Mini Classifieds

1971 yellow Pinto hatchback with limited edition chrome strips on rear door, 1600 cc engine

Date: 02/26/2017 03:22 pm
Clutch Pedals for 75to 80 Pinto
Date: 09/21/2018 11:35 am
1971 Pinto Runabout turn key driver

Date: 07/01/2019 12:23 pm
Pinto Engines and engine parts
Date: 01/24/2017 12:36 pm
need intake for oval port 2.3l
Date: 08/22/2018 09:23 am
pinto floor mats??

Date: 01/11/2017 07:27 am
1977 Pinto Cruising Wagon FOR SALE

Date: 08/20/2017 01:34 pm
LOTS OF 1971-1973 PARTS FOR SALE
Date: 02/03/2018 11:28 am
1975 Pinto bumpers
Date: 10/24/2019 01:45 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: 139,599
  • Total Topics: 16,270
  • Online today: 450
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 1
  • Guests: 254
  • Total: 255
  • rob289c
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.

1978 Pinto backfire problem

Started by 74WagonMeadowGreen, October 11, 2011, 11:15:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

74WagonMeadowGreen

Once the valve was removed, it was easy to see if it was jammed open, which it was...no special testing required!

D.R.Ball

Out standing, now what is the testing process to find the TVS failure in the first place? Hook it up to a Mitty Vac ?

74WagonMeadowGreen

As of yesterday, the backfire problem is solved... exactly what we discovered... That TVS valve in the air filter housing WAS the cause, and except for needing a choke adjustment the car is running nicely when warmed up. Add to that, the heater bled itself! Once I left the valve open it purged the air block and works nicely. It still tends to stumble a bit when cold, but again, the choke is not in the correct position, so it improves enormously once warmed up. I am confident it should do OK passing emissions at this point, and as soon as both time and weather permit, I will head over to the testing station. Then I can finally get my plates and drive it!!

Thanks everybody for the help.

78txpony

As for your early question on valve guide seals, I have to replace mine every 12-15 years (avg 75k miles) when oil consumption is sky high.  They deteriorate, wear, and no longer seal.  Not sure if it is a design issue or i expect too much from them. 

Did you notice how much total timing advance at idle you had when checking your timing?  Check it with the advance hose hooked up as well as removing it and plugging it. 

I am leaning towards an ignition / cam timing issue here. 
-Rob Young
1978 Pinto Pony sedan (Old Faithful) a.k.a. "the Tramp"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thelonerider2005/sets
1972 Cutlass Supreme Convertible (442 clone) -"Lady" (My mistress...)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robsalbum/sets
1986 Cutlass Supreme Coupe - "Pristine"
1997 H-D Sportster

74WagonMeadowGreen

I did not, as time was of the essence, I simply planned to get back to it. I will check several things, including hose temp (when warmed up) as well as if the valve is working/conected, etc. Thanks!

RSM

You really shouldn't have to "bleed" the lines going to the heater core. Usually after a few minutes of running the core is full and the air gone.  There might be a possibility of a restriction in the core or in the lines. When the car was running before, did you feel the hoses to see if both were hot or at least one of them?

74WagonMeadowGreen

As soon as our 18 inches of snow clears, and temps rise above the single digits, I hope to verify the TVS (TVR??) valve, the little circular plastic job located in the air cleaner and connected directly to the air pump, amusingly shoved on several Ford products well into the 1990s, has been the culprit, as I was able to install the new one the night before the latest onslaught of snowstorms, and although covered, my poor car has to sit outside.

Has anybody encountered difficulty removing air from the heater lines when servicing the water pump? The previous owner did a lovely job replacing the water pump, until I drove the car in cold weather and discovered there was no heat!  Does anybody know any easy (outside of "bleeding, hence leaking fluid out to get rid of bubbles) method to remove air in the heater lines?

Happy holidays, and thanks for the input!

nothingtodo

if it  backfires on decel, check the vacuum line going to the air pump dump valve.

ToniJ1960

 That tvs valve is the one on the air cleaner cover isnt it? I think thats what was bad on mine and they cut a chunk out of the vacuum hose that goes from it to the diverter valve. Its was over 10 years ago, but thats all they did to `fix` it. I dont remember if I had a vacuum leak or what happened but its all been redone since then.

D.R.Ball

Keep us posted,it's all ways a good thing to know more about these cars.

74WagonMeadowGreen

Quote from: D.R.Ball on December 02, 2011, 01:13:47 PM
Have you checked the distributor spark delay valve ? It's a small plastic disc  black and white in color that has a vacuum line going from the carb to the distributor.If it's clogged or not connected in the right direction it could be the problem...It's marked on one side carb and one side dist.
I replaced it, but after getting the car on a lift and doing some tests, a friend and I discovered ., I WAS right, the catalytic convertor was a shell, totally empty, so we installed a new one. 2. The TVS valve, which controls air going from the pump into the exhaust was shot, so a new one is ordered. I am quite certain that will fix the problem.

D.R.Ball

Have you checked the distributor spark delay valve ? It's a small plastic disc  black and white in color that has a vacuum line going from the carb to the distributor.If it's clogged or not connected in the right direction it could be the problem...It's marked on one side carb and one side dist.

74WagonMeadowGreen

I tend to think an exhaust leak or gutted Catalytic converter may be contributing to the problem. I plan to look into it as soon as time permits, thanks!

71HANTO

"The timing belt was replaced at a Ford dealer by the previous owner. I CHECKED carefully both ignition timing AND that the cam belt was properly installed. It is spot-on correct. Timing is precise and correct to spec."

I know this may be a LONG SHOT but it sounds like the timing belt may have been installed one tooth off. With the cam slightly off (cam degree), the exhaust valve may stay open too long causing raw fuel to pass through and going boom when it enters the hot exhaust manifold. Just a thought...

71HANTO
"Life is a series of close ones...'til the last one"...cfpjr

pintogirl

I know this is not a Pinto I am going to be writing about, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. I am haviing a problem with backfiring when decelerating on my bus. One of the guy's an the Samba said that it is possibly caused by an exhaust leak. He told me to check all my doughnuts and gaskets on my muffler.

Could this possibly be the same senario for a Pinto? Maybe the exhaust system has an air leak?
Kim
www.pintobuyersanonymous.com

I have come to realize that I am powerless to cuteness of a rusty old Pinto.

Sacramento CA

74WagonMeadowGreen

Quote from: sedandelivery on November 08, 2011, 04:16:12 PM
Is your EGR valve working properly?
EGR and passagewayis cleaned and tested, works perfectly.

74WagonMeadowGreen

Quote from: RSM on November 10, 2011, 05:46:00 PM
So this happens when you let off of the accelerator slowing down...correct?
When I step on the accelerator, the engine revs perfectly fine, and as it comes back down, it "backfires" in the exhaust, on deceleration. I have not had time to test it, but ever since I drove the car home,the exhaust has always seemed louder than it should, even with a correct muffler installed, so I still suspect the catalytic converter to be empty. I have a new one ready to install, as time permits.

74WagonMeadowGreen

Given our elevation, that may be a wise idea... yes, the timing is currently set precisely to the emission sticker settings... your suggestion is great, thank you, I will see what it does.

D.R.Ball

Where have you set the timing, as per the emissions sticker ? If so try to advance it a couple of degrees, like to 6 if its a 2 degrees because the original owner has had a similar problem and this helped fix it.On my car...

RSM

So this happens when you let off of the accelerator slowing down...correct?

74WagonMeadowGreen

Quick clarification: EGR is cleaned and working perfectly. Compression test was indeed accomplished and it was even and good in all cylinders, but I cannot guarantee a perfect seal on the gauge, so will retest now I have a good gauge. The car seems to be backfiring in the exhaust, what some refer "more accurately" as "after fire". It does not backfire through the carb. It does not smoke or make mechanical noise in the motor, like a valve problem would. I am going to revisit the vacuum advance on the distributer despite all indications it is working correctly. It is possible the carb needs readjusting since rebuild, but still should not be a major cause. My friend has an analyzer and I will plug that in as opportunity permits. Right now, I am seriously looking at the catalytic converter... the more I read, the more it may be contributing to my problem...

RSM

I finally managed to successfully accomplish a compression test... unsurprisingly, all cylinders have 130 lbs very evenly, and that with a questionable seal on the compression gauge, so I am not too concerned about any internal engine traumas....he did a compression test and it looks good as far as that goes. Sticking valve is what I'm starting to think...or something along those lines. If it were a burnt valve the compression would be down on that cylinder.

ToniJ1960

 Think it could be a burned or sticking valve or weak valve spring? Doesnt say a compression test was done might be a good idea, like I said maybe start at the beginning.

RSM

Car ran OK, but no idle and backfiring on deceleration. (This is what he said in the first post) Even with the air pump disconnected it stumbles and backfires miserably. (This comment is made later)...Kinda confusing  as to when it really does backfire.

ToniJ1960

 I reread and reread but it doesnt really say anywhere,is it backfiring out of the exhaust or the carburetor. If youve done everything you said already it might be time to start back at the beginning.

RSM

Is the car still backfiring when you decelerate or has it changed? Seems like your saying it backfires all the time..maybe it's just how I'm reading it. Does the engine diesel sometimes when you shut it off?

74WagonMeadowGreen

I checked the vacuum advance while checking timing with a timing light... it seemed fairly obvious when disconnected. I routed the new wires and plugs carefully, so although I can never be entirely able to disqualify them, it seems unlikely. Thank you!

D.R.Ball

How did you test the vacuum advance, with a vacuum source like a mity-vac ? Or just disconnect it......Also I just got done changing the spark plugs and spark plug wires and can say it's a lot better, not perfect but a lot faster, more power etc......Have you checked the routing of the wires if it's not right it could cause some timing issues like a cross fire in the firing order....

sedandelivery

Is your EGR valve working properly?

74WagonMeadowGreen

Quick update: the ignition module is perfect, no problems. I am running low on possibilities! Thanks to all for your suggestions!