Mini Classifieds

Right side strut mount for 3rd door 1979 runabout
Date: 10/04/2019 08:43 pm
74 Pinto Rear Side Lights

Date: 02/18/2017 05:47 pm
13x6 minilite style wheels MAKE OFFER——NEED GONE

Date: 08/01/2018 01:17 pm
1980 Pinto taillights
Date: 12/26/2017 03:48 pm
Wanted '75 Bobcat Instrument Cluster & Wiring Harness
Date: 12/09/2018 06:59 am
76 Pinto Wagon
Date: 07/08/2020 05:44 pm
Rally spoiler wanted
Date: 05/04/2017 01:32 pm
KYB shocks

Date: 02/08/2017 07:09 pm
1972-1980 Pinto/Bobcat Wagon Drivers Side Tail Light OEM

Date: 04/20/2017 10:10 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: 139,595
  • Total Topics: 16,270
  • Online today: 445
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 328
  • Total: 328
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.

best balance of power, fuel economy and cost

Started by poomwah, March 30, 2014, 09:41:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

74 PintoWagon

I'm getting just about 20 now and it's running like crap, once I change the intake and carb and put a header on and rework the ignition curve a bit should be able to get 25+ I would think..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

poomwah

Wow.  So i guess 25 mpg was an unrealistic goal :[

Pinto5.0

I have a 76 wagon, 2.3 auto with 60K orig. miles that was getting 15 mpg. I replaced the entire cooling system including the radiator, new brass terminal cap & rotor, NGK Iridium plugs & MSD 8mm wires, new PCV valve, new vacuum lines, new EGR base gasket & carb gasket plus an NOS carb out of the box.

For about 2 tanks of gas I topped 20 mpg then the carb started to bobble at idle & I'm back to 15 mpg again. I also now have pre-ignition that wont go away even after backing the timing down, checking the belt 3 times, swapping to colder plugs & tearing into the carb 4 times.

The moral to this story is that I spent $400+ trying to up my mileage & I'm worse off now than when I started. This years plan is to drop in my freshened turbo longblock with another NOS carb & a T5 in place of the auto & hope I solve every problem at once.
'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

Wittsend

Congratulations on getting your car.

  Regarding mileage, RPM's etc., I know I bang this "Gong" every time the subject comes up but USE ONE OF THE MANY ON LINE CALCULATORS!  The transmission ratios, the rear end ratio AND the tire size are all a system.  Combined together they determine the final RPM your engine will be turning at a certain speed. Ideally you want the RPM's in the desired portion of the torque curve.

Most everything is a trade-off.  You only get in one area where you loose in another.  That said, it is possible to simulate an overdrive fifth gear or a different numerical rear end.  My already slow '73/2.0/Auto/3.40 wagon was "Bogashious" when I switched from the 185/70/13" to 225/60/16" tires off the Turbo Coupe.  I never did "the math" because the tires were temporary but you could clock it with a calendar, it was that slow.   Did it drop the RPM's? Sure, but I doubt mileage improved because I had to be "so into the throttle" just to get and keep the car moving.  BTW, look at a lot of the Asian 4 cylinder cars.  Even with a 5th gear overdrive they are turning 3,000 RPM @ 65 MPH.

Basically what I'm saying is dropping the RPM's doesn't in and of itself automatically mean an increase in mileage.  If you want to "test" the theory, trying appropriately sized taller tires is far more cost effective than swapping rear gears and transmissions. Use the calculator and see what tire size effectively gets you to the RPM's the gear and trans swap would. Then borrow (or buy cheaply) that tire/wheel size and see if you are happy with the results.

Frankly I doubt you can improve mileage more that about 2 MPG maximum with whatever you wind up doing. If you drive 10,000 miles a year you are only saving 30 gallons of gas.  If you get half the improvement and drive half the distance your talking about all of $25 a year.






poomwah

hey guys!!! this isn't hypothetical anymore. Instead of "lets say a late 70s 2.3"  lets say a 78 bobcat with a 2.3 automatic.
I got a "Pinto"!!!!!!


so the goal is to get 25mpg or above.


74 PintoWagon

Thanks, looks like I need an overdrive if I'm gonna do any traveling then.
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Pinturbo75

the wagon is 380 gears with a t5 and its about 2700 ish  and the sedan is 355 gears and 24 to 2500 ish with a t5
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,

74 PintoWagon

What's the rpm at 75, you running an overdrive???, that's pretty good mileage..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

Pinturbo75

i did my turbo swap in 2 weekends for less than 500 bucks....bought a complete parts car and went to town .... now the wagon is around 230 whp and gets 27 mpg at 75 ...... the 75 sedan is over around 400 whp and gets 25 mpg at 75.....if you look hard enough and want it bad enough you can do it.... on the cheap.....
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,

74 PintoWagon

Well, I got everything on hold right now to finish the shop(which is just about done)then I'll be getting back on mine, already have the intake and header just need the carb, plan is to squeeze all the mileage I can without digging into the motor, at least not for a while anyhow..
Art
65 Falcon 2DR 200 IL6 with C4.

amc49

Any bigger than stock cam with a stock ATX converter will not be the hot setup. At least if bigger in duration. Would work fine on MTX but ATX and the heavier wagon will not like the cam. Would be fine if you can bump lift but no duration.

I've run a Hooker header and a better intake on a 2.3 using stock 2 bbl. carb and cam and round port head reworked in the bowl area to make a car that would slightly outrun my 2 Focus 130 hp. zetec cars. The motor made quite a bit more torque at say 60 mph freeway entry and the gas mileage was great.

A stock 2.3 carb intake just flat blows. I used a 2.0 intake with an adapter plate but most can't go there. They used to make the plate for sale but no longer.

poomwah

Quote from: Srt on March 31, 2014, 02:57:45 AM
there is really no reason why you can't run a turbo AND get mid to high 20's in fuel mileage
I wish I could run turbo. I just can't afford the parts and don't have an engine hoist to do an engine swap.  My budget is going to be really tight.
My goal is to try to get at least 25mph and enough grunt to get out of its own way.
of course I need to get the car first, LOL

Srt

there is really no reason why you can't run a turbo AND get mid to high 20's in fuel mileage
the only substitute for cubic inches is BOOST!!!

poomwah

wow, 20 mpg and 160 HP.  That is impressive.
I'm going to shoot for a lower HP and hopefully higher MPG

kartracer28

I am doing kinda the same thing right now. I have a 74 with the 2.0 I just bought a 2.3 that I am going to swap (with help from friends) I am putting an EFI intake that has been reworked to run a small 4 barrel. I am having the head redone and putting a cam in it from esslinger. I am also putting a header with a 2 1/2 inch exhaust with a 40 series flow master. The guys at Esslinger say it should make about 160HP and still run on pump gas. and if a drive it "right" I should get about 20MPG.

poomwah

Ok, I know that speed costs, and I know that power usually has a negative effect on fuel economy.  But I also know, though, that some things can improve power and fuel economy.
So, lets figure on a late 70's wagon with a 2.3 auto. what would be some options to make it more efficient?
turbo is going to out of my budget.  I don't have an engine hoist, so I'm prefer to find options that don't require swapping the engine.
  So....what do you guys recommend?  exhaust, cam, and carb on stock block?
Fuel injection from a ranger?
What should I expect performance and economy wise?
Thanks everybody