Cars - Ford Pinto

Home > Listing Index > Cars > Ford Pinto

	Cars - Ford Pinto

The Ford Pinto was a subcompact car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. The car's design began in 1968 under the direction of Ford executive Lee Iacocca. It was first introduced in 1971, and was built through the 1980 model year. Like many Ford cars, it had a "twin": in the Pinto's case, the Mercury Bobcat.

Body styles included a 2-door coupe, a three-door hatchback, a two-door station wagon, and the Ford Pinto Cruising Wagon, produced from 1977 to 1980 and styled to resemble a small conversion van (very much the trend in the late 1970s) complete with a round "bubble window" in the side panels.

The car's design was conventional, with unibody construction, a longitudinally-mounted engine in front driving the rear wheels through either a manual or automatic transmission and live axle rear end. Suspension was by unequal length A-arms with coil springs at the front and the live axle rear was suspended on leaf springs. The rack and pinion steering had optional power assist, as did the brakes.

Road & Track faulted the suspension and standard drum brakes, calling the latter a "serious deficiency". But they praised the 1.6 L Kent engine, especially compared to the much-larger 2300 found in archrival Chevrolet's Vega.

Original engines included a British-built 1.6 L OHV I4 and a German-built 2.0 L SOHC I4. In 1974, the 1.6 L powerplant was dropped and a new 2.3 L engine became available; a 2.8 L V6 was available from 1975.

Engines:

1971-1973 - 1.6 L Kent OHV I4, 75 hp (60 kW) and 96 ft.lbf (130 Nm)
1971-1980 - 2.0 L EAO SOHC I4
1974-1980 - 2.3 L OHC SOHC I4
1975-1980 - 2.8 L Cologne V6

Safety problems

Through the production of the model, it became a focus of a major scandal when it was discovered that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which often resulted in deadly fires and explosions. The problem was that the vehicle lacked a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, and in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank.

Furthermore, it was alleged that Ford was aware of this design flaw, but they refused to pay the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. This discovery of Ford's apparent gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, inconclusive criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos. Ford lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four."

One particularly appalling case resulted in a judicial opinion which has become a staple of remedies courses in American law schools. In Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (4 Dist. 1981) , the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reviewed Ford's egregious conduct in painstaking detail, and upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford. It also upheld the judge's reduction of the punitive damages from the jury's original verdict of $125 million. Of the two plaintiffs, one was killed in the collision that caused her Pinto to explode, and her passenger, 13-year old Richard Grimshaw, was badly burned and scarred for life.

More recently, it has been argued (in a well-known 1991 law review paper by Gary Schwartz (PDF), among others) that the case against the Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly supposed. Only 27 people ever died in Pinto fires, which given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built) was no worse than typical for the time. Schwartz argues that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, and that the supposed 'smoking gun' document showing Ford's callousness actually referred to the auto industry in general rather than the Pinto specifically.

Ford faced a similar product liability scandal in the 1990s and 2000s with the Bridgestone/Firestone tires installed as factory equipment on their Explorer SUVs, as well as safety concerns with Crown Victoria police cruisers in response to ruptured fuel tanks.

Due to the "alleged" engineering, safety, and reliability problems, Forbes Magazine included the Pinto on its list of the worst cars of all time.

Pinto Pangra

The Pinto Pangra was a modified, sporting Pinto produced in limited numbers by a Ford dealer, Huntington Ford in Arcadia, California. Approximately 200 were sold during 1973 and (to a limited degree) 1974, and in addition the components were sold in kit form. A Pangra cost approximately $5,000.

[ Visit the complete Wikipedia entry for Ford Pinto ]

This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article Ford Pinto; it is used under the GNU Free Documentation License. You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the GFDL.

Cars - Ford Pinto

Safety problems

Pinto Pangra

Searches on eBay

Related searches on eBay