Older guys will understand this pic!
- Thread starter Car Nut
- Start date
-
Unconventional
Well-Known Member
Even with them being a cheap, economical to operate, compact, the 2.0 litre with the 4spd was a kick in the *** to drive 
. I used to trade my little sister my big block short bed F100 for a Saturday night use of her Pinto just for the fun of it 
.
. I used to trade my little sister my big block short bed F100 for a Saturday night use of her Pinto just for the fun of it .
Have a friend building a back halved one with a twin turbo 427 based Windsor mill in it.
Unconventional
Well-Known Member
Sounds fun. There was one running around here, all tubbed out, the proper attitude rake to it, non-attention getting wheels, in progress paint. Under the flat hood there was a Windsor of unknown displacement with a Paxton blower on it
MomsDuster
Well-Known Member
Loved my Pinto wagon! My sole source of transportation from 84-91. 2.0L Slammed to the ground, 60 series TA’s, blacked out windows and (4)15” subs in the back. Always wanted to Pro-Street a wagon. Miss that car.
I used to drive a Pinto station wagon back in the early/mid 70s, it was a really good reliable car.
Unconventional
Well-Known Member
There were sure a bunch of them in the Mini Stock division at the local dirt oval . Friend of mine was the track champion a couple times in one.
. Friend of mine was the track champion a couple times in one.
Unconventional
Well-Known Member
Pintona 
MomsDuster
Well-Known Member
That’s a heck of a beak!
Pinto's can be fun! 9.60's in the 1/4 back in the late 70's wasn't a bad ride. Back when they used powdered rosin for traction compound.
Funny paint scheme with the flames running backwards from the gas tank.
My cousin, Jeff, had a 71 Pinto, manual trans with the 1.6 German motor. What a great car. It was acting up and I figured it was the carb but it was so complicated I told him to buy a new carb. Well they sold him an export only carb and that Pinto went from mid 20's mpg to around 40 mpg and ran like a top. It was still running great when he sold it.
My cousin, Jeff, had a 71 Pinto, manual trans with the 1.6 German motor. What a great car. It was acting up and I figured it was the carb but it was so complicated I told him to buy a new carb. Well they sold him an export only carb and that Pinto went from mid 20's mpg to around 40 mpg and ran like a top. It was still running great when he sold it.
Dartswinger70
Well-Known Member
What did ford do for the gas tank explosions? move the tank forward and install a shield? I seem to recall that they fixed the safety issue, but the car still had a bad reputation.
66340SEDAN
FABO Member #3649
A young guy local to the area here in MN restored his Pinto and liked to cruise in it. One day was turning into his driveway and a car didn’t see him and plowed into the rear of him and his car burst into flames. He got burned really bad but survived, he had really bad scarring and lots of pain from it. He got a big settlement from Ford I guess and this wasn’t that long ago. He ended up buying a brand new Hellcat when they first came out and he crashed it into a mailbox and the ditch shortly after he got it, guess he started drinking a lot after the accident and he said no amount of money would make him feel better, felt bad for the kid.
That's a good question. I can't remember what they did. I think the newer energy absorbing bumpers helped the issue. There was a rear end collision and fire just a block from the dealership I worked at. The gal died in the crash and the car burned to the ground.
Sad story there.
IIRC, they placed a plastic shield between the tank and the differential to absorb the impact. The tanks sometimes had a tendency to split on impact. My sister had a 71 Pinto with the 2 liter and a 4 speed. She got rear ended at least once if not twice in that car, but it never caught fire. I do remember the shifter pulled out of the transmission on a couple of occasions though. It was a decent car that she drove for a few years before buying a Beetle.
Dfr360cuda
Diagnosis... Plum Crazy.
I get it.
I must be old
I must be old
I got it right away.....but I'm NOT old dammit!!
A combination of things could make a Pinto deadly in a significant rear end collision The gas tank could get slammed into the differential and shock mount brackets. These could puncture the tank. The filler neck could be pulled out of the tank, spilling raw fuel all over. The doors could get jammed shut, so if there was an source of ignition for the fuel, the occupants couldn't easily escape. A couple of shields and a longer filler tube greatly reduced the chance of a fire.
What was so damning for Ford was they knew the fix early on. It was also pretty cheap. But Ford did a cost-benefit analysis, and determined it would be cheaper to pay claims for those who were killed than it was to make the Pinto safer. Eventually Ford issued a recall to retrofit existing cars. New ones were built more safely, as they should have been in the first place. Ford sold millions of those cars. They were everywhere.
What was so damning for Ford was they knew the fix early on. It was also pretty cheap. But Ford did a cost-benefit analysis, and determined it would be cheaper to pay claims for those who were killed than it was to make the Pinto safer. Eventually Ford issued a recall to retrofit existing cars. New ones were built more safely, as they should have been in the first place. Ford sold millions of those cars. They were everywhere.
Around 1991, I bought a Pinto Station Wagon from a drug auction in Del Rio Texas where I was stationed in the Air Force.
They allowed you to crawl around and look at the entire car, but you couldn't start it. I paid $325 for it thankfully drove it home. After a tune up and replacing a broken shock I drove it two years snd sold it to another Air Force guy! Fun little car.
They allowed you to crawl around and look at the entire car, but you couldn't start it. I paid $325 for it thankfully drove it home. After a tune up and replacing a broken shock I drove it two years snd sold it to another Air Force guy! Fun little car.
mopar head
Well-Known Member
As a kid, I needed a car. My dad knew somebody at a used car lot and I was hooked up with a really nice 74 Pinto in the late 70s albeit high mileage. 90+K. Within a week or so I noticed a trail of smoke following me around, they must of had some good snake oil added.
My Dad knew another guy who rebuilt the head, which let the car last close to 200K miles, on that bottom end before it started smoking again.
With rust starting to take its toll, off to the junk yard it went. 4 spd. car, a lot of good memories.
BUT! when they say to change the timing belt @ 60k miles you better heed the schedule, or you`ll be walking...
My Dad knew another guy who rebuilt the head, which let the car last close to 200K miles, on that bottom end before it started smoking again.
With rust starting to take its toll, off to the junk yard it went. 4 spd. car, a lot of good memories.
BUT! when they say to change the timing belt @ 60k miles you better heed the schedule, or you`ll be walking...
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
All the claims about Pinto fires are exaggerated. 60 minutes faked the tests to make it look terrible, and people bought it. The history and explanations are out there if you search for them.
The fact is that gasoline is flammable, and any gas powered car is at risk of burning if in a bad enough accident. Smaller cars are a bigger risk simply due to the small amount of space available which puts all the innards closer to the outside and thus at higher risk of damage. Smaller, lighter cars are also at higher risk of substantial damage when hit by larger and heavier cars. It's simple physics.
The fact is that gasoline is flammable, and any gas powered car is at risk of burning if in a bad enough accident. Smaller cars are a bigger risk simply due to the small amount of space available which puts all the innards closer to the outside and thus at higher risk of damage. Smaller, lighter cars are also at higher risk of substantial damage when hit by larger and heavier cars. It's simple physics.
Scamp Rhonda
Well-Known Member
Here's a pretty good article on it for your reading pleasure. Ford got away with premeditated murder in my opinion.
Ford Pinto Fuel Tank
On June 9, 1978, Ford Motor Company agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for fuel tank design defects which made the vehicles susceptible to fire in the event of a moderate-speed rear end collision. The action was the result of investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Office of Defect Investigations (Case Recall C7-38), sparked by a petition from the Center for Auto Safety, publicity generated by a national publication expose of the hazard (Mother Jones News Magazine, “Pinto Madness” by Mark Dowie, Sept/Oct, 1977). The action was also spurred by publicity over the largest punitive damages awarded by a California jury to a young man who had been severely injured in a Pinto fuel tank fire (Grimshaw v Ford).
In April, 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned NHTSA to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. The Center’s petition was based upon reports from attorneys of three deaths and 4 serious injuries in such accidents. This petition languished in the NHTSA offices until 1977.
In 1977, Mark Dowie of Mother Jones Magazine using documents in the Center files, published an article reporting the dangers of the fuel tank design, and cited internal Ford Motor Company documents that proved that Ford knew of the weakness in the fuel tank before the vehicle was placed on the market but that a cost/benefit study was done which suggested that it would be “cheaper” for Ford to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires in the first place. Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but that cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto.
Closely following the publication of the Mother Jones article, a jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded Richard Grimshaw $125 million in punitive damages for injuries he sustained while a passenger in a 1971 Pinto which was struck by another car at an impact speed of 28MPH and burst into flames. Although the award was eventually reduced to $3.5 million by the trial judge, the jury’s reason for the figure of $125 million was that Ford Motor Company had marketed the Pinto with full knowledge that injuries such as Grimshaw’s were inevitable in the Pinto and therefore the punitive damages should be more than Ford had made in profit on the Pinto since its introduction, which was $124 million. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
With the publication of the Mother Jones article and the Grimshaw case publicity, the Center for Auto Safety resubmitted its petition for a defects investigation into the Pinto and ODI Case Recall C7-38 was opened. ODI had crash tests done of 1971-76 Pintos, sedan, hatchback (“Runabout”) and station wagon models, and the results showed significant fuel tank ruptures and leakage, in one case after an impact of 30.31 MPH the entire contents of the fuel tank leaked out of the 1976 Pinto in less than one minute. (Investigative Report, Phrase I, C7-38, 1971-76 Ford Pinto and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat, May, 1978.)
Although the first Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301 for fuel system integrity took effect January 1, 1968, the standard only required passenger cars to meet a 30-mph fixed front barrier crash. There was no requirement for side or rear impacts allowing Ford to claim the Pinto met all applicable safety standards for fuel system integrity. Not until the 1977 model year did the Pinto and other passenger cars have to meet a 30-mph rear moving barrier and a 20-mph side moving barrier test. Light trucks and vans got until the 1978 model year to meet side and rear impact requirements. 39 FR 10588 (Mar. 21, 1974).
Based upon the tests performed for NHTSA and by the tremendous publicity generated over the problem, Ford agreed to recall all 1971 through 1976 Ford Pintos and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for modifications to the fuel tank. The modifications included a longer fuel filler neck and a better clamp to keep it securely in the fuel tank, a better gas cap in some models, and placement of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and the differential to protect the tank from the nuts and bolts on the differential and another along the right corner of the tank to protect it from the right rear shock absorber. Recall notices were mailed in September, 1978 and parts were to be at all dealers by September 15, 1978. However, between June 9, 1978, and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated 2.2 million vehicles, six people died in Pinto fires after a rear impact.
In one of the instances, an Elkhart, Indiana grand jury returned indictments against Ford Motor Company for three cases of negligence from the deaths of three young women. But on March 13, 1980, a jury found Ford innocent of a charge of failing to warn about or offer to repair fuel system defects in the Pinto before the day the three women were fatally burned. The verdict is not an unfavorable precedent with regard to criminal prosecution of corporations for defective products that kill. Despite numerous mitigating circumstances in the Pinto case–speeding van, hazardous highway, driver in possession of alcohol and illegal drugs, the exclusion of evidence from the NHTSA investigation including the crash tests, the inclusion into evidence of Ford’s exculpatory crash tests, and a local prosecutor with minimal resources–the possibility of successful corporate criminal liability suits in the future remains open.
Fort Pinto Part 573 Recall Report
Ford Pinto Fuel Tank
On June 9, 1978, Ford Motor Company agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for fuel tank design defects which made the vehicles susceptible to fire in the event of a moderate-speed rear end collision. The action was the result of investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Office of Defect Investigations (Case Recall C7-38), sparked by a petition from the Center for Auto Safety, publicity generated by a national publication expose of the hazard (Mother Jones News Magazine, “Pinto Madness” by Mark Dowie, Sept/Oct, 1977). The action was also spurred by publicity over the largest punitive damages awarded by a California jury to a young man who had been severely injured in a Pinto fuel tank fire (Grimshaw v Ford).
In April, 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned NHTSA to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. The Center’s petition was based upon reports from attorneys of three deaths and 4 serious injuries in such accidents. This petition languished in the NHTSA offices until 1977.
In 1977, Mark Dowie of Mother Jones Magazine using documents in the Center files, published an article reporting the dangers of the fuel tank design, and cited internal Ford Motor Company documents that proved that Ford knew of the weakness in the fuel tank before the vehicle was placed on the market but that a cost/benefit study was done which suggested that it would be “cheaper” for Ford to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires in the first place. Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but that cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto.
Closely following the publication of the Mother Jones article, a jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded Richard Grimshaw $125 million in punitive damages for injuries he sustained while a passenger in a 1971 Pinto which was struck by another car at an impact speed of 28MPH and burst into flames. Although the award was eventually reduced to $3.5 million by the trial judge, the jury’s reason for the figure of $125 million was that Ford Motor Company had marketed the Pinto with full knowledge that injuries such as Grimshaw’s were inevitable in the Pinto and therefore the punitive damages should be more than Ford had made in profit on the Pinto since its introduction, which was $124 million. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
With the publication of the Mother Jones article and the Grimshaw case publicity, the Center for Auto Safety resubmitted its petition for a defects investigation into the Pinto and ODI Case Recall C7-38 was opened. ODI had crash tests done of 1971-76 Pintos, sedan, hatchback (“Runabout”) and station wagon models, and the results showed significant fuel tank ruptures and leakage, in one case after an impact of 30.31 MPH the entire contents of the fuel tank leaked out of the 1976 Pinto in less than one minute. (Investigative Report, Phrase I, C7-38, 1971-76 Ford Pinto and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat, May, 1978.)
Although the first Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301 for fuel system integrity took effect January 1, 1968, the standard only required passenger cars to meet a 30-mph fixed front barrier crash. There was no requirement for side or rear impacts allowing Ford to claim the Pinto met all applicable safety standards for fuel system integrity. Not until the 1977 model year did the Pinto and other passenger cars have to meet a 30-mph rear moving barrier and a 20-mph side moving barrier test. Light trucks and vans got until the 1978 model year to meet side and rear impact requirements. 39 FR 10588 (Mar. 21, 1974).
Based upon the tests performed for NHTSA and by the tremendous publicity generated over the problem, Ford agreed to recall all 1971 through 1976 Ford Pintos and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for modifications to the fuel tank. The modifications included a longer fuel filler neck and a better clamp to keep it securely in the fuel tank, a better gas cap in some models, and placement of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and the differential to protect the tank from the nuts and bolts on the differential and another along the right corner of the tank to protect it from the right rear shock absorber. Recall notices were mailed in September, 1978 and parts were to be at all dealers by September 15, 1978. However, between June 9, 1978, and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated 2.2 million vehicles, six people died in Pinto fires after a rear impact.
In one of the instances, an Elkhart, Indiana grand jury returned indictments against Ford Motor Company for three cases of negligence from the deaths of three young women. But on March 13, 1980, a jury found Ford innocent of a charge of failing to warn about or offer to repair fuel system defects in the Pinto before the day the three women were fatally burned. The verdict is not an unfavorable precedent with regard to criminal prosecution of corporations for defective products that kill. Despite numerous mitigating circumstances in the Pinto case–speeding van, hazardous highway, driver in possession of alcohol and illegal drugs, the exclusion of evidence from the NHTSA investigation including the crash tests, the inclusion into evidence of Ford’s exculpatory crash tests, and a local prosecutor with minimal resources–the possibility of successful corporate criminal liability suits in the future remains open.
Fort Pinto Part 573 Recall Report
Phreakish
Well-Known Member
One small problem, fewer people were actually hurt or killed in Pintos than any other comparable car of the time. Mother Jones made up the numbers based on bad extrapolation, 60 minutes turned it into a fiasco, and Ford went through a recall to save face.
This was all done during a time when Congress was trying to make themselves relevant by painting auto manufacturers as cold blooded killers in order to get a better handle on levers of power so they could get those sweet manufacturing jobs into their very own districts. The same tricks were later pulled in order to sabotage better-made foreign cars and gin up public support for import restrictions on popular vehicle categories so that domestics could try and regain some ground.
The NHTSA tests on the Pinto were done with no standardization, and were admittedly rigged for the worst possible outcome in order to come to a predetermined conclusion. Tests on competing models such as the Vega were done at lower speeds with lighter impact test cars, and import cars were actually hit with a sled rather than an actual car.
The 60 minutes on-air test was rigged even further. These same shenanigans were done time and again, even including the Suzuki Samurai. The Pinto was not an aberration. The same stuff is still ongoing today with consumer reports and other 'independent' test "labs".
Scamp Rhonda
Well-Known Member
Looks like Ford new about it ahead of time and expected injuries and death and decided to pay for the lawsuits that were inevitable. That sounds like premeditated murder in my book.
-
