP or TPS    
48    Self test input STI    
49    EGO ground EGO GND    
54    WOT A/C cutoff WAC            not present here
58    Injector bank 1 INJ 1    
59    Injector bank 2 INJ 2    
60    Battery ground BATT GND    ground anywhere

What is wrong here?
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

77turbopinto

Check your fuse links for contenuity.

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

2point3turbo

Yes please email to me. Thanks
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

You should eventually take the time to trace out the circuits with the wiring diagram and fix the problem(s).  To retain your sanity, below are some temporary new wirings to get spark and the engine cranking.  These assume the wires from the LA3 ECU to the TFI and the starter solenoid small terminal wire are not installed yet.  This is a little out of my comfort zone, so no guarantees of success or unburnt wires/components.

  • The TFI top pin DB shielded wire goes to the ECU pin 56.
  • The TFI second pin from the top Y/LG shielded wire goes to ECU pin 36.  This wire could be omitted just to get the engine running.
  • The TFI third pin from the top R/LB wire goes to the starter solenoid small terminal.  This will be energized only when you use the momentarily jumper described below.
  • The TFI fourth pin from the top R/LG wire goes to the coil's small positive terminal and to a fused +12V source.  This is the key switch run power.  Pull this fuse to stop the engine.
  • The TFI fifth pin from the top DG/Y wire goes to the coil's small negative terminal.  This wire also goes to the ECU pin 4 via a resistor wire.
  • The TFI bottom pin BK/O shielded wire goes to the ECU pin 16.
  • This is to run the starter so make sure it is in neutral or park.  At the starter solenoid, momentarily jumper the large positive terminal (the one hooked the battery) to the small terminal (there will be a small spark).

In order to keep my sanity about a year ago, I made up an exel spreadsheet for most of the 87 turbocoupe wiring.  It is too big to attach here, but I could email it to you if you want.
Above all be patient with the electrons and you will figure it out.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

I checked the current to the distributor when key is on and no power there. I wonder if my wiring is just not complete as far as the harness  power goes. Anyone feel like giving me dumb dumb easy directions. I have read everything and then some and have followed the pinouts to a tee and just dont know whats going on here.
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

2point3turbo

I have checked all wires, replaced distributor, replaced wiring harness and ecu... again, now I just want to bypass the key on the pinto and put it all on a push button. It has to be the wire coming off the starter solenoid thats severed. I cant seem to find it so now I just want to go around it. Any suggestions as to how?
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

I do not have a XR4Ti wiring diagram.  On a 87 turbocoupe and the 76 Pinto, the two little wires to the starter solenoid relay's small terminal are both R/LB.  One goes to the key switch (start position) via either the clutch switch or the auto neutral switch.  The other one goes to the TFI module (or to the ignition module on the original 76 harness).  There probably are other small wires on the starter solenoid relay's large terminal supplying battery voltage to the electrical system.

If the TFI module goes bad, you will not have spark.  You said you replaced "it" with a spare.  If just the TFI module was replaced, there is still the possibility that the Hall effect sensor in the distributor went bad.  I had this sensor die on my 86 Mustang and it definitely kills the spark.  To replace this sensor I believe you have to pull the distributor, from what I have read.

You said you had "no current to the coil".  I assume you meant "no voltage to the coil" (DC current meters are expensive).  With the key switch in run, you should have almost full positive battery voltage on both of the coil's small terminals.  The TFI module works via switching the ground to the coil.  If no voltage here, check up stream to the key switch, fuses, and fuse links.

Grounding unknown wires to see what happens scares me and could damage things.  Please use a volt ohm meter to trace wires (these are cheap).  If the wire was hooked up inside the car when you grounded it and you tried to start the car, it most likely blew a fuse or melted a fusible link.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

It is the black wire. The only thing going to the coil is the XR4TI wiring harness, this wire goes inside. When I grounded it to see what would happen, the car wouldnt even start or even click.
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

pintoguy76

Does it have two wires going into the one connector? One goes to the coil (thats yer problem) and the other goes to the ignition switch i think. What color is the wire?
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

2point3turbo

I replaced with a used one and still have no spark. I am thinking its that wire off the starter solenoid that just plugs in. It was severed but I dont know where it goes. I think it got cut when I switched harnesses out. Anyone know about what it connects to or if that may be the problem?
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

pintoguy76

Quote from: 2point3turbo on January 06, 2007, 10:32:59 PM
I just found a wire severed that probably shouldn't be. It is the small "plug" wire that hooks up to the starter solenoid. I cant seem to find the other end so I think I will have to tear the steering column apart to get back there. I also want to ask if the ignition mod went bad on the dist, would that cause there to be no current to the coil?

The ignition module can do all kinds of wierd sh*t. When the ignition module on my 76 went out, it would fire the coil only when i let up on the key after cranking, while the engine continued to turn for that split second, on residual energy. While cranking, it would not give any juice to the coil at all.
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

turbopinto72

oldkayaker gets a bump for his last post, good work.
Brad F
1972, 2.5 Turbo Pinto
1972, Pangra
1973, Pangra
1971, 289 Pinto

2point3turbo

I just found a wire severed that probably shouldn't be. It is the small "plug" wire that hooks up to the starter solenoid. I cant seem to find the other end so I think I will have to tear the steering column apart to get back there. I also want to ask if the ignition mod went bad on the dist, would that cause there to be no current to the coil?
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

oldkayaker

I am not an expert here but below are a few things to try.  When you say it is not getting spark, I am assuming that the fuel side is working.

  • With ignition switch in run, check for +12V at the coil (maybe a fuse blew).  Also check for voltage at the TFI connector (R/LG on a 87 LA2).
  • Check for spark at the coil.  This would eliminate bad high voltage wires, rotor, and cap.
  • Since you checked/swapped the coil, wiring, and ECU, the remaining components are: TFI, the Hall sensor in the distributor, and the high voltage circuit checked above.  If you have a spare TFI distributor, try that.
  • Since the wires have been handled some, maybe the resistor wire has failed.  This is a DG/Y wire from LA3 pin 4 to a splice point that then goes to the TFI, coil, and tach.  The symptom here would be that it gets spark while cranking but dies after the key is released.
  • Check for continuity in each of the remain three wires from the ECU to the TFI.  The last TFI wire can be checked for voltage while cranking (R/LB on a 87 LA2).
  • I seem to vaguely remember reading that if the SPOUT plug (the small white rectangular in line plug near the distributor) is pulled, the TFI will run independent of the ECU.  Not sure about this, but it is an easy check.
When you locate the errant item, please post your findings so I know what to look for when it happens to me.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

2point3turbo

I got a new ignition coil and still no spark. What can be wrong with the wiring?








/
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

2point3turbo

I did some swapping: LA3 and then back to PK1. Since swap, I had spark for a bit when first re pinned and went to LA3. Then it ran real rough but next day didnt run anymore. I then switched back to original... no work. Thats when I decided to just get a new harness and ECU and go from there. Now it still wont get spark. I have checked all wires a million times over. There are only two pins that need power, how hard is that? I have two other ign coils and they all had the same result, no spark. What in the world can this be?
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!