Mini Classifieds

Wanted Postal Pinto
Date: 08/30/2021 03:20 pm
Looking for Pinto manual shifter parts
Date: 01/28/2021 03:49 pm
Wanted Pinto Fiberglass Body Parts
Date: 05/19/2018 04:56 pm
Seeking 1971-1973 Rotors
Date: 04/08/2021 12:23 pm
1979 pinto
Date: 04/19/2018 02:02 am
Tubing bender 1/2 to 2 1/2 (3) inch roll cage / mufflers and more

Date: 03/13/2021 12:57 pm
1980 Pinto Wagon

Date: 02/29/2020 07:01 pm
Clutch Pedals for 75to 80 Pinto
Date: 09/21/2018 11:35 am
Trailer Hitch - 73 Pinto Wagon
Date: 02/04/2018 08:26 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: 246
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 249
  • Total: 249
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.

Fuel pump spitting gas

Started by ni2sml, December 15, 2007, 11:35:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jimspinto

 Hey, you welcome, glad to be of help.

However, its tine to tell [what turned out to be funny] a story
This happened back in the 70's, it was a Ford product but not a Pinto, think it was a Fairlane
"to set the scene"
  I owned a garage & tow co. ~ at the time, my partner & myself worked 24 hour days ~ he started at 5am & worked until midnight ~ I started at noon & worked until 5am ~ every three days we switched. God we were crazy, working like that !
  This day, I'd come in at noon and was advised of a car that had to be towed, which I did
  Apon returning, my partner said "unhook the car next to the door, and take a quick look at it.  It wont start, the customer has tryed for 3 or 4 days, and for some reason he now was in a big hurry.  Call him as soon as you know what the problem is
  I unhooked the car, put the battery charger on it, removed the air cleaner and the dist. cap, turned the key on, jumped across the selonid [turning the engine, to check for spark]
  There was this unbelieveable explosion, blew the hat off my head and when the smoke cleared, I noticed the the motor oil running down the driveway
  After calling the car owner, I got the FULL STORY

  Seems he worked at a hospital and had been bringing home "ether" and pouring it down the carb. for days. It built up in the oil pan and somehow the spark jumped from the dist. to the open cap, fired a plug or two and blew the oil pan wide open
  Everyone [except the car owner] got a big laugh out of it, he didn't think it was funny when he got the bill for a new oil pan [we'd both agreed it was his fault, not mine]
  When he came to pick up the car, he again apologized for not telling about the ether.  But I need to tell this part also !
  He had false teeth, that didn't fit well.  When he talked he kept his teeth together [I guess so they didn't fall out] and it sounded like he had a mouth full of something. For years, we'd say be carefull with ether, remember mouth full of sh--    And then laughed like hell
  Guess you'd have to be there, but to us it was funny the way it happened, still funny today
  Today, just a reminder, BE CAREFULL with starting fluid, or any "volatile" subtance and especially if your unfortunate enough to get hold of "raw ether"
   Holiday best to all. Jim at JIMSPINTO

ni2sml

OK, didn't know that could happen.  :o

As luck would have it, the car was due a change of oil anyway, and the old oil was draining out when I made the last post. It ran for maybe a minute before I shut it down and started draining it for the oil change.

FWIW, I didn't see any signs of fuel in the old oil, but then I didn't look all that closely at it. What's in there now is fresh and clean. :)

Again, thanks all for the advice, hints, and everything! :)

jimspinto

 

  HOLD IT, STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  PLASES STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  All the information to this point is good !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   HOWEVER, if a pump leaks where you can see it, its not UNCOMMOND that it also leaks the other way AT THE SAME TIME [into the crankcase]

  Before you run the motor [I assume you'v allready run it] any longer, without changing the motor oil and filter

   get all the advise you want, but if the pump leaked on the ground, chances are it leaked into the crankcase also.......... anyway oil is cheep !!!!!!!!!!

   Best of holiday wishes,   Jim at JIMS PINTO

ni2sml

It lives! It LIVES! Bwahahahahaaaa!!  :lol: *cough* Sorry...don't quite know what came over me there.

Quotelooks like you don't have to fight with the pump shield.

The shield wasn't all that hard, oddly enough, coming off or going back on. Well, the back bolt was kind of awkward, but once I figured out how to get a socket onto it (from above left, through a nest of vacuum hoses, with about 1' of extension bar, and center lead pulled off the distributor to get it out of the way) it was OK. It probably helps that this Pinto has no power steering or AC, and a previous owner removed the AIR pump, so the shield didn't have anything attached to it or above it getting in the way.

QuoteIt seems every time I do one and brag about how easy it is it turns out to be a pain in the arse.

I find it's easier just to assume that any time I go near any vehicle with a wrench, pain and suffering will soon follow. Even if I'm just changing the oil.  :-\ Though on the upside, getting the job done is always a good feeling.

I did have a momentary scare when the car kept cranking and cranking and...wouldn't start. Then I remembered the center lead to the distributor...durrrrrr...  ::)

FCANON

I've done quite a few of these where they sprayed out of the seepy hole...
looks like you don't have to fight with the pump shield.
I hope it works out well for you.
It seems every time I do one and brag about how easy it is it turns out to be a pain in the arse.

FrankBoss
www.pintoworks.com   www.tirestopinc.com
www.stophumpingmytown.com
www.FrankBoss.com

ni2sml

Putting a wrench on the nut and trying to turn it was threatening to make it into a nice smooth circle (that's some soft metal!). I got it off by putting a set of locking pliers on it, applying a bunch of torque and praying for it to move before the nut got trashed. It's a bit less nut-shaped than it was, but not bad enough to stop a wrench from going on.

Back inside warming up a little before I pull the old pump. The bolts are already off, and all the lines detached and blocked off (a suitable sized bolt pushed into the end of each old rubber line and the clamp put back onto it is doing a great job there).

pintoguy76

I had the same problem with the same car. Cepts its a 79 sedan. Ended up the only way i could get it off was to take it and the pump off. and put the line and nut in a vice and unscrew the pump from nut. I had damaged the nut too much by that time tho so even tho im using it, i cant get it as tight and id like. Took vice grips to get it where its at. I'll eventually get a new one, or use the special barbed fitting i bought to screw into the pump, and run a rubber hose form it to the carb. OR better yet since the mechanical pump is new, but oddly not working on its own, i'll just delete it and connect the line that normally goes right into the pump, strait into the carb. Im running an electric pump and pushing thru the mechanical pump for now. Even tho the pump is new im sure it will leak into the crankcase eventually. I couldnt seem to get the mechanical pump to work on it. This car has sat for 16 years, it needed alot of things before it could be driven again..it had the factory 79 pump, still has the factory plug wires and probably cap and rotor. Hope your new mechanical pump works ok. I couldnt get it to work on my 76 or on the 79 so they both got electric pumps. And its a carter pump!
Not a cheapie. Guess the lobe on the Aux shaft is worn down i dont know. Takes alot of lift for a new pump i guess.
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

ni2sml

So far, I have a replacement fuel pump and suitable rubber hose + clamps (thanks Advance Auto!), the new fuel filter is in (along with a new air filter), and the impact guard around the pump is off, but it was getting a bit too windy to work safely (40 mph gusts, decided I'd rather keep the hood attached to the car and so quickly called it a day). Looks like I'm taking Monday off to get the old girl back on the road.

Only problem other than the wind: the nut which attaches the metal pump-to-carb line to the old pump wouldn't move, hoping that some WD40 and the overnight delay will help free it up. I guess it's been on there awhile...

QuoteNothing seems to be made to last like it used to.

How very true. Here I am daily driving a car that was built nearly 30 years ago. The motor could really use a rebuild and the body needs even more TLC, but other than this fuel pump problem it's been totally reliable. I find it hard to imagine that, 30 years from now, there'll be a thriving community at toyotacamry.com talking about their cherished old motors...

Thanks all for the help and advice. I wouldn't have thought of using brake line to replace the metal fuel line, or even using rubber fuel injection system line. It shouldn't be necessary in this case, but it's good to know! :)

dave1987

I currently have a rubber line going from my pump to my carburetor which is actually fuel injection line. I don't know what I replaced my steel line to pump lines with, but I will be sure to check now.
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!

pintoguy76

I have a complaint about fuel hose. I cant seem to get any GOOD fuel hose. I am replacing fuel line (hoses) every few  years. Id think it would last longer than that. The ones i took off had all kinds of buildup and stuff on them so they were surly TONS older. These that i have recently replaced were still clean looking. I buy some kind of gates hose....whatever oreillys carries. Nothing seems to be made to last like it used to.
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

Pintosopher

Howdy All,
While you're on the subject of replacement rubber fuel hose:
Avoid buying any rubber line that is NOT labeled with the lettering SAE J30R9 on the hose.
  This is the most current blend of rubber matrix that will withstand any nasty Oxygenate fuel additives. It has a high Fluorolastomer content and will not adversely shrink or swell when exposed to the Newer fuel. I got this information from a Gates rubber engineer back in the 90's when MTBE was added to California Fuels and Cars were lighting up everwhere if they were made before 1990.
Don't add Fuel to your Fire potential , Buy the Non-Nitrile fluoroelastomer type J30 R9 line.

Best Wishes,  and keep the torch lit , not your Pinto :hypno:

Pintosopher
Yes, it is possible to study and become a master of Pintosophy.. Not a religion , nothing less than a life quest for non conformity and rational thought. What Horse did you ride in on?

Check my Pinto Poems out...

77turbopinto

Quote from: ni2sml on December 15, 2007, 01:56:15 PM
...When you say install all new hoses, do you mean everything right back to the fuel tank, and up to the carb, including the metal lines, or just the nylon hoses?...

Anything rubber that has been there a while should be changed before it fails. I would inspect all the metal lines, but they typicly need to look VERY BAD before they have leaks; keep in mind that they don't run the pressure that the brake lines run. If you have any doubt, you can make new ones from brake line.

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

ni2sml

A replacement pump will be at Advance Auto tomorrow morning unless the ice storm/freezing rain they've been calling for here happens overnight. All the other bits I need (clamps, nylon gas hose, filter) are off the shelf items. The metal fuel lines all look good.

I was a little surprised the cops let me continue, even if I was only a few minutes from home. I half expected to be cited for defective equipment or something. But, this is rural southwest Virginia, all my lights work, and I was sober.

Off to buy that Powerball ticket now, in my wife's car of course...

Thanks all!

LBF

I hope you bought some lottery tickets because you are one Lucky dude... (I can't believe those cops let you drive away - can anybody say "lawsuit?"

dave1987

That is where my old old pump was spraying fuel out of.

The hole you are having gas spew out of is a weep hole. It is there as a no-brainer way of telling when your pump is bad.

The reason it shots out that hole is because the diaphragm is shot on the pump and fuel makes it past it, coming out the top. The diaphragm has rotted away and you need a new pump.
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!

ni2sml

Quotedon't even start the car again until you do

Amen to that.

I'd been intending to give it a close look over this weekend anyway, with the motor running to see where anything was leaking, but last night confirmed there was a (bad!) leak and made sure of that happening.

When you say install all new hoses, do you mean everything right back to the fuel tank, and up to the carb, including the metal lines, or just the nylon hoses? Those do look in need of replacement, now that I've looked closely at them.

Thanks!

77turbopinto

"...any other suggestions?"

Yes, install all new hoses, clamps and a new fuel filter when you change the pump, and don't even start the car again until you do.

Oh, and be sure RE-INSTALL the fuel pump guard.

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

ni2sml

Hi all (n00b here, with a daily-driven 2.3L '79 Pinto wagon and a handful of question).

OK, last week or two I've been noticing steadily declining MPG, down below 10 at the last fill up, and an increasingly bad smell of gas. Last night an alert cop at a sobriety checkpoint noticed I was leaking something, which turned out to be gas! :o  I was pretty close to home so they sent me on my way, and were probably rather happy to get me away from the flares they had lining up the center line of the road.

At home I pulled out a flashlight and had a look, with the car running there was a LOT of gas being dumped on the ground, which stopped as soon as I stopped the motor. Uh-oh...

So this morning I went out with the camera and a fire extinguisher, and had a look in there. This is what I saw:



Yep, that's gas spraying out of the top rear of what I take as being the fuel pump.  :hypno: :o  :'(  :surprised: I caught maybe a quarter cupful of it in a tray in only 30 seconds or so of running.

So, what could be causing this, and just what is the opening that the gas is spraying from? The car is running fine otherwise, so I don't think the fuel filter is blocked enough to cause this (but it's a cheap replacement so I'll do it anyway).

Is there a fuel return line back from the pump to the tank, and if it had gotten clogged would it cause something like this? How can I test for that?

Or is the pump shot, maybe an internal seal has failed?

That's the order I plan to investigate in, any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance!