Mini Classifieds

2.3 engine and other parts- Free
Date: 12/13/2016 10:25 am
GRILLE NEEDED '71,'72,'73 for a '73 Pinto
Date: 02/10/2017 09:30 am
78 windshield trim
Date: 02/01/2020 08:46 am
1974 Ford Pinto Squire Wagon

Date: 05/30/2020 01:51 pm
2.8 Engine mount brackets
Date: 12/28/2016 11:42 am
Pinto Runabout wanted
Date: 06/05/2018 04:42 pm
WTB: Ford Type 9 5spd Transmission
Date: 03/18/2020 01:30 am
Wiring diagram Ignition switch 72 2.0 4 speed pinto wagon
Date: 12/31/2017 11:14 pm
I have a 1977 Cobra body lots of parts here
Date: 04/12/2017 06:57 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: 452
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 366
  • Total: 366
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.

302 or 2.3L swap. What should I do?

Started by zkit18, June 05, 2007, 01:52:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

302PintoMan

I have a 302 in my Pinto and it isn't that wild and it is a great daily driver.  I get decent milage as well...decent for a v8 pinto that is.  But I am also use to drive SBC cars that get 10-15 mpg.. ;D
a true hot rodder wouldn't be content until he had created a car so violent, so hairy, so totally sick, that the very act of pressing the throttle, could result in instant death

turbowagonman

If you are going to run with the LA3 I've got a great IC that fits in  the Pinto. I know it fits because I had it in mine for 3 years. I've got it in the "For Sale" forum (Pinto Tail Lights, Hinges & FMIC), I'll post it here for you.
Internally finned Front Mount Intercooler  $40 + shipping
Specs:
2¼" Inlet/Outlet
Core Size: 7¼" x 3½" x 8¼"
Overall size: 13¼" x 4½" x 8½"
this is from a Renault Box Truck part #'s
Renault
77 00 715 628
Langerer & Reich
3.7123.2.12
http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/turbowagonman/Parts/?action=view&current=P1020954.jpg
http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/turbowagonman/Parts/?action=view&current=P1020955.jpg
http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/turbowagonman/Parts/?action=view&current=P1020953.jpg
http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/turbowagonman/Parts/?action=view&current=P1020957.jpg

If you are going to wait till next summer to get started on the project that works out well. I say that because you can pick up a part here and there so that once you start your project you won't have to part with alot of $$$$ at one time!

turbowagonman
\'80\' Turbo Pinto Cruising Wagon.........R.I.P.
\'80\' Turbo Pinto Deluxe Wagon (work in progress)
http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/turbowagonman/

2point3turbo

You can use stock radiator in the Pinto and a computer out of any XR4TI but the LA3 is what you might want if hp is what your after and its made to run with an intercooler. The later TC wiring harness is a bit harder to work with so try to stay away from that. Intercoolers are fairly cheap its just finding room to put it will be the hard part. I went with front mount 30"x20"ish. I have an extra XR wiring harness and computer if interested, email me on that. I can even repin it for the LA3 for you.
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

Pinturbo75

from 83 to 89 the turbo 2.3s are all basically the same engine. differences being intake style, computer, injectors and vam, and either intercooled or not. you should be able to get a engine for 2 to 300 or a whole parts car up to maybe 500. depends how you want to go about it. id look for an 87 or 88 tc. has the big vam intercooler and ihi turbo along with the better computer. small turbo but plenty of kick for a pinto.
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,

zkit18

Thanks.  This helped a lot.  I am going to do the turbo.  I will probably end up having to wait till next summer to actually do the swap.  While we are working with opinions, what parts do you all think would be best?  I know the XR4TI harness is easiest, but what about radiator, engine, turbo, computer, intercooler, etc.  Keep in mind I'm not making this into a drag car, just a daily driver with more HP and gas milage. Opinions appreciated. Thanks again.
74 2.3L Coupe

2point3turbo

My first dream was the V8 Pinto but after owning an XR4TI my mind QUICKLY changed to the turbo swap. I only got the XR by chance... it was $400 running and in my opinion there is no better motor in the world then the 2.3 Turbo. Much easier swap to do, way cheaper, more bang for the buck. I may have $2000 in all 4 cars total and with all my extra parts I have a running daily XR driver. That includes Ranger cams, intercoolers for both cars and LA3's in both. You wont get all that out of a V8 swap and its a much safer ride.

My 1.5 cents..... I am kinda stupid!!
Must have more POWER!!!! Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee!!

77turbopinto

Quote from: zkit18 on June 05, 2007, 01:52:20 PM
I have a 74 2.3L sedan.  The engine is starting to give up on me.... 
...I have limited time and money being a college student... 
...I will be using the car as a daily driver and I am looking for more HP and better gas milage...  .
..limited tools (no welder), and limited fabrication experience.... 
...I can't find any parts cars to do either swap so I will have to buy the parts bit by bit then do the swap all at once.... 
...I basically would like to know what your opinions are... 
...which is more suitable for me and, which is cheaper without a doner car....

IMHO: Save your money, park the Pinto and get a different (cheap) D/D for now. No-matter what ANYONE tells you, NEITHER of the swaps you mentioned is going to be "easy" without the tools and skills; if you don't have either, you will need lots more money. Putting off this project will give you time to think about what your goals for it will be, give you time to work on your skills, give you time make the money needed, and most important: give you more time for school.

Just my $.02,
Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

turbowagonman

I've done Two Turbo swaps into Pinto's & One V-8 swap into a Pinto.
Turbo Swap: not that much Fabrication the wiring was the most difficult, other that that it IS just a drop in if the Pinto is already a 2.3 car. You can just use the Tranny and Rear like 4cammer72 said. As for Fuel economy, with a Turbo Motor in my First Pinto Wagon I drove about 200 miles (to Milan Mich.) raced all day and drove 200 miles (back home) and got an AWSOME 24 mpg round trip (with racing)! You can't beat that.
V-8 swap: there was quite a bit of Fabrication involved, Motor Mounts, Core Support, Exhaust Manifolds/Headers, Suspension (stiffer springs), Bigger Brakes, Tranny Tunnel, Oil Pan, Radiator and so on. Fuel Economy, what Fuel Economy! If you go with a V-8 good luck finding a Bellhouseing for a cheap price (without a donor I'm refering to), it's also tuff trying to get a stick in there with the right Bellhouseing and making the Clutch Linkage all work. I'd recommend (if going with a stick) to go Hydrolic, that can be costly.

With that being said out of the Two different Motors, I'll NEVER go V-8 UNLESS it's a track car only! The anmount of Fabbing, time involed, drivability of the car MY OPINION is 2.3 Turbo all the way.

Keep in mind this is just MY opinion.

turbowagonman
\'80\' Turbo Pinto Cruising Wagon.........R.I.P.
\'80\' Turbo Pinto Deluxe Wagon (work in progress)
http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l262/turbowagonman/

Pinturbo75

my thunderbird turbo  gets 21 to 23 city and 31 to 33 highway and weighs 3600 lbs. dont know on my pinto turbo yet as the speedo is not correct but theres little to no fab work needed for that swap. you can get by with the stock rear for awhile if you dont side step the clutch. the turbo motor is basically a bolt in.
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,

zkit18

I have a 74 2.3L sedan.  The engine is starting to give up on me.  I want to do a swap with a more modern engine but I don't know which way to go.  I have limited time and money being a college student in Canada.  I used to have a 89 mustang 5.0 so I know that engine a bit better.  I will be using the car as a daily driver and I am looking for more HP and better gas milage (the best its getting is 7km/l or 16mpg).  I have good mechanical skills (rebuilt my last 302), limited tools (no welder), and limited fabrication experience.  I understand I will have to do some modifications and also swap my tranny and rear.  I can't find any parts cars to do either swap so I will have to buy the parts bit by bit then do the swap all at once.  I basically would like to know what your opinions are an which swap is easier, which is more suitable for me and, which is cheaper without a doner car.  I have already read the FAQ for the turbo swaps and looked for the 302 swaps and just want some opinions.  Thanks for your time.
74 2.3L Coupe