Jump to content

Ford's Disaster: The Pinto


Recommended Posts

Many auto companies used actuary tables to work out potential costs from not correcting know flaws but a growing insistence on safer cars made that position indefensible.

 

The most damning thing was that Ford wouldn’t pay for a$10 plastic liner for the fuel tank. A plastic fuel tank would have been a revolutionary fix…..,

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iacocca’s 2,000-pound weight limit seems aggressive by modern standards, which no doubt affected safety, but back in the 60s there were many car models that weighed much less, including the popular VW Beetle.  I’ve had a soft spot for small and light cars, but a short highway trip in a friend’s Honda N600 (probably around 1,200 pounds) exposed my limit.

 

It would be interesting to see what engineers came up with today if given Iacocca’s challenge of designing a 4-passenger car “not an ounce heavier than 2,000 pounds”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

It would be interesting to see what engineers came up with today if given Iacocca’s challenge of designing a 4-passenger car “not an ounce heavier than 2,000 pounds”.

A 4-place Honda Talon SxS weighs 1,737 lb, with very minimal creature comforts, like windows, and retails for $23,569 incl dest. & del. To build an under one ton vehicle that would be NHTSA-compliant, Cost no object, I bet it could be done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chrisgb said:

To build an under one ton vehicle that would be NHTSA-compliant, Cost no object, I bet it could be done. 

 

Ford had (or has) the Ka which is in that 2,000-pound weight range.  Much like Pinto, it’s very basic transportation.  I don’t know if that size car could ever pass US safety standards unless they were revised.

 

Cost no object, materials like carbon fiber could make a big difference in lowering weight.  However, that gets further from the other challenge of low-cost Iacocca set at $2,000.  GM developed the Ultralite concept in the early 1990’s which was reported to weigh around 1,400 pounds.  Perhaps using aluminum instead they could have kept it below 2,000 pounds and made cost affordable.  In any case, I agree it’s technically doable though there is likely no market, and a large part of that due to concerns over safety.

 

My guess is that replicating Iacocca’s low-weight low-cost challenge today would lead designers to a modern BEV Pinto with limited range (due to low battery capacity).  Not that that would be all bad.  I would consider buying a compact city car but only if safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I owned two Pinto's back in the 70's.  A green 1971 hatchback and a copper 1975 hatchback.  They were good little cars, reliable and able to handle northern Michigan winters (with snow tires).  They did rust though, both of mine starting to show rust after two years.  They have a bad reputation, but I had good luck with both of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

My guess is that replicating Iacocca’s low-weight low-cost challenge today would lead designers to a modern BEV Pinto with limited range (due to low battery capacity).  Not that that would be all bad.  I would consider buying a compact city car but only if safe.

 

My wife joking calls the Mach E the Pinto because the first one she saw was in the same grabber blue her Grandmother Pinto was in LOL
 

They very passingly look similar to one another. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Mark 3 Cortina  started at 2116 lbs and was a bigger, better vehicle

 

image.jpeg.a1bc40d268c3e61ef7b1c4102e887a03.jpeg

 In all fairness, the Pinto was sold as an inexpensive economy car in North America, while the Cortina competed in the heart of family car market in Europe, so Ford could charge more for it.

 

People buying Pintos expected them to have a low sticker price.

 

The North American equivalent of the Cortina would have been the Fairlane/Torino. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

My wife joking calls the Mach E the Pinto because the first one she saw was in the same grabber blue her Grandmother Pinto was in LOL
 

They very passingly look similar to one another. 

I know the aversion to Grabber Blue. My mom's '74 Pinto was Grabber Blue. When looking for a Mustang, Grabber Blue not on my short list. The '74 Pinto was a particularly bad manifestation of the malaise era. The bumpers added significant weight, without improving safety. Emissions control gutted any engine performance and hurt driveability. Started to rust after the first winter. Eventually, junked with a bad camshaft. Was many years before my family considered another Ford. Thankfully Ford is much improved. As bad as Pinto was, Vega was just as bad, Chrysler missed the subcompact market and AMC Gremlin was just strange. Unfortunate misses that opened the door for our Japanese competitors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, paintguy said:

I know the aversion to Grabber Blue. My mom's '74 Pinto was Grabber Blue. When looking for a Mustang, Grabber Blue not on my short list. The '74 Pinto was a particularly bad manifestation of the malaise era. The bumpers added significant weight, without improving safety. Emissions control gutted any engine performance and hurt driveability. Started to rust after the first winter. Eventually, junked with a bad camshaft. Was many years before my family considered another Ford. Thankfully Ford is much improved. As bad as Pinto was, Vega was just as bad, Chrysler missed the subcompact market and AMC Gremlin was just strange. Unfortunate misses that opened the door for our Japanese competitors. 

My aunt had a 1977 Pinto sedan, and a friend's family had 1972 and 1977 Pinto Runabouts. They were definitely better than the Vegas owned by people we knew.

 

My family had a 1973 AMC Gremlin with the 258 six and automatic. It was by far the worst car my family has ever owned. The Pintos were superior in overall reliability and build quality compared to the Vega and Gremlin, based on our experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, paintguy said:

As bad as Pinto was, Vega was just as bad, Chrysler missed the subcompact market and AMC Gremlin was just strange. Unfortunate misses that opened the door for our Japanese competitors. 

 

Particularly after the 1973 oil crisis a few years later, when fuel economy became a greater priority.  It begs the question of why Iacocca was so insistent on keeping Pinto weight under 2,000 pounds at a time when gas was relatively inexpensive?  It’s possible he anticipated oil shortages and wanted Pinto to have great fuel economy, but seems more likely that US market was showing greater interest in small cars starting in the 1960’s.  Prior to Vega, GM’s attempt to compete with VW Beetle, the Corvair, also ran into safety issues.  Not sure if small and safe can be combined at a reasonable price.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

 

Particularly after the 1973 oil crisis a few years later, when fuel economy became a greater priority.  It begs the question of why Iacocca was so insistent on keeping Pinto weight under 2,000 pounds at a time when gas was relatively inexpensive?  It’s possible he anticipated oil shortages and wanted Pinto to have great fuel economy, but seems more likely that US market was showing greater interest in small cars starting in the 1960’s.  Prior to Vega, GM’s attempt to compete with VW Beetle, the Corvair, also ran into safety issues.  Not sure if small and safe can be combined at a reasonable price.

Sales of imports were again increasing in the mid- and late-1960s. VW sales were still strong, and Toyota and Datsun were making headway in the U.S. Even though gas wasn't terribly expensive, it was thought that their fuel economy was one reason people were buying more imported economy cars. 

 

The VW Beetle was by far the most popular small car in the 1960s, and even then it had a questionable reputation for safety. 

 

The irony is that the Mother Jones article that got the ball rolling with alleged Pinto issues drastically overstated the number of Pinto fire-related deaths. The notorious memo that supposedly balanced the cost of improvements to the Pinto over human lives never existed - it was a memo that had been requested by the federal government from Ford (and other automakers), and was a cost-benefit analysis of proposed safety regulations. It used the standard cost-benefit analysis (which included placing a value on a human life), and had nothing to do with the Pinto.

 

The Pinto's overall safety record was actually better than many small cars of that era. When looking at fire-related deaths, the Pinto was slightly worse than contemporary small cars, but not the worst. (The worst was the AMC Gremlin, which was not singled out by  the government or safety advocates.) 

Edited by grbeck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, grbeck said:

 In all fairness, the Pinto was sold as an inexpensive economy car in North America, while the Cortina competed in the heart of family car market in Europe, so Ford could charge more for it.

 

People buying Pintos expected them to have a low sticker price.

 

The North American equivalent of the Cortina would have been the Fairlane/Torino. 

I get you point but the Cortina was actually slightly smaller than a Maverick sedan which was a  clever rework of the Gen 2 Falcon. I remember them being sold in Australia for just over $2,000 and the Falcon for $2,500. Fuel economy of the 2.0 OHC was roughly 25% better than I-6 which became an important selling point with rising gas prices.


In saying that, Pinto’s size  seemed to align with Toyota’s Corona, a vehicle that would eventually became a big seller in North America. I can’t help wondering if FNA missed an opportunity to skip Pinto/Maverick in lieu of the better and easier to build MK3 Cortina - that cost them dearly as Cortina was already an established top seller in Europe.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first new car was a 74 Mercury Bobcat, the Mercury version of the Pinto. Dark Brown with Tan vinyl and plaid cloth seats.   It spent as much time in the shop as it did being driven. Constant no start issues that necessitated being towed to the dealer.  After a year Or so I ditched it in favour of a 

Mustang ll. Can’t say it was much more reliable , at least the issues did not necessitate a tow , and we’re fixed when required.  This was in my opinion the worst era for Ford . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when I was in High School (Mid 80's) I rear ended a Pinto that resulted in a 4 car pile up!  The Pinto was pretty smashed up. First thing I thought was thank God the Pinto did not explode! I was driving a mid 1976 Pontiac Grand Prix. It only showed damaged front bumper stops!  The frame was bent slightly, but the car still drove just fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Particularly after the 1973 oil crisis a few years later, when fuel economy became a greater priority.  It begs the question of why Iacocca was so insistent on keeping Pinto weight under 2,000 pounds at a time when gas was relatively inexpensive?  It’s possible he anticipated oil shortages and wanted Pinto to have great fuel economy, but seems more likely that US market was showing greater interest in small cars starting in the 1960’s.  Prior to Vega, GM’s attempt to compete with VW Beetle, the Corvair, also ran into safety issues.  Not sure if small and safe can be combined at a reasonable price.

At the time of Pinto decisions, VW Beetle would have been the main competitor. Toyota Corolla and Datsun were newly introduced and were all close to 2,000 lb. Iacocca saw that Falcon and Corvair, also pitched as Beetle competitors actually tapped into a different market. As for safety, owned a 71 Beetle. Slow, though without drivability issues. Gas tank right in front of you, just like a Model A.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detroit's attempts at competing with the imports were pretty clumsy- Falcon, Corvair, and Valiant were all bigger cars that didn't really compete with the Beetle and most of the imports. Detroit's 2nd attempt with the Pinto and Vega wasn't much smarter- Pinto was halfway competent but a GM exec admitted he was glad he wasn't poor and had to drive a Vega. Had a Mk.1 Cortina GT and it was a decent car- Fast as an MGB but with a back seat and decent trunk. After two decades of feeling there way around the small car market Ford finally wised up and gave us the Escort "world car" and quit wasting their money on different cars for every market. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

 Ford finally wised up and gave us the Escort "world car" and quit wasting their money on different cars for every market. 

 

The only thing the Escort shared with its EU version was the name..that was it

 

I'd say the 1978-1981 Fiesta was better attempt then the Escort was with a common platform, but then again it was imported from EU also. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Detroit's attempts at competing with the imports were pretty clumsy- Falcon, Corvair, and Valiant were all bigger cars that didn't really compete with the Beetle and most of the imports.

When the Falcon and Corvair hit the market, the imports really weren't much competition, aside from the Beetle. That's why Iacocca thought the Pinto could close off that market to the imports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stories I read was Iacocca set the initial price of $1,965.00 wasn't budging on the price. 

 

That's why the change for the fuel tank rear axle was not made from assembly.

 

Also the news show that reported the fire issue had to increase the height of the car crashing into the Pinto to cause the problem to appear.

Yes, there were accidents that happened and caused the fire, but they sensationalized it.

 

Through the years Ford engineers kept improving the car, so much it was used in the US postal service

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-05-14-8902010400-story.html

 

As a kid, I used to have the 70's Pinto, Maverick and Mustang brochures, don't know where they are now.

Edited by jniffen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...