Mini Classifieds

sport steering wheeel
Date: 10/01/2020 10:58 pm
72 Turbo Pinto "Hot Rod" rebuild
Date: 08/09/2018 11:09 am
Wanted '75 Bobcat Instrument Cluster & Wiring Harness
Date: 12/09/2018 06:59 am
(3) 1980 Ford Pinto Station Wagon Projects

Date: 03/15/2023 02:16 pm
78 pinto wagon

Date: 06/04/2020 12:42 pm
hubcaps

Date: 10/31/2018 12:04 pm
71-73 Front Kick Panels
Date: 04/25/2021 07:24 pm
'78 Pinto Windshield Trim
Date: 05/09/2017 10:46 am
1971 yellow Pinto hatchback with limited edition chrome strips on rear door, 1600 cc engine

Date: 02/26/2017 03:22 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: 445
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 1
  • Guests: 155
  • Total: 156
  • Wittsend
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.

Holley 5200 idle jet size...curious.

Started by jeremysdad, August 21, 2013, 12:08:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

amc49

That one shows original application was a '72 Pinto 2.0L ATX

Primary idle fuel jet 55, secondary 50.

Main fuel jet 132 primary, secondary 135.

Note: the catalog is messed up on the idle jet positions. It calls the key number out for primary but is indicating the secondary position in the carb breakdown picture. Vice versa for the other one. The actual numbers I gave you may be right anyway, if they were input into catalog from a simple list instead of that same mis-translation of the call out pic. They WILL be right for values, just may be mixed up as to the position. Five million numbers in a catalog, sooner or later somebody had to fudge up somewhere............

Thinking the primary slightly bigger to have reserve for the curb idle screw, two fuel circuits on the primary side, only one on the secondary. You also want the one with the adjustment screw slightly bigger so that you can go slightly rich with the screw as an indicator you've gone too far, it helps when setting the screw. Of course there are carbs where that reverses so go figure..........

From the 'Holley Carburetor Illustrated Parts and Specs Manual' dated 1975, I bought mine around '78 or so.

jeremysdad

R- 6309 - 3 is the number on the baseplate.

jeremysdad

I'll go look in a sec, that would  be great!

On an unrelated side note, this is the first car I've ever had that actually still had the metal id tag on it. Lol.

amc49

To OP, if you can give the R-(XXXX) number off the bottom flange of the main body, I may well be able to supply factory Ford fuel and air jet sizes out of the Holley Spec catalog. The Ford carb tag not of any use here. The Holley book should spec every 5200 made by them. Any carb made by them starts with 'R'.

amc49

Because the main idle feed hole with adjustable needle is up front. The back only needs a small hole to feed the transfer only, no curb idle hole in back. The transfer need a little bit of feed so that it is active when the back barrel first cracks open, the transfer is the accelerator pump there. Like regular Holley 4 bbl., the back gets less idle flow.

It can get wonky sometimes though. When they start searching to lower emissions they do all sorts of crazy things. The fuel flow not set by the jet alone, all systems have an airjet that bleeds air into the fuel to make it lighter and react quicker. If they increase the airjet, they can increase the fuel jet too but it could still flow LESS fuel than before. One of those weird things. On pulling done ANY 5200 I ALWAYS mark all jet positions on a piece of paper for future reference. Some are backwards as compared to others. I'm talking known factory built carbs not torn into by anyone before.

Why you do NOT want to mix up the airjets either.

I remember once pulling apart the 5200 on my Mustang II long ago when car just totally spit its' guts out and stranded me. Pulled a long piece of looked like yarn out of the fuel bowl and wondering 'how on earth that got past the filter?'. Like a 4 inch long piece. Just crazy.

jeremysdad

I found my flat spot last night when I pulled the idle jets to check while installing my shiney new K&N breather assembly. There was a tendril of teflon tape covering the hole in the end of the primary idle jet. Who knows...cleaned the passage with carb cleaner, and voila, purring like a kitten. :) After researching, the larger idle jet goes in the primary side, which seems contrary from an American mindset, but it works when you consider that the main circuit doesn't come into play until 3000 rpm or so. Info sourced directly from Weber.

amc49

The flat spot can commonly be caused by less than adequate accelerator pump shot too. If you can turn idle set screw both in and out and motor runs rougher either way then you are big enough on the idle jet. Pay particular attention to when you screw it OUT, or CCW direction. The lean out, or CW shows up more obvious than the over-richen, lean out will die but too rich may just get rough and not die. If you get rough going rich with screw then you're right as far as idle jet size. The richness will show up less on later models since they started necking back on the hole to hit idle emission specs.

You can always drill the hole bigger but you can't go back after doing so. I used to pick up extra idle fuel and air jets out of the junkyard just to have tuning parts. Pump shooters too.

If the carb has been set up to where the throttle blades are deep in the transfer slots or holes then your flat spot too, they should be set so that the blade or butterfly just begins to expose hole or slot there. The slots/holes act as miniature accelerator pumps themselves, if already exposed then no more fuel addition possible when the throttle is cracked open, and again the flat spot.


jeremysdad

Reading about the Holley 5200 around the internet, I have come across info that the famous 5200 Pinto flat spot is quite likely a too-small primary idle jet.

I remember swapping mine from primary to secondary and vice-versa last year when I was trying to limp it on 2.5 cylinders, but can't remember if I swapped them back.

Can someone with an early 2.0 look at their primary idle jet and tell me what size it is? They're the large brass screws toward the top of the carb, one on the driver (primary) and one on the pass (secondary) side.

Thanks, guys and gals! :)