|Manufacturer||Ford Motor Company|
|Production||1971–1980 (in America)|
|Assembly||Edison, New Jersey
|Body and chassis|
|Body style||2-door coupe
2-door sedan delivery
2-door station wagon
|Related||Mercury Bobcat, Mustang II|
|Length||163 in (4,100 mm)|
|Width||69.4 in (1,760 mm)|
|Height||50 in (1,300 mm)|
|Curb weight||2,015–2,270 lb (914–1,030 kg) (1970)|
|Predecessor||Ford Cortina (captive import)|
The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car produced by the Ford Motor Company for the model years 1971–1980. Initially offered as a two-door sedan, hatchback and wagon models followed in 1972. With over 3 million sold over a 10-year production run, the Pinto competed in the U.S. market against the AMC Gremlin and Chevrolet Vega — outproducing both by total production as well as by highest model year production. The Pinto also competed against imported cars from Volkswagen, Datsun, and Toyota.
A rebadged variant, the Mercury Bobcat, debuted in 1974 in Canada and in March 1975 in the US. The Pinto/Bobcat and the smaller, imported Ford Fiesta were ultimately replaced by the front-wheel-drive Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx. Pintos were manufactured in St. Thomas, Ontario; Edison, New Jersey at Edison Assembly; and in Milpitas, California at San Jose Assembly.
The Pinto's legacy was affected by media controversy and legal cases surrounding the safety of its fuel tank design, a recall of the car in 1978, and a later study examining actual incident data that concluded the Pinto was as safe as, or safer than, other cars in its class.
The nameplate "Pinto" derives from the distinctive white and solid pattern of coloration common in horses.
- 1 Background
- 2 Design
- 3 Production history
- 4 Powertrain
- 5 Reception and criticism
- 6 Fuel tank controversy
- 7 Gallery
- 8 Motorsport
- 9 See also
- 10 Notes
- 11 External links
U.S. automakers had first countered imports such as the Volkswagen Beetle with compact cars including the Ford Falcon, Chevrolet Corvair and Plymouth Valiant, although these cars featured six-cylinder engines and comprised a larger vehicle class. As the popularity of smaller Japanese imports from Toyota and Datsun increased throughout the 1960s, Ford North America responded by introducing the Ford Cortina from Ford of Europe as a captive import. U.S. automakers would soon introduce their own subcompacts. The Pinto was in compliance with Japanese regulations concerning vehicle length and engine displacement, but exceeded width dimensions by 60 mm (2.4 in).
The Pinto was introduced on September 11, 1970. The AMC Gremlin was the first to arrive on the market six months before the Pinto, and the Chevrolet Vega was introduced the day before the Pinto. Both the Pinto and the Vega were new, but the Pinto used powertrains proven in Europe from the European Ford Escort, while the Vega's innovative aluminum engine would prove troublesome. The Gremlin was designed around a six-cylinder engine, and was derived largely by truncating the rear body from the compact-class AMC Hornet to achieve its short length.
Ford President Lee Iacocca wanted a 1971 model that weighed less than 2,000 pounds and that would be priced at less than $2,000. A team of stylists at Ford was assigned to design the Pinto's exterior and interior instead of using the European Ford Escort. Robert Eidschun's design of the exterior theme was eventually chosen in its entirety. The clay models of the Pinto were finalized in December 1968 after which Eidschun left Ford to join Chrysler, as a studio Design Manager.
Ford North America's decision to create an all-new vehicle instead of integrating a design from international corporate resources paralleled GM North America's approach when creating the Chevrolet Vega — opting not to use the established Vauxhall Viva or Opel Kadett marketed at the time at GM dealerships in Canada, and USA Buick dealerships from 1967. Designers working on products intended for North America had more freedom with exterior dimensions and engine sizes in relation to Japanese counterparts, where those criteria were dictated by Japanese government regulations. Typically, Detroit manufacturers created products that emulated import aspects with market-driven improvements.
While the previously introduced Ford Maverick offered either straight-6 or V8 engine and a front bench seat, the Pinto offered an inline-4 engine, and bucket seats – more in keeping with small imports such as the Volkswagen Beetle, available since 1949, the Toyota Corolla, introduced to North America March 1968, and the newly introduced Datsun 1200 which appeared in 1970.
Compared with imports, seating was low to the floor. Styling somewhat resembled the larger Ford Maverick in grille and tail light themes, but with a fastback profile.
The car's mechanical 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 control arms with front coil springs; the live rear axle was suspended on leaf springs. The rack and pinion steering had optional power assist, as did the brakes.
After only 22 months from concept to production, Ford introduced the Pinto under the tagline The Little Carefree Car.
After structural work on alternate body styles encountered obstacles, Ford offered the Pinto as a two-door sedan, with entry level models priced at around $1850, undercutting GM's Chevrolet Vega and directly targeting imported models — which included such new competitors as the Mazda 1200 in 1971, the Subaru DL in 1972, and the Honda Civic in 1973.
The Ford Pinto went on sale on September 11, 1970. Initially, the only bodystyle available was a trunked fastback sedan. A hatchback became available on February 20, 1971, debuting at the Chicago Auto Show (also, in 1971, the Pinto brochure came with a paper cutout Pinto that one could fold together to make a 3D model). Marketed as the Runabout, the hatchback went on sale five days later, priced at $2,062. The hatch itself featured exposed chrome hinges for the liftgate and five decorative chrome strips, pneumatic struts to assist in opening the hatch, a rear window approximately as large as the sedan's, and a fold down seat — a feature which became simultaneously an option on the sedan. The hatchback model matched the sedan in all other dimensions and offered 38.1 cubic feet (1.08 m3) of cargo space with its seat folded. By 1972, Ford redesigned the hatch itself, with the glass portion of the hatch enlarged to almost the entire size of the hatch itself, ultimately to be replaced with a rear hatch that was entirely glass.
On February 24, 1972, the Pinto station wagon debuted with an overall length of 172.7 in (4,390 mm) and 60.5 cubic feet (1.71 m3) of cargo volume. The first 2-door Ford station wagon since 1961, the Pinto wagon offered flip-open rear-seat windows as an option. Along with front disc brakes, the 2.0L engine was standard equipment. A Pinto Squire wagon featured faux wood side paneling similar to the full-size Country Squire.
In 1974, to meet federal regulations, 5 mph bumpers were added to both the front and rear. Unlike the majority of 1970s cars, the addition of larger bumpers to the Pinto would not necessitate major changes to the bodywork. While the underpowered Kent engine was dropped, the optional OHC engine was expanded to 2.3L. In various forms, this engine would go on to power a variety of Ford vehicles for 23 years. Mercury begins selling the Bobcat as a Canada-only model. With 544,209 units sold, 1974 would be the most popular model year for the Pinto.
In 1975, in a move to better compete with the AMC Gremlin, Ford introduced the 2.8L V6; while far less powerful than the Gremlin, the V6 gave the Pinto a feature unavailable in the Chevrolet Vega. Sales of the Mercury Bobcat are expanded to Lincoln-Mercury dealers in the United States; it is sold as a hatchback and wagon.
For the 1977 model year, Pinto wagons received a new option package. Dubbed the Pinto Cruising Wagon, it was the sedan delivery version of the Pinto styled to resemble a small conversion van, complete with round side panel "bubble windows".
Other appearance packages offered by Ford were similar to the Cosworth Vega and the 304 V8 Gremlin X; these were strictly appearance upgrades, not a factory performance package.
In 1978, the Pinto became the second-smallest Ford sold in the U.S., as the company introduced the Fiesta. Nearly two feet shorter than the Pinto, the German-designed Fiesta was the first front-wheel drive car sold by Ford in the USA.
Mercury Bobcat (1974–1980)
Lincoln-Mercury dealers marketed a rebadged variant of the Pinto, as the Mercury Bobcat, beginning with model year 1974 in Canada and 1975 in the United States. The Bobcat was marketed as a hatchback and as a station wagon, under the Villager nameplate, and both featured a modified grill. The hatchback featured modified tail lights.
In total, 224,026 Bobcats were produced from 1975 to 1980.
For the 1979 model year, the Pinto saw its first significant styling update. Taking on square headlights, the Pinto shed its styling borrowed from the Maverick. Wearing larger taillights, the Pinto now wore a square, sloping grille.
1980 marked the end of the Pinto's production run. For 1980, the V6 engine was discontinued, leaving the 2.3L as the sole engine.
|total production = 3,173,491|
Except for 1980, the Pinto was available with a choice of two engines. For the first five years of production, only four-cylinder inline engines were offered. Ford changed the power ratings almost every year.
Of particular note is the introduction in 1974 of the 2.3 litres (140 cu in) OHC I4 engine. This engine would be updated and modified several times, allowing it to remain in production into 1997. Among other Ford vehicles, a turbocharged version of this engine would later power the performance based Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, Mustang SVO, and the European-built Merkur XR4Ti.
Initial Pinto deliveries in the early years used the English (1,600 cc (98 cu in)) and German (2,000 cc (120 cu in)) engines tuned for performance (see below). The 2,000 cc engine used a two barrel carburetor where just one bore was bigger than that used on the Maverick. With the low weight (not much above 2,000 lb (910 kg)) and the SOHC engine it rated a 10.8 second 0-60 time. With the advent of emission control requirements, Ford moved from the European sourced to domestically sourced engines, using new or modified designs. New safety legislation impacted bumpers and other parts adding to the weight of the car, reducing performance.
|Engine Name||Years Available||Displacement||Horsepower†||Torque†|
|Ford Kent I4||1971-1973||98 cu in (1.6 L)||
|Ford EAO I4||1971-1974||122 cu in (2.0 L)||
|Ford OHC I4||1974-1980||140 cu in (2.3 L)||
|Ford Cologne V6||1975-1979||170 cu in (2.8 L)||
|†Horsepower and torque ratings are net output after 1971 model year.|
Reception and criticism
Road & Track faulted the suspension and standard drum brakes, calling the latter a "serious deficiency," but praised the proven 1.6 L Kent engine, adapted from European Fords. The larger 2300 inline-4 found in the Chevrolet Vega was an innovative, brand new design using an aluminum alloy block and iron head, but needed more development work as initially released. Consumer Reports rated the 1971 Pinto below the Vega but above the Gremlin.
In the 1983 film Cujo, the protagonist is trapped inside a Ford Pinto with a failed carburetor.
Fuel tank controversy
Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off and the fuel tank to be punctured in a rear-end collision, resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel.
Design flaws and ensuing lawsuits
Critics alleged that the vehicle's lack of reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the fuel tank meant the tank would be pushed forward and punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential — making the car less safe than its contemporaries.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was investigating complaints about the car as early as 1974, but did not take action until a 1977 article in Mother Jones. The article said that Ford was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of repairs (Ford estimated the cost to be $11 per car) against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts . The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.
An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., which resulted in the death of an elderly woman and permanent injuries to a teenage boy. in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production began but had decided against changing the design. The incident, and the Ford Pinto Memo in particular, has continued to be cited and debated as a major case in the study of business ethics.
The second high-profile Pinto accident claimed the lives of three teenage girls. On August 10, 1978, 18-year old Judy Ulrich was driving her 1973 Pinto accompanied by her 16-year old sister Lynn and their 18-year old cousin Donna near Goshen, Indiana. She stopped to fill the car with gasoline from a service station and then proceeded down US Highway 33. Ulrich had not secured the Pinto's fuel cap properly, causing it to fly off onto the road, so she pulled over to the side of the highway to get out and retrieve it. At that moment, a Chevrolet van rear-ended the Pinto at 55 mph, causing the fuel tank to rupture and explode in flames. Ulrich was ejected from the car and died of her injuries while her two passengers were burned to death. The driver of the Chevrolet van was a 21-year old man who had been found to have a large cache of marijuana, caffeine pills, and amphetamines in his possession and the vehicle had had the original bumper replaced by a large wooden board.
Several parties could have been blamed for the accident - the girls for stopping in the middle of a highway, the driver of the van for being under the influence of controlled substances and having a modified vehicle, or the State of Indiana for not providing proper lanes on their highways for cars to pull over. Instead, the State of Indiana made the unprecedented move of filing a lawsuit against Ford for reckless homicide charges, the first time this had ever been done to an American company. The sensational court case of State of Indiana vs. Ford Motor Co. lasted 20 weeks and occupied national news headlines. Elkhart County Chief Prosecutor Michael Cosentio engaged Ford defense attorney James Neal in a series of colorful rows. The prosecution charged that the auto manufacturer had willingly and deliberately sold an unsafe car in order to maximize profits. A year earlier, Mother Jones Magazine had run an expose in which it claimed that several hundred fire-related Pinto accidents had occurred since the car's introduction in 1971 and that Ford wantonly ignored Federal safely regulations in its quest to get the Pinto to market as fast and cheaply as possible.
Ford's defense attorneys argued that the Mother Jones figures were grossly exaggerated, citing NHTSA accident records as evidence. The Pinto had been one of the biggest-selling cars in the US since 1971, yet only accounted for a small fraction of fatal automobile accidents. There were just 27 documented incidents of Pintos catching fire in collisions and the majority of them had not been rear-enders. The defense also argued that the Pinto had been designed in compliance with Federal safety standards at the time. They admitted that tests demonstrated that the car did not handle 20 mph rear collisions well, but this was not abnormal for small cars and that there were no safety standards on the books in 1971 requiring the Pinto to do otherwise. Furthermore, Ford had experimented with adding a rubber diaphragm to the inside of the fuel tank, but it was left off production models, there being no requirement to do so.
However, Mother Jones argued that Ford had engaged in extensive lobbying to prevent more stringent safety standards from being put into effect and that the NHTSA was habitually "in the pocket of the automobile industry". They pointed out that the Federal government had proposed requirements for cars to survive 20 mph collisions without fuel leakage back in 1968 and were on the verge of making them law in 1971, but Ford had succeeded in getting them blocked as the Pinto was fully designed and ready for production at that time and having to pull the car for design changes would have been a serious financial loss. The proposed 20 mph standard was ultimately not passed until 1977, after hundreds of thousands of Pintos had been sold, after the well-publicized Grimshaw case and after numerous reports about the Pinto's propensity to catch fire in rear-end collisions.
Finally, there was evidence that Ford's claims of the Pinto being on-par with other small cars for safety were false. Former NASA manned space program safety chief Dr. Leslie Ball argued that there were no less than 40 European and Japanese small cars that had their fuel tanks in a more safe location and auto safety expert Byron Bloch said that placing the Pinto tank behind the rear axle where it could easily be crushed and ruptured in a collision was "a catastrophic blunder".
On March 13, 1980, Ford was found by a jury to be not guilty of all charges. The defense in their closing argument repeated their earlier claims of the Pinto being designed in compliance with 1971 Federal standards, that it was comparable with other small cars for safety, that Ford had made the "entirely sensible" business decision of entering the subcompact car market nine years earlier, that the drivers of the Pinto and the Chevrolet van could be both considered at fault for the accident (the former due to stopping in the middle of a highway, the latter due to driving under the influence), the highways in Indiana did not have side lanes, and that no small car in existence could have survived a 55 mph collision at a complete stop without death or injury resulting to the occupants.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ultimately directed Ford to recall the Pinto. Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. 27 deaths were attributed to Pinto fires, the same number of deaths attributed to a Pinto transmission problem, and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem.
In 1978, Ford initiated a recall providing a plastic protective shield to be dealer-installed between the fuel tank and the differential bolts, another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber, and a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision.
According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 3 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.
Schwartz's study said:
- The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
- The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
- The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).
The Pinto was entered in the Trans Am Series during the 1972 season. After suffering several problems throughout the season, and finishing only one race, it was withdrawn from the series. The Pinto had also been entered in one race in the 1971 season.
- "Directory Index: Ford/1971_Ford/1971 Ford Pinto Brochure". Oldcarbrochures.com. Retrieved 2011-12-03.
- "Carfolio 1970 Pinto".
- Mays, James C. Ford and Canada: 100 Years Together (Montréal: Syam Publishing, 2003), p.116.
- Smith, Charles (March 25, 2006). "Lofty ambition / Developer revs up former Ford factory in Richmond for real live-work spaces". The San Francisco Chronicle.
- PDF (3.94 MB)
- [dead link]
- "Birth of the Ford Pinto". Howstuffworks.com.
- "Quart in a Pinto". The Motor (magazine) 3558: pages 26–27. 1970-08-26.
- "How Stuff Works Pinto".
- Standard Catalog of Ford, 4th Edition, 2007, by John Gunnell. Krause Publications
- Gunnell, John A. and Lenzke, James T. (1995). Standard Catalog of Ford Cars, 1903–1990. Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-140-4.
- "HowStuffWorks "The Birth of the Ford Pinto"".
- "The worst cars of all time". Forbes, Dan Lienert 1/27/2004.
- "1971 Ford Pinto - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time". Time. September 7, 2007.
- "Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years". Business Week, Damian Joseph, October 30, 2009.
- The Ford Pinto Case. State University of New York Press, Douglas Birsch and John Fielder, 1994, page 3. 1994-10-01. ISBN 978-0-7914-2234-2.
- Dowie, Mark (September 1977). "Pinto Madness". Mother Jones. Retrieved January 17, 2014.
- "Fatalities Associated With Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires," by E.S. Grush and C.S. Saundy, Environmental and Safety Engineering.
- Wojdyla, Ben (May 20, 2011). "The Top Automotive Engineering Failures: The Ford Pinto Fuel Tanks". Popular Mechanics. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
- "Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co".
- Bazerman, Max H.; Tenbrunsel, Ann E. (April 2011). "Ethical Breakdowns". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved February 28, 2015.
- Birsch, Douglas (October 25, 1994). The Ford Pinto Case.
- Pinto "Madness," a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis, M T Lee and M D Ermann, Social Problems, Vol 46, No 1 Feb 1999
- "NHTSA Recalls for the 1975 Ford Pinto".
- Motavalli, Jim (February 25, 2010). "At the Toyota Hearing, Remembering the Pinto". The New York Times, JIM MOTAVALLI, Feb 25, 2010.
- Motavalli, Jim (February 25, 2010). "Cursed Cars: The Ford Pinto". Minneapolis Cars Examiner, Examiner.com, October 29th, Nathan Hook.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ford Pinto.|
- Ford Pinto at DMOZ
- Mother Jones magazine's 1977 expose on the Ford Pinto
- Ford Pinto at The Crittenden Automotive Library includes full 1973 brochure in JPG format
- Ford Pinto Specifications and Production figures
- Ford Pinto Introduction Commercial
|Ford car timeline, North American market, 1946–1979 — next »|
|Super Deluxe||Custom Deluxe||Customline||Customline||Custom||300||Custom||Custom||Custom|
|Station wagon||Parklane||Del Rio|
|Ranch Wagon||Ranch Wagon||Ranch Wagon||Ranch Wagon||Ranch Wagon||Ranch Wagon|
|Country Sedan||Country Sedan||Country Sedan||Country Sedan||Country Sedan|
|Country Squire||Country Squire||Country Squire||Country Squire||Country Squire||Country Squire|
|« previous — Ford car timeline, United States & Canada, 1980–present|
|Full-size||LTD||LTD Crown Victoria||Crown Victoria||Crown Victoria|
|Country Squire||Five Hundred||Taurus||Taurus|
|Sport compact||EXP||EXP||Probe||Probe||Escort ZX2||ZX2||Fiesta ST|
|Mercury passenger vehicle timeline, 1940–1979 — next »|
|Park Lane||Park Lane||Park Lane||Park Lane|
|C. Park||C. Park||Colony Park||Colony Park||Colony Park||Colony Park|
|Sports car||Capri||Capri II||Capri|
|« previous — Mercury passenger vehicle timeline, 1980–2011|
|Grand Marquis||Grand Marquis||Grand Marquis||Grand Marquis|