Mini Classifieds

1971 Pinto 5.0L

Date: 12/02/2017 12:23 am
71/72 Pinto front end bushing kit
Date: 02/05/2017 09:45 am
WTB Cruising Wagon
Date: 12/07/2016 05:35 pm
Need 76' coupe rear Glass and Front Grille
Date: 07/20/2017 01:23 am
Ford 2.3L new gaskets for sale
Date: 12/10/2016 04:11 pm
WTB Cruising Wagon
Date: 12/07/2016 05:35 pm
cam pulley
Date: 05/30/2018 04:56 pm
Parts for 74 Squire Wagon
Date: 09/16/2019 07:35 pm
V8 rear end
Date: 04/12/2018 10:57 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: 139,593
  • Total Topics: 16,270
  • Online today: 394
  • Online ever: 3,214 (June 20, 2025, 10:48:59 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 274
  • Total: 274
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.

Turbo guys wiring opinion

Started by rkk, October 23, 2007, 12:26:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rkk

Just wanted to let you guys know I appreciate the input.I contacted one of the Vendors (Turbo Joe) who makes these wiring harnesses.  Couldn't have ask for better customer service.  He explained every detail to me.  How to hook it up what wire goes to where in my Pinto vrs his wiring harness.  I spent a hour with him on the phone and he gave me the best explanantion of what do do with the wiring I have had.  I had not even committed to buying his harness at that point. He even explained how to use my stock harness if that is what I wanted to do.
He also makes a plug in harness that is self contained with his own ECU that you can tune through your laptop and eliminates the VAM.  Souned like some great alternitives.  Really thinking about this although it is pricey.
Just wanted to give credit for great customer service
Thanks for the lead.   ;D
1976 TURBO PINTO
1969 AMC AMX not a pinto, but I like it, fast for not being a FORD (It's different just like a PINTO)

77turbopinto

The later turbo Fords have a BCS (at least 86 and newer, MAYBE 85s too), the early ones don't. The 87/88 cars had the ACT as Mike mentioned (I am running a LA2 without the ACT). Other than that I don't know, I never had a N/A one.

Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

douglasskemp

Okay, I am seriously curious about this 'idea':

What is different between a standard NA EFI harness and a Turbo EFI harness?  Are there any extra wires/sensors in the turbo variant? Are the pins on the ECU different?  As a guy with extensive electrical experience, I know wires are wires (resistor excluded) and the big thing are the sensor connectors, the ECU and what signal goes where.  I am wondering more for those people that are trying to set one up from scratch or replacing a damaged or unusable harness from a turbo donor.  If this is a viable alternative, It would be oh so much cheaper to get this out of a NA donor car than shelling out more than a few Franklins for these custom jobs.

Reason I ask, is I have a turbo harness from the 86 t coupe my motor came out of, and an extra harness out of an 87 EFI NA car. (I got it when I got the entire drivetrain out of a donor when I was going to do the 5spd conv. in my 87 stang)
The Pinto I had I gave to my brother. The car was originally my mom's, (78 red Pinto sedan with a 2.3 and a 4spd.) I am originally from Tucson, AZ but moved to Oxnard CA :D
I'm looking for a Pinto wagon with an automatic.

77turbopinto

You still might have to cut the harness you buy depending on how you install the harness, ECU, and sensors.

Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

rkk

Thanks I am going to look at this vendor also.  I just really like the ide of having a clean harness and a good looking engine bay. :)  Just don't like the idea of $500  :-\,but maybe the time saved would be worth it.
Has anyone out there used one of these aftermarket harnesses? :read:
1976 TURBO PINTO
1969 AMC AMX not a pinto, but I like it, fast for not being a FORD (It's different just like a PINTO)

oldkayaker

Here is another source for a custom fabricated harness.  It is as pricey as The Detail Zone at $500.  I have no experience with this vendor.
http://www.turbojoe.com/wireharness.html

I plan to make my own from the 87 TC harness remains.  I just wanted to custom fit it to my car's layout and fix some of the factory design short comings.
Jerry J - Jupiter, Florida

map351

73 2.3Turbo Pinto
6S1941 / 289 Slab Side
40 Ford Sedan Delivery  For Sale

Pinto FiberGlass
https://picasaweb.google.com/73turbopinto/PintoHotpantsKitNewFrontAirdam

dave1957

I recently had an 'accident " wiring my pinto.i went down to the library and they had a thing called alldatapro on the computer.got awesome diagrams of my wiring harness there..(it took 6 81/2 by 11 sheets to get the whole harness..but my pinto now runs!!! took about 5hours off and on to redo my whole harness  (the shop at work is minus a couple dozen feet of wire)......... hope this might help
1979 bobcat
1974 red stinkbug
1979 orange pinto sedan aka project turbo hack
1979 orange pinto all glass hatch 52k

map351

Any early EFI mustang/Capri will work there basic, just need to add ACT wire if your using the LA3 computer...
73 2.3Turbo Pinto
6S1941 / 289 Slab Side
40 Ford Sedan Delivery  For Sale

Pinto FiberGlass
https://picasaweb.google.com/73turbopinto/PintoHotpantsKitNewFrontAirdam

rkk

As luck would have it. I have the 88 harness and you are right it is a nightmare.  It is full of all kind of extra wires I don't need.  That is why this looked so appealing.
1976 TURBO PINTO
1969 AMC AMX not a pinto, but I like it, fast for not being a FORD (It's different just like a PINTO)

77turbopinto

My first question is what year t-bird?

Pre-87?

I used an 86 harness for both my swaps, easy and not too many 'extra' wires. The 87/88 is a nightmare!!

IMHO: The 86 harness can be cleaned up by anyone that can do the swap themselves..

Bill
Thanks to all U.S. Military members past & present.

rkk

All you turbo swap guys, I need your input.  I am almost done with my swap.  All that is left is the wiring.  I have the harness out of a T-bird but it contains all the extra stuff.  I found a harness online and called them.  It is a harness setup for the swap with just the necassary wiring.  It is a little pricy, but it sure would make the swap cleaner.  What do you think?

The website is; www.thedetailzone.com
It is under turbo2.3 ford
Thanks for your help!!
1976 TURBO PINTO
1969 AMC AMX not a pinto, but I like it, fast for not being a FORD (It's different just like a PINTO)