Mini Classifieds

1976 Ford Pinto

Date: 07/16/2019 02:51 am
Built and Injected early 2000cc Engine

Date: 04/10/2017 07:30 pm
Seeking 1971-1973 Rotors
Date: 04/08/2021 12:23 pm
free transmissions
Date: 11/28/2019 10:21 am
Wheel cap
Date: 04/25/2022 11:21 pm
1.6 New Ford cylinder head with side draft carbs

Date: 06/12/2018 08:18 pm
80 pinto original

Date: 08/04/2019 10:45 am
72 Pinto parts
Date: 11/14/2019 10:46 pm
1975 Pinto wagon emissions decal wanted
Date: 09/20/2018 11:01 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: 188
  • Total: 188
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.

Another '74 Bites The Dust?

Started by blupinto, January 09, 2013, 08:19:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

r4pinto

Good point. Had that happen on my 85 Omni. Engine wouldn't turn & the belt looked good. turned out the belt had no teeth at the cam gear

Matt Manter
1977 Pinto sedan- Named Harold II after the first Pinto(Harold) owned by my mom. R.I.P mom- 1980 parts provider & money machine for anything that won't fit the 80
1980 Pinto Runabout- work in progress

HOSS429

pull the emergency brake .. put the car in neutral gear .. open the hood .. put on a glove .. grab the fan blade and try to turn the engine with it .. watch and see if the timing belt/cam gear  moves with it .. belts strip teeth as often as they break ... if the engine wont turn with the fan blade then the alternator  belt is too loose ...

Pinto5.0

I just remembered, check the timing belt 1st because the fuel pump runs off that belt. I can't believe I forgot that......
'73 Sedan (I'll get to it)
'76 Wagon driver
'80 hatch(Restoring to be my son's 1st car)~Callisto
'71 half hatch (bucket list Pinto)~Ghost
'72 sedan 5.0/T5~Lemon Squeeze

75bobcatv6

If its the fuel line you can also remove the line from the tank at the mechanical pump and compress it with air to Blow the plug back into the tank. More then likely sounds like your Timing belt.. Check it and make sure there are no missing teeth. Im hoping that its a Fuel Issue as thats much easier to deal with. Good luck

Pinto5.0

Yeah, the engine cut out between gears so it just didn't mesh since RPM's dropped.

The vacuum lines would cause stalling or rough idle but you said it wont fire. If it comes to life with starting fluid then it's a fuel problem. If that's the case then pull the fuel line at the carb & crank the engine to see of it pumps fuel through the line. If it does & there is a fuel filter screwed into the carb just change it, hook up the fuel line & see if it starts.

If no fuel comes out of the line & there is an inline filter try removing that & cranking it to check for fuel flow. If you get flow just replace that filter & then try starting it. If you get nothing then it could be a bad fuel pump, clogged fuel line or the sock in the tank could be plugged with crud.

If it doesn't fire on starting fluid then you need to check for spark. 
'73 Sedan (I'll get to it)
'76 Wagon driver
'80 hatch(Restoring to be my son's 1st car)~Callisto
'71 half hatch (bucket list Pinto)~Ghost
'72 sedan 5.0/T5~Lemon Squeeze

blupinto

lol AM skeered!

I wouldn't be surprised if something got stuck between the gas tank and the filter. When I bought this car, the gas cap was gone and there had been rain. Who knows how long the car sat with old/crappy gas too. I've filled the tank at least three times and as I get towards the last quarter tank before fill-up the car will have moments of surging and sometimes even backfiring.  Still, why wouldn't the car go into 2nd gear before it stalled? Does it have to do with synchronization of engine RPMs to tranny position? I'm hoping whatever it is one of your suggestions will be right on. I looked at the vacuum lines for a minute before I was compelled to get back in the car (she stalled in a bad area where there was no shoulder and only one lane. We were straddling the sidewalk) but I didn't see any lines missing connectors. Now that she's safe in the driveway I'll try to have an extended look-see. It probably won't be til Saturday (hopefully it won't be raining) but my fingers are crossed! Thank you all for the responses.  :)
One can never have too many Pintos!

RSM


Pinto5.0

Quote from: Pinturbo75 on January 09, 2013, 09:27:53 PM
or a stripped dizzy gear.....

I wasn't ready to frighten her with stuff like that just yet lol. Or wiring issues......

Best to check the simple things first  ;)
'73 Sedan (I'll get to it)
'76 Wagon driver
'80 hatch(Restoring to be my son's 1st car)~Callisto
'71 half hatch (bucket list Pinto)~Ghost
'72 sedan 5.0/T5~Lemon Squeeze

ToniJ1960

Quote from: Pinto5.0 on January 09, 2013, 08:41:25 PM
Since the engine died & wont start that rules out the trans & clutch. That narrows it to fuel, spark or timing.

Spray a little starting fluid in the carb & crank it to see if it's fuel. If it doesn't fire pull a plug wire, insert a screwdriver at the plug end & crank it while holding the screwdriver 1/2" from any metal & check for spark. It has to be narrowed down to go further.

Or maybe a vacuum hose came loose somewhere?

ToniJ1960

 I remember a few years ago I came up to a stop put the clutch in and my motor just stopped dead as if someone turned the key off and it wouyldnt start again. It was the timing belt broken. So I would think its not the tinming belt if you looked and its not broken especially.Min e was easy to see it was obviously broken.

Maybe the first thing to do is pull off the gas hose at the carb stick it in a jar turn the engine over for a second or two maybe three and see if theres any gas in the jar. After that maybe try to get a look at the cap and points? I never had to bother with then on my two 74s and one 75 I had, but I didnt have them for real long. I would imagine if anything changed about the points you might be able to see it. The capacitor you wont but it shouldnt take much to replace it for a try.

Pinturbo75

75 turbo pinto trunk, megasquirt2, 133lb injectors, bv head, precision 6265 turbo, 3" exhaust,bobs log, 8.8, t5,, subframe connectors, 65 mm tb, frontmount ic, traction bars, 255 lph walbro,
73 turbo pinto panel wagon, ms1, 85 lb inj, fmic, holset hy35, 3" exhaust, msd, bov,

Pinto5.0

Just dying like that could be a plugged fuel filter, bad fuel pump, ignition box, distributor module, timing belt or bad cap/rotor if it's apart failure.
'73 Sedan (I'll get to it)
'76 Wagon driver
'80 hatch(Restoring to be my son's 1st car)~Callisto
'71 half hatch (bucket list Pinto)~Ghost
'72 sedan 5.0/T5~Lemon Squeeze

RSM

My money is on the timing belt. Sounds like it's due for replacement. How many miles are on the car Becky?

cutelitlputtputt

Becky, I died like this on the freeway during rush hour back in March.  Wore my battery out trying to start it.  A cop had to push me off the freeway!!

There was something with the carburetor.  Also my catalytic converter was clogged up real bad because of my old engine.  It is like the car could not breathe or something!!!!
Anything to keep her runnin'!

Pinto5.0

Since the engine died & wont start that rules out the trans & clutch. That narrows it to fuel, spark or timing.

Spray a little starting fluid in the carb & crank it to see if it's fuel. If it doesn't fire pull a plug wire, insert a screwdriver at the plug end & crank it while holding the screwdriver 1/2" from any metal & check for spark. It has to be narrowed down to go further.
'73 Sedan (I'll get to it)
'76 Wagon driver
'80 hatch(Restoring to be my son's 1st car)~Callisto
'71 half hatch (bucket list Pinto)~Ghost
'72 sedan 5.0/T5~Lemon Squeeze

blupinto

I already have a '74 whose problems confounded me so that I buried her in my garage. Now my wagon Moxie is doing something similar. Alas, I have no more garage space, so I have to deal with her!

          She's been running great ever since I bought her in October. I changed her oil and filter last weekend and replaced her broken sway bar link. Today, on my way home, I stopped at one of the many red lights I encounter on this route. When the light turned green I proceeded in 1st gear. When I depressed the clutch, shifted into 2nd, and released the clutch the car didn't respond. The engine didn't revv like I was still in neutral. In fact it kinda made an unhappy rumbling noise and was fixing to stall. I was able to limp the car to the side in a rather dangerous area (no choice) and as soon as we came to a stop she died. I was unable to start the engine after that, and had to call AAA to get us out of our hairy situation and to home.

         I got a glimpse of the timing belt- it's not broken from what I could see. The spark plug wires are old, but none were loose or off. Does this sound like a timing issue, a transmission issue, or an engine issue? There was no leaks, smoke, or funny smells when this happened or after. The car is a Squire wagon with a 2.3 and 4-speed. I appreciate any help or advice I can get.
One can never have too many Pintos!