Mini Classifieds

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: 563
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 231
  • Total: 231
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.

Starting Issue

Started by Cookieboy, April 03, 2008, 09:46:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

71pintoracer

Glad to help cookieboy, it is more common than you might think. You are right though, most of the time they will quit when they got hot, I used to tell people to put an ice bag on them to get them to the shop! The market got flooded with cheapo's that were crappy, I've seen FOMOCO's w/ all of the gell gone still running. When I raced dirt modified Pinto's I had 2 of them in the car and more than once I had to switch to the backup. Just like the NASCAR boys!  ;D I finally switched to TFI and ended that problem.
If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

FCANON

thats good news so far Cookie boy..I convert all my 2.3L and V8'sto the DSII ignitions. the last modual I bought was 30 bones...its seems they tend to get old...I have one in Denises car that all the gell is ozzed out of it but it still works(factory part) I'll replac e it before summer hits.

Best of Luck
Frank Boss
www.pintoworks.com   www.tirestopinc.com
www.stophumpingmytown.com
www.FrankBoss.com

Cookieboystoys

well I should update this.... Frank and 71Pintoracer deserve the 1 up

after replacing the ignition module all seems good so far, no more problems with starting  ;D

Napa had 2 different ones (cheap and really! spendy) so I got the cheep one. I had installed a spare used ignition module and it seems to have the same problem. I wasn't sure I wanted to buy the spendy one because I had tried a different one only to have the exact same issue. The car the used one came from did have starting issues, person before me had wired a door bell button to start the car with  ???  and No! I'm not kidding  :lol: but find it odd to have 2 with the exact same problem...

In the past when they had failed on me the car wouldn't start at all or would die and after letting it sit for 10 minutes or so would start up again.. this was a new one for me..

Thanks for all the help/suggestions
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

71pintoracer

Common issue w/ ignition modules, make sure to get a good quality one, NAPA is the best aftermarket IMO.
If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

Cookieboystoys

That might not be a bad idea there Frank, Thanks. I agree and remember changing a few on the many Fords I have owned in the past.
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

FCANON

I would and Do carry a spare Ignition module with me...they do flaky crap when they start to go out....

FrankBoss

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

Cookieboystoys

well.... I got it to start as it should  ???

I started with the starter relay and that made no difference. Wiggled a few wires, tightened a few things, wiggled more things, all the while trying to start the car with no success. I even went over and wiggled the wires for the coil and some of the wires to the steering column... nothing.

Then I started looking for places to bolt the braided grounding strap I had laying around and found one at the rear of the engine to the fire wall. Connection was painted so I removed the body screw and cleaned it up with a wire wheel. Both the end of the ground strap and body have shiny metal to ground to. But this still didn't help...

All this time I kept wiggling, tightening and cleaning connections I kept smelling more and more gas but the car just wouldn't start. Every once in a while I would pump it once, about every 4 attempts. At first it would start the wrong way and I would just kill it right away. After awhile the gas smell was getting pretty strong and the bugger still wouldn't start. Finally came to the conclusion it was flooded so I did what you do to start a flooded Pinto and floored the gas pedal and turned the key. Cranked it over for a bit, a chugga chug later, big cloud of black smoke (and a Hearty Hi! Ho! Silver) and it started  :o

now it starts like it should again  ???  ???  ???

I started doing so many different things who knows what did it and when it flooded and wouldn't start after I found the problem. I would have to say for sure it's a loose connection someplace. I know disconnecting the positive cable to starter solenoid and cleaning those connections again didn't do it. Might have been after the engine to body ground strap was cleaned up or when I tightened the bolts for the starter solenoid to body, wiggled wires on the coil... I just don't know. If it happens again I will try again to find the issue.

Other than that seems to work as it should again so I guess I'm happy.

Thanks for the advise and hints... till next time  ;D
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

Cookieboystoys

Thanks Frank... any and all ideas are welcome...

come to think of it... after changing out the heater core and running the car w/no issues...

I did go back a replace the positive cable from relay to battery because the old one was shot and had not started the car since... until this morning. I did clean up all contacts with a wire brush but.... Hmmmm...
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

FCANON

 Not to walk off with this thread but I would like to reflect a little.
Since I don't have my books near and Its been a year since I looked at my DS2.
I recall two hot wires to the ignition. One is to the running position which supplies the Ignition system with something like 7.5-9 V for the engine to run off of. This Voltage is reduced with a Resistor wire (which sometimes gets brittle and corroded) but this in not likely your issue.
the other wire is a straight 12V for Starting during cranking...both of these are power to the ignition not the starter. But some cars had the starting wire routed from the starter relay, most likely the second small post to the right side of center of the relay switch...
If your cranking and its not firing until your back to the run position this should be the issue.

Feel free to correct me on this, it seems when I'm under the hood my thoughts are more clear...And from time to time I get confused, Just don't tell my kids.

Best of Luck
FrankBoss

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

Cookieboystoys

Thanks Bill and Fred,

Bill, that's what I was thinking but will start w/your advise. Ground strap first since I was going to do that anyway.

Not sure how I would bench test it? or would bench testing be the same as Fred suggested.  I think that's beyond my skills/knowledge but know the "man" to take it to if it comes to that.
It's all about the Pintos! Baby!

Fred Morgan

Hi cookieboy, if it cranks when key is turned to start position switch is adjusted right on colum, next to check is, when cranking it pulls a lot of amps so to increase volt drop to ign. coil make shure on start selenoid near batt. look for letter `I' this needs to be connected to coil, running volt. to coil is 9 v. ign. on position when you go to start pos. it by pases resistor giving you 12 v. for hotter spark for starting. Fred :accident:hate that when that happens :)
Fred Morgan- Missing from us...
January 20th 1951-January 6th 2014

Beloved PCCA Parts Supplier and Friend to many.
Post your well wishes,
http://www.fordpinto.com/in-memory-of-our-fallen-pinto-heros/fred-morgan-23434/

77turbopinto

I would think that if it was a ground it would not let the car start at all. That being said, hook up that ground just in case.


If it were mine: I would 'bench test' the switch (on the car). This would tell me if it were out of adjustment or if it was a bad switch.


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

Cookieboystoys

I went to start the 78 this morning to deliver it to the glass guy and have the windshield put back in and an old problem resurfaced  ???

When I got this car I had a weird starting issue.... I would turn the key forward, engine would turn over but the car wouldn't start until I let go of the key. It was determined at the time it was the ignition switch with some help and suggestions... 77turbopinto, r4pinto and tony...

from: 77turbopinto on November 12, 2007, 12:14:10 PM
Forgot to mention the staring issue.

The way the switch works is that it will cut over to different 'ignition power' circuit when the switch is turned to 'start'. It is fully separate, and when the key returns to the 'run' position it goes to the normal 'on/run' circuit.

I would swap the ignition switch (electrical) with a know good one; it is located on the top of the steering column down near the firewall.

I answered...

I stopped at the auto parts store today and one of the guys there said the switch is adjustable? they showed me a picture of the part and the 2 screw holes look to allow for adjustment... and suggested I just try to adjust it... The seller did say the steering column had been changed so could it be possible to adjust the switch and it may fix the problem? what do you think?

and then r4pinto...

I can tell you from experience that the switch is slotted where it mounts to the steering column & can be adjusted. The 78 I used to have had a massive water leak & water leaked into the ignition switch in the dead of winter. It was locked solid from the ice. Anyways, I bought a new switch & installed it & had to move it around to get the position right. What I did was turn the key to the "on position & also made sure the switch was in the on position. I then put the ignition rod in the switch & finally installed the switch on the column. When I did that I was able to get it positioned right so I could start the car & have no problems.
_______________________________________________________


Anyhow, there's the history from my past post on it... I changed the switch and has been good so far without issues. I do however remember when I changed the switch It didn't seem to solve the problem right away but the more I "fiddled" with it soon there was no problem and has worked fine until this morning....

turn the key forward, car cranks but will not start until I let go of the key...

:wow:

I wonder... I am missing the engine to fender/body ground on this car... could that have anything to do with it  ???

I'm lost and confused... what could be causing this? another bad switch? out of adjustment? Bad ground?

I also know steering column has been swapped.

I don't know... suggestions/thoughts anyone?

It's all about the Pintos! Baby!