Jump to content

Ford's Disaster: The Pinto


Recommended Posts

My one and only Pinto was a '72 Squire wagon, wood grain and all. I bought that when the first oil crisis hit and gas shot up to over $1/gal. My other car at the time was a Black Jade '69 Boss 429 with a 4.56:1 rear axle. Not exactly an economy car. Once fuel prices stabilized I yanked the 4 cyl, 4-speed drive train out of the Pinto and replaced that with a 289 2V and C4 auto along with the rear axle from a '65 Mustang. The fuel mileage really wasn't much worse than with the 4 banger. That eventually got replaced by a 290 hp 351W 4V and toploader 4-speed out of a '69 Torino GT. That definitely hurt the fuel mileage but the fun factor was out of sight! ? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In spite of setbacks, the Pinto showed that it was possible to make money with half decent cars,

the 2.0 OHC I-4 was a good performer with fuel efficiency that was needed post 1973 oil shock.

Kind of like how the Mustang II arrived at almost the perfect moment for Ford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 6:39 PM, paintguy said:

As for safety, owned a 71 Beetle. Slow, though without drivability issues. Gas tank right in front of you, just like a Model A.  

 

Reminded me that in college my next door neighbor owned a 71 Super Beetle, and one day asked me if I could check the battery and jump start the car for her.  I was really embarrassed when I couldn’t even find the battery and had to look it up in the owner’s manual.  Searching under the back seat would have never crossed my mind back then.  Who does that?  I suppose the same engineers that place fuel tank right over your feet.

 

Eventually I got to drive the Super Beetle, and while it only had about 53 HP, it was still a lot of fun in traffic.  The Beetle was indeed a little slow accelerating, but could cruise at 80 MPH without too much trouble once up to speed.  If nothing else, it taught me that for daily transportation, a compact car with 100 HP can meet my needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, blksn8k2 said:

My one and only Pinto was a '72 Squire wagon, wood grain and all. I bought that when the first oil crisis hit and gas shot up to over $1/gal. My other car at the time was a Black Jade '69 Boss 429 with a 4.56:1 rear axle. Not exactly an economy car. Once fuel prices stabilized I yanked the 4 cyl, 4-speed drive train out of the Pinto and replaced that with a 289 2V and C4 auto along with the rear axle from a '65 Mustang. The fuel mileage really wasn't much worse than with the 4 banger. That eventually got replaced by a 290 hp 351W 4V and toploader 4-speed out of a '69 Torino GT. That definitely hurt the fuel mileage but the fun factor was out of sight! ? 

Boss 429! wow- do you remember the sticker...two on Mecom over weekend..one went for 475G and I think the other went for 485!! 

If only you knew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Boss 429! wow- do you remember the sticker...two on Mecom over weekend..one went for 475G and I think the other went for 485!! 

If only you knew?

 

Back in 1972 or so, I was a student "gofer" at Engine Engineering in Dearborn.  Inside the engineering building, they had a huge fenced-in crib where they stored engines.  On the top shelf were two Boss 429 engines.  I often wondered where those engines ended up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 11:47 AM, jniffen said:

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.

Most of the Pinto's competitors had the gas tank mounted behind the rear axle. That wasn't an uncommon place for the fuel tank in that era, particularly for rear-wheel-drive small cars. 

 

Not only was the ride height of the "crash" car (an early 1970s full-size Chevrolet) altered, but the headlights of the Chevrolet were turned on (to increase the chance that there would be a spark), and the Pinto's fuel tank had been topped off. Even then, it's my understanding that it took more than one attempt to make the Pinto burst into flames (and the Chevrolet was traveling at a higher speed than that set by the federal standards for fuel-tank safety). 

Edited by grbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 

Back in 1972 or so, I was a student "gofer" at Engine Engineering in Dearborn.  Inside the engineering building, they had a huge fenced-in crib where they stored engines.  On the top shelf were two Boss 429 engines.  I often wondered where those engines ended up.

sounds like a dream job ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

sounds like a dream job ?

 

At the time, it was just a summer job to make money for college.  Whatever the engineers wanted me to do, I did.  Mostly just menial stuff, like locating and moving vehicles to the experimental garage so they could install whatever the newest thing was.  But I also met a lot of now-famous engineers like Joe Macura (427), Bill Gay (255 DOHC Indy Engine), George Stirrat (Chief Engineer 221/260/289/302) and others.  Fun times for a college kid.  It paid well too.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

Reminded me that in college my next door neighbor owned a 71 Super Beetle, and one day asked me if I could check the battery and jump start the car for her.  I was really embarrassed when I couldn’t even find the battery and had to look it up in the owner’s manual.  Searching under the back seat would have never crossed my mind back then.  Who does that?  I suppose the same engineers that place fuel tank right over your feet.

 

Eventually I got to drive the Super Beetle, and while it only had about 53 HP, it was still a lot of fun in traffic.  The Beetle was indeed a little slow accelerating, but could cruise at 80 MPH without too much trouble once up to speed.  If nothing else, it taught me that for daily transportation, a compact car with 100 HP can meet my needs.

The back seat battery required you keep the protector in place on the positive terminal. If someone of generous proportions sat in the back seat, it could get hot, very fast. Light aircraft sometimes put the battery there as well. Aviation has more weight and balance issues. That said, the low horsepower means you really needed to learn to shift to the correct gear. Come to think of it, my mom's Pinto was automatic. The automatics of the day were inefficient and short a gear or two of what they needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2023 at 10:18 AM, Bob Rosadini said:

Boss 429! wow- do you remember the sticker...two on Mecom over weekend..one went for 475G and I think the other went for 485!! 

If only you knew?

 

I bought the car used. I won't tell you how low the price was because it would make both of us sick. They were just another used car back then and muscle cars had gone out of favor by then. The only part I still have from that car is the oil cooler. Stupid thing is probably worth a couple grand.

 

And, yes, I saw the Mecum broadcast. Mine was Black Jade, same color as the one that sold for $475K. BTW, according to Mecum's website the final price for Lot# T149 after adding in all the fees was $522,500. Pretty sure the black car crossed the block for $425K.

 

I was looking through some old paperwork a few days ago and came across a Pennsylvania registration card dated June 25 1973 for the one I had. The 5th character of the VIN is the letter "Z" which denotes the 429 4V Boss engine.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 1/16/2023 at 2:47 AM, jniffen said:

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.

The issue was more with how Ford responded to the initial problems, they calculated that it was cheaper to do no changes and deal with individual cases. That’s when the whole tide turned against Ford, especially when it was shown that a $10 plastic fuel tank liner would have stopped fuel leaking from. a ruptured tank. They knew and chose to do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2023 at 9:18 AM, Bob Rosadini said:

Boss 429! wow- do you remember the sticker...two on Mecom over weekend..one went for 475G and I think the other went for 485!! 

If only you knew?

I must comment on my shopping experience! I clearly recall my 1969 visit to North Brothers Ford in Westland Mi and looking at purchasing a new 1969 Shelby GT 500....that the dealer listed at $5200!!! Unfortunately, I was financially $2000 short and decided on a 1969 Mustang Mach 1 with the 351 engine! Great car but still think back on that beautiful GT 500! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bdegrand said:

I must comment on my shopping experience! I clearly recall my 1969 visit to North Brothers Ford in Westland Mi and looking at purchasing a new 1969 Shelby GT 500....that the dealer listed at $5200!!! Unfortunately, I was financially $2000 short and decided on a 1969 Mustang Mach 1 with the 351 engine! Great car but still think back on that beautiful GT 500! 

 

Hah! don't feel bad.  Probably most of the posters on this  thread have similar remorse.  That 2g was a big number in 69.  I ordered my 66 Mustang GT my senior year  and "saved" to the point of not even going for a 4 spd but lived with "3 on the floor".  I replaced that in 68 with a new Torino GT "notchback"-428 CJ, C6.  traded that for a new Montego in 72, and I  think  got like 500 bucks in trade.  When I  watch Mecom and BJ today I think every time I see a Torino GT fastback 428 on the block, what would that notchback be worth today? Not that 68 Torino GT values come close to a big block 68 Chevelle,  but I believe a 428 notchback would have a good value  just on rarity.

PS I bet you wish you still had that Mach 1?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Hah! don't feel bad.  Probably most of the posters on this  thread have similar remorse.  That 2g was a big number in 69.  I ordered my 66 Mustang GT my senior year  and "saved" to the point of not even going for a 4 spd but lived with "3 on the floor".  I replaced that in 68 with a new Torino GT "notchback"-428 CJ, C6.  traded that for a new Montego in 72, and I  think  got like 500 bucks in trade.  When I  watch Mecom and BJ today I think every time I see a Torino GT fastback 428 on the block, what would that notchback be worth today? Not that 68 Torino GT values come close to a big block 68 Chevelle,  but I believe a 428 notchback would have a good value  just on rarity.

PS I bet you wish you still had that Mach 1?

Totally agree, Bob! We actually had a gathering of Mach-1 owners who would meet along Telegraph road in Dearborn Mi every Saturday night. It was the best of times! I had to work hard for that car but it brought me many great memories....most especially after beating a Chevy lover from our high school who boasted his Camaro 350 would beat me in a drag race down Telegraph Road!  I will always remember that! I was later drafted and sent overseas! Thank God for allowing me to live during that period which had the best American cars and the best Music! I think you agree! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bdegrand said:

Totally agree, Bob! We actually had a gathering of Mach-1 owners who would meet along Telegraph road in Dearborn Mi every Saturday night. It was the best of times! I had to work hard for that car but it brought me many great memories....most especially after beating a Chevy lover from our high school who boasted his Camaro 350 would beat me in a drag race down Telegraph Road!  I will always remember that! I was later drafted and sent overseas! Thank God for allowing me to live during that period which had the best American cars and the best Music! I think you agree! 

And a lot of other things as well...when we watched the news, that is what we got...News!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In America, the second generation Falcon morphed into Maverick coupe and sedan using a modified version of Mustang’s front crash cell. Unfortunately, Maverick’s 70.5” width was too narrow for Ford Australia who needed a bigger car to cover Falcon, Fairlane and LTD. The Falcon coupe became a local vehicle eerily close to the size of the US Mustang, the larger coupe doors being used on the Falcon Ute (Ranchero). All of that covered a ton of product envelope, MKIII Cortina, Capri and Escort rounded out its mid size and compact needs.

 

I wonder how things would have panned out if North America had embraced a similar suite of vehicles with arguably less development costs. In any case, it would have given Ford more time to develop and implement the FOX platform years earlier.

 

Even without the Aussie Falcons, just Embracing Euro Cortina and Capri instead of Maverick and Pinto would have put Ford North America miles in front of the competition, especially when the oil crisis hit and virtually everyone wanted a four cylinder Econo car….

 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bdegrand said:

Amen, brother! Today we call it "fake news!"

The evening news wasn’t the same after Walter Cronkite left.  
 

The cars and trucks after the first oil crisis were only memorable for how bad they were.  It took until the late 80s for things to turn around.  Now that we’ve got great powertrains again, it is time to reset and go with an immature Bev.  Are we in for a second malaise era?  Let’s hope not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 11:00 PM, slemke said:

The evening news wasn’t the same after Walter Cronkite left. 

You mean the Walter Cronkite who declared that we were losing a war in which we didn't lose a single battle? The Cronkite who declared that we lost a battle which we'd actually won so decisively that it broke the opposing force as a fighting force? That Walter Cronkite?

 

Seems to me like not much at all has changed in the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 12:00 AM, slemke said:

The cars and trucks after the first oil crisis were only memorable for how bad they were.  It took until the late 80s for things to turn around.  Now that we’ve got great powertrains again, it is time to reset and go with an immature Bev.  Are we in for a second malaise era?  Let’s hope not.

 

I'd say by the mid-1980s cars where much better then they where 10 years prior to that.

 

The only thing BEVs "suffer" from is range anxiety and given what I've seen around my house, charging stations are about to become almost as common as gas stations are in the next few years. Performance isn't an issue...the only issue is they might be too powerful for some users.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoonerLS said:

You mean the Walter Cronkite who declared that we were losing a war in which we didn't lose a single battle? The Cronkite who declared that we lost a battle which we'd actually won so decisively that it broke the opposing force as a fighting force? That Walter Cronkite?

 

Seems to me like not much at all has changed in the media.

Wasn’t aware of that.  When was it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

I'd say by the mid-1980s cars where much better then they where 10 years prior to that.

 

The only thing BEVs "suffer" from is range anxiety and given what I've seen around my house, charging stations are about to become almost as common as gas stations are in the next few years. Performance isn't an issue...the only issue is they might be too powerful for some users.  

I think you are living in a bubble.  The infrastructure may be built out around you, but it isn’t everywhere.  “Range anxiety” is real for those that drive lots of miles in a day or in locations poorly served by public charging or haul/tow heavy loads, or extremely cold temps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SoonerLS said:

IIRC, it would've been around the time of the Tet Offensive (the battle that broke the back of the Viet Cong as a fighting force), so early '68-ish.

Thanks…I’ll look it up that was before I was born and my Dad never mentioned it.

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...