The Pinto’s gas tank ruptured, releasing gasoline vapors that quickly spread to the passenger compartment. A spark ignited the mixture, and the Pinto exploded in a ball of fire. Gray died a few hours later.
View full answer
Contents
What was the problem with Ford Pinto?
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. 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. 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. 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.
View full answer
How many Ford Pintos actually exploded?
My Somewhat Begrudging Apology To Ford Pinto I never thought I’d offer an apology to the Ford Pinto, but I guess I owe it one. I had a Pinto in the 1970s. Actually, my wife bought it a few months before we got married. The car became sort of a wedding dowry. So did the remaining 80% of the outstanding auto loan.
During a relatively brief ownership, the Pinto’s repair costs exceeded the original price of the car. It wasn’t a question of if it would fail, but when. And where. Sometimes, it simply wouldn’t start in the driveway. Other times, it would conk out at a busy intersection. It ranks as the worst car I ever had.
That was back when some auto makers made quality something like Job 100, certainly not Job 1. Despite my bad Pinto experience, I suppose an apology is in order because of a recent blog I wrote. It centered on Toyota’s sudden-acceleration problems. But in discussing those, I invoked the memory of exploding Pintos, perpetuating an inaccuracy.
The widespread allegation was that, due to a design flaw, Pinto fuel tanks could readily blow up in rear-end collisions, setting the car and its occupants afire. People started calling the Pinto “the barbecue that seats four.” And the lawsuits spread like wild fire. Responding to my blog, a Ford (“I would very much prefer to keep my name out of print”) manager contacted me to set the record straight.
He says exploding Pintos were a myth that an investigation debunked nearly 20 years ago. He cites Gary Schwartz’ 1991 Rutgers Law Review paper that cut through the wild claims and examined what really happened. Schwartz methodically determined the actual number of Pinto rear-end explosion deaths was not in the thousands, as commonly thought, but 27.
In 1975-76, the Pinto averaged 310 fatalities a year. But the similar-size Toyota Corolla averaged 313, the VW Beetle 374 and the Datsun 1200/210 came in at 405. Yes, there were cases such as a Pinto exploding while parked on the shoulder of the road and hit from behind by a speeding pickup truck. But fiery rear-end collisions comprised only 0.6% of all fatalities back then, and the Pinto had a lower death rate in that category than the average compact or subcompact, Schwartz said after crunching the numbers.
Nor was there anything about the Pinto’s rear-end design that made it particularly unsafe. Not content to portray the Pinto as an incendiary device, ABC’s 20/20 decided to really heat things up in a 1978 broadcast containing “startling new developments.” ABC breathlessly reported that, not just Pintos, but fullsize Fords could blow up if hit from behind.
20/20 thereupon aired a video, shot by UCLA researchers, showing a Ford sedan getting rear-ended and bursting into flames. A couple of problems with that video: One, it was shot 10 years earlier. Two, the UCLA researchers had openly said in a published report that they intentionally rigged the vehicle with an explosive.
That’s because the test was to determine how a crash fire affected the car’s interior, not to show how easily Fords became fire balls. They said they had to use an accelerant because crash blazes on their own are so rare. They had tried to induce a vehicle fire in a crash without using an igniter, but failed.
- ABC failed to mention any of that when correspondent Sylvia Chase reported on “Ford’s secret rear-end crash tests.” We could forgive ABC for that botched reporting job.
- After all, it was 32 years ago.
- But a few weeks ago, ABC, in another one of its rigged auto exposes, showed video of a Toyota apparently accelerating on its own.
Turns out, the “runaway” vehicle had help from an associate professor. He built a gizmo with an on-off switch to provide acceleration on demand. Well, at least ABC didn’t show the Toyota slamming into a wall and bursting into flames. In my blog, I also mentioned that Ford’s woes got worse in the 1970s with the supposed uncovering of an internal memo by a Ford attorney who allegedly calculated it would cost less to pay off wrongful-death suits than to redesign the Pinto.
It became known as the “Ford Pinto memo,” a smoking gun. But Schwartz looked into that, too. He reported the memo did not pertain to Pintos or any Ford products. Instead, it had to do with American vehicles in general. It dealt with rollovers, not rear-end crashes. It did not address tort liability at all, let alone advocate it as a cheaper alternative to a redesign.
It put a value to human life because federal regulators themselves did so. The memo was meant for regulators’ eyes only. But it was off to the races after Mother Jones magazine got a hold of a copy and reported what wasn’t the case. The exploding-Pinto myth lives on, largely because more Americans watch 20/20 than read the Rutgers Law Review.
One wonders what people will recollect in 2040 about Toyota’s sudden accelerations, which more and more look like driver error and, in some cases, driver shams. So I guess I owe the Pinto an apology. But it’s half-hearted, because my Pinto gave me much grief, even though, as the Ford manager notes, “it was a cheap car, built long ago and lots of things have changed, almost all for the better.” Here goes: If I said anything that offended you, Pinto, I’m sorry.
And thanks for not blowing up on me. : My Somewhat Begrudging Apology To Ford Pinto
View full answer
When did the Ford Pinto explode?
On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls die after their 1973 Ford Pinto is rammed from behind by a van and bursts into flames on an Indiana highway. The fatal crash was one of a series of Pinto accidents that caused a national scandal during the 1970s.
The small and economical Pinto, which debuted in 1970, was Ford’s first subcompact car produced domestically, and its answer to popular imports like the Volkswagen Beetle and the Toyota Corolla. Lee Iacocca, then an executive vice president at Ford and later to earn fame as head of Chrysler, spearheaded the Pinto’s development.
Initial reviews of the Pinto’s handling and performance were largely positive, and sales remained strong, with Ford introducing new Pinto models such as the Runabout and the Sprint over the course of the early 1970s. By 1974, however, rumors began to surface in- and outside the company about the Pinto’s tendency to catch fire in rear-end collisions.
- In May 1972, a California woman was killed when her Pinto caught fire after being rear-ended on a highway.
- Her passenger, Richard Grimshaw, was burned over 90 percent of his body but survived; he sued Ford for damages.
- Grimshaw’s lawyer found that the Pinto’s gas tank sat behind the rear axle, where it was particularly vulnerable to damage by rear-end collisions.
He also uncovered evidence that Ford had known about this weakness ever since the Pinto first went on sale, and had done nothing about it, mostly because changing the design would have been too costly. An article in Mother Jones magazine in the fall of 1977 exposed the Pinto safety concerns to a national audience, and a California jury’s award of $128 million to Grimshaw in February 1978 spread the news still further.
- That June, Ford voluntarily recalled all 1.9 million 1971-1976 Pintos and 1975-1976 Mercury Bobcats (which had the same fuel-tank design).
- As Douglas Brinkley wrote in “Wheels for the World,” his history of Ford, the Ehrlich girls, who died in the rear-end collision in Indiana on August 8, 1978, were apparently unaware of the Pinto-related dangers; their family would not receive a recall notice until early 1979.
A grand jury later returned indictments against Ford on three counts of reckless homicide in the Ehrlich case, marking the first time in history that a corporation had been charged with murder. Ford claimed that the Pinto’s fuel-tank design was the same as other subcompacts, and that the company had done everything possible to comply with the recall once it had been enacted.
Due to a lack of evidence, the jury found Ford not guilty in that case. A California appeals court upheld the Grimshaw victory, however, ordering Ford to pay $6.6 million and stating that the company’s “institutional mentality was shown to be one of callous indifference to public safety.” On August 10, 2003, the United Kingdom records its first-ever temperature over 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Throughout the month, an intense heat wave scorched the European continent, claiming more than 35,000 lives. August 2003 was the hottest August ever recorded in the northern,read more On August 10, 1977, 24-year-old postal employee David Berkowitz is arrested and charged with being the “Son of Sam,” the serial killer who terrorized New York City for more than a year, killing six young people and wounding seven others with a,44-caliber revolver.
Because,read more After more than two centuries as a royal palace, the Louvre is opened as a public museum in Paris by the French revolutionary government. Today, the Louvre’s collection is one of the richest in the world, with artwork and artifacts representative of 11,000 years of human,read more After a decade of debate about how best to spend a bequest left to America from an obscure English scientist, President James K.
Polk signs the Smithsonian Institution Act into law on August 10, 1846. In 1829, James Smithson died in Italy, leaving behind a will with a peculiar,read more On August 10, 1981, Pete Rose of the Philadelphia Phillies gets the 3,631st hit of his baseball career, breaking Stan Musial’s record for most hits by a National Leaguer.
- The record-breaking hit came in a game against the St.
- Louis Cardinals, the team with whom Musial had spent,read more On August 10, 1912, Virginia Stephen, 30, marries Leonard Woolf, 31, at a registry office in London.
- Virginia Woolf, born in 1882, grew up surrounded by intellectuals.
- Her father was a writer and philosopher, and her mother was a British aristocrat.
In 1902, Virginia’s father,read more Versatile, inexpensive and relatively easy to play, the acoustic guitar was a staple of American rural music in the early 20th century, particularly black rural music such as the blues. But a significant physical limitation made it a poor fit in ensembles made up of brass,,read more On August 10, 1984, the action thriller Red Dawn, starring Patrick Swayze, opens in theaters as the first movie to be released with a PG-13 rating.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which oversees the movie rating system, had announced the new PG-13 category in,read more On August 10, 1776, news reaches London that the Americans had drafted the Declaration of Independence. Until the Declaration of Independence formally transformed the 13 British colonies into states, both Americans and the British saw the conflict centered in Massachusetts as a,read more On August 10, 1945, just a day after the bombing of Nagasaki, Japan submits its acquiescence to the Potsdam Conference terms of unconditional surrender, as President Harry S.
Truman orders a halt to atomic bombing. Emperor Hirohito, having remained aloof from the daily decisions,read more
View full answer
Did Ford lie about the Pinto?
Ford Ignored Safety, Prosecutor Says The Ford Motor Co. “sacrified human life for profit” by ignoring recommendations from its engineers that its Pinto auto gas tank design be improved, and thus is guilty of “reckless homicide” in the fiery crash deaths of three young women, an Indiana prosecutor charged today.
Prosecutor Michael Cosentino told the 12-member jury during opening arguments that in the late 1960s Ford was concerned only with producing a Pinto “based on a 2,000-pound, $2,000 concept, with utter disregard for the fuel tank safety.” Cosentino said the state would prove through Ford documents that the company’s engineers said a $6-per-car fix would help solve Pinto fuel tank safety problems.
“However,” Cosentino said, “the same document reflecting top management concern with profit over safety concludes that this would be a ‘costly’ approach to fuel system safety.”
- Cosentino said he would prove Ford knew when the Pinto fuel system was designed that it was “exceptionally vulnerable” to post-collision fuel spillage and fire, “but failed to do anything about it or to warn the public.”
- In his opening statement, Ford defense attorney James Neal revealed the results of new crash tests in which the company will use in its defense the results of new crash tests in which it subjected other vehicles to the same conditions of the crash in this trial.
- Neal said he would prove that “with the speed of this accident and the size of the van (that struck the Pinto from behind), other subcompacts and larger cars would have suffered the same fate.”
In September 1978, an Indiana grand jury accused the nation’s number two automaker of three counts of “reckless homicide” in the deaths of three teen-agers who were killed by fire a month earlier when their 1973 Pinto was slammed from behind by a van on Indiana Rte.33.
The result is the first criminal trial of a corporation for an alleged defect in one of its products. Neal, in his opening agrument, called virtually all of Cosentino’s charges “simply not true.” He gave a spirited defense of Ford’s development of the Pinto. “We don’t deny we made mistakes,” Neal said, “but we are not reckless killers.” Neal claims Ford was the only manufacturer that adhered to a volunary 20 mile per hour rear-end collision safety standard in 1973, three years before federal regulations went into effect.
The 1973 Pinto, Neal claimed, “was built like all other American subcompacts,” and met all federal safety standards. Cosentino charged that in 1977 Ford lied to and concealed information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which had opened an investigation into Pinto fuel tank design problems.
That investigation ultimately led to a Ford recall, under government pressure, of 1.5 million 1971-76 Pinto sedans. But Neal said, “Not only did we not lie and not conceal, we spent thousands of hours complying with requests for information.” He said the company recalled the cars “to make them better.” And, he said, the company “did everything it could” to accomplish the recall as quickly as possible.
The prosecution said it would present four expert witnesses, including two former Ford employes, who “will show that the 1973 Pinto was an extremely dangerous car.” Neal countered by labeling those witnesses as “Howard Cosells, who can only call a play after they see the instant replay.” And Neal said the defense would produce the designers of the car in response.
- Cosentino said he will prove that Ford crash testers subsitituted a non-flammable solvent for gasoline in the Pinto tank during crash tests which he said, “accounts for the absence of fire in the Pinto tests conducted by the defendant.”
- Neal claimed use of the solvent was a common automobile industry practice.
- Earlier in the day, Pulaski County Judge Harold Staffeldt granted, in part, a Ford motion that reportedly “gory” photographs of the three badly burned victims be excluded from the trial.
Attorney Neal stipulated that the fire, and not the crash, was the cause of death of the three young women. He argued that in light of such a stipulation it was unnecessary to prove that fact. Neal said that allowing the photos in evidence would reduce the trial to a “melodramatic spectacle appealing to sympathy and emotions,” rather than a “trial of issues.” But prosecutors succeeded in fighting off strict restrictions Ford wanted placed on introduction of other photographs and testimony from the scene of the accident.
View full answer
Did Pinto ever have a V8?
In our last agonizing foray into the Hell Garage, we gave you the opportunity to choose one of two vintage Japanese-market luxury lowrider projects. It should go without saying that driving a slammed ’86 Nissan President would be worth all the pain of importing and customizing such a car, but you might need to prove your patriotic bona fides if you live in a traditional drag-race-centric American town.
Not a problem! What you’ll need in that case is the kind of car that quarter-mile freaks perfected in the 1970s: a tiny Detroit rear-wheel-drive car stuffed with good old small-block V8 power! Since so many of these traction-limited, understeering monsters have been built over the decades, it’s no problem to find a not-quite-finished project for cheap.
We’ve found one example from each of the Detroit Big Three (sorry, AMC fans), for an unusual three -way Project Car Hell. The last year of the Pinto, ready for horsepower quadrupling. The Ford Pinto came from the factory with one of several straight-four engines or the occasional Cologne 2.8 liter V6, but Ford never saw fit to install a V8 in their lightweight econo-commuter.
Oh, sure, the Mustang II was based on the Pinto and could be purchased with a low-power 302-cubic-inch V8, but what the world really needed was a flimsy, fire-prone (though not much more so than most other gas-tank-behind-the-bumper American cars of the era) subcompact with 80/20 weight distribution and at least 400 hp.
Good news! You can build such a car yourself, and we’ve found this 1980 Ford Pinto V8-swap project in South Carolina (go here if the listing disappears) for you. The seller wants a motorcycle in trade, so just buy a cheap bike and you’ll be ready to deal! The car is the lightweight two-door hatch, the V8 engine mounts appear to have been installed (“302 motor block set in for mock up”), and so all you’ll need to do is put together a powerful Ford Windsor, get a transmission and rear end that can handle the power and make them fit in the car, solve the exhaust-routing problem, all the usual stuff. Since most V8 Vegas end up getting stuffed into dragstrip guardrails, supplies are limited. Some people – bad people – will tell you that the Chevy Vega single-handedly destroyed GM’s reputation for a good 20 years. Even John Delorean tried to distance himself from the Vega fiasco,
- However, even as Grandma’s church-on-Sunday Vega warped its cylinder head after 20,000 miles and rusted into nothingness a few years later, wild-eyed engine swappers were cramming all manner of big V8 engine into other Vegas.
- The Vega-based Chevy Monza had an available small-block V8 (in 262-, 305-, and 350-cubic-inch flavors), but the first Vega small-block V8 swap probably happened about 19 minutes after the car hit the showrooms in 1971 (the first big -block swap happened the next day).
Since that time, many thousands of V8 Vegas have been built, to varying standards of safety and/or sanity, and most of them have finished their careers in a blaze of steel-versus-concrete glory. You could buy one of the few complete V8 Vegas currently for sale, but where’s the fun in that? Instead, you’ll finish this 1971 Chevrolet Vega V8-swap project in California’s Emerald Triangle (go here if the listing disappears) with an asking price of a mere $500. The body of this Colt looks rust-free and fairly complete. Won’t you save it from some 17-year-old wannabe drifter? Chrysler didn’t build any Detroit-designed subcompacts to compete with the Pinto and Vega in the early 1970s; instead, they turned to their global empire to provide rebadged Simcas, Hillmans, and Mitsubishis for the American market.
The Plymouth Cricket and Simca 1204 were showroom failures here, but the Mitsubishi Galant Colt aka Dodge Colt sold pretty well. Naturally, Colts got turned into dragstrip terrors right away; there’s not as much of a tradition of V8-swapped Colts as you’ll find for the Vega and Pinto, but enough have been done that there’s some knowledge of how to make the swap work.
We’ve found this 1970 Dodge Colt in Virginia (go here if the listing disappears) with an asking price of an even grand. Sure, the first Colts sold in the United States were 1971 models, and the seller’s description of this car uses just 10 words (“1970 dodge colt setup for v8 1000 or best offer”), but don’t let that scare you away – we’re sure you’ll find a beautifully engineered combination of engine mounts and custom exhaust headers, and that a Chrysler LA small-block will bolt right in!
View full answer
Are there any Ford Pintos still on the road?
So, what’s your Ford Pinto worth? Should you get your Pinto appraised? The small and economical Pinto, which debuted in 1970, was Ford’s first subcompact car produced domestically, and its answer to popular imports like the Volkswagen Beetle and the Toyota Corolla.
Lee Iacocca, then an executive vice-president at Ford and later to earn fame as head of Chrysler, spearheaded the Pinto’s introduction. The first version of the Pinto released in 1971 had a brand-new platform and borrowed the powertrain from the European Ford Escort model, costing around $2,078 new. The Pinto had the shortest production planning schedule in automotive history at that time.
It was made from the 1971 to 1980 model years. Pinto was the smallest American Ford car since 1907. It was Ford’s first subcompact vehicle in North America. The Pinto was manufactured in three body styles: two-door sedan, three-door hatchback, and two-door station wagon.
The Pinto engine was available in five displacements: 1.3 L (1,294 cc), earlier 1.6 L (1,593 cc), later 1.6 L (1,598 cc), 1.8 L (1,796 cc) and the 2.0 L (1,993 cc). Later 2.0 L (1,998 cc). The Pinto became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas tank was ruptured in a collision. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company rushed the Pinto through production and onto the market.
The total recall to correct the issue would have been approximately $113 million (including the engineering, the production delays and the parts for tens of thousands of cars), but damage payouts would cost only about $49 million, according to Ford’s math.
- So the fix was nixed! 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 rear end collisions.
- Ford subsidiary Mercury offered rebadged versions of the Pinto as the Mercury Bobcat from 1975 to 1980 (1974–1980 in Canada).
Over three million Pintos/Bobcats were produced over its ten-year production run, outproducing the combined totals of its domestic rivals, the Chevrolet Vega and the AMC Gremlin. In 1977, a Pinto unexpectedly passed a NHTSA crash test. It turned out the car had a cheap plastic part that helped protect the gas tank, one of the parts Ford had known would work.
- Once among the most popular cars in America, the Pinto is now an endangered species! Of the 3 million Pintos manufactured, experts estimate that fewer than 10,000 are still on the road.
- So, what’s your Ford Pinto worth? The current average value of a Ford Pinto is about $9,700, although a nice example sold on the popular online auction website Bring-A-Trailer in July 2021 for $17,002.
Yes, somebody bid the extra $2! If you want to know the current Fair Market Value of a Pinto/Bobcat, Chevrolet Vega, AMC Gremlin, or your classic car text/call 786-853-0711. : So, what’s your Ford Pinto worth?
View full answer
Was Ford found guilty in the Pinto case?
Ford Motor Co. was acquitted of reckless homicide by the Pinto jury today after 25 hours of deliberation. The verdict climaxed the 10-week trial of the first American corporation criminally prosecuted in a product defects case. Ford attorney James Neal said the jury’s decision vindicates Ford and its subcompact Pinto, which he believes has been “maligned by one-sided articles” in the national media.
- I’m grateful, relieved and proud,” the former Watergate prosecutor said.
- I thought the verdict was fully justified.” Prosecutor Michael Cosentino said that despite Ford’s acquittal, the trial should serve as a lesson to corporations that “they can be brought to trial and have 12 citizens judge their actions.” The prosecutor said there was a strong possibility he would ask for a review of several of trial judge Harold Staffeldt’s rulings.
Legal observers had said that a guilty verdict could have set new precedents in criminal law, perhaps forcing large corporations to assume the same moral and legal responsibilities as individuals. Neal said he hope Ford’s acquittal would deter other prosecutors from bringing similar criminal charges against corporations, but said he didn’t oppose corporate prosecutions or the imposition of higher safety standards throughout industry.
- The prominent Nashville attorney said he didn’t know what effect the verdict would have on the dozens of civil suits pending against the Pinto’s maker, but admitted a conviction in the Winamac case would have had a devastating impact on Ford.
- The rural jury found Ford innocent of a charge of failing to warn about or offer to repair fuel system defects in the Pinto before Aug.10, 1978 – the day three young women were fatally burned when the fuel tank of their 1973 Pinto exploded in flames after a rear-end collision with a van near Goshen, Ind.
Jury foreman Arthur Selmer, a 62-year-old farmer, said although some panel members may have thought the Pinto was a “reckless auto,” Ford was able to prove “they did everything to recall” the car beginning in June 1978 after government investigations of complaints about Pinto.
“The state never presented enough evidence to convince us Ford was guilty,” he said. The jurors went through 25 ballots during four days of deliberations. They were deadlocked 8 to 4 in Ford’s favor early in the proceedings, the foreman said. The jury later stalled at 11 to 1 for acquittal. James Yurgilas, 31, a self-employed housing salesman and the last holdout on the jury, said he was “somewhat” upset when asked if he could live with his verdict.
Appearing weary and dejected, Yurgilas said he felt the Pinto was “not safe” but finally agreed the nation’s second largest automaker did notify owners of the auto’s alleged safety hazards in timely fashion. Neal and his associates presented detailed evidence from employes about Ford’s 1978 effort to recall 1.6 million 1971-76 model Pintos and 30,000 1975-76 model Mercury Bobcats for fuel system modifications.
Ford’s voluntary recall was prompted by an announcement in May 1978 from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it had made on initial determination of a safety defect in the subcompacts’ fuel systems which made them prone to massive fuel leakage in low to moderate-speed rear-end collisions.
Neal maintained Ford “did everything in its power to do the recall as quickly as humanly possible.” He said testimony showed it was impossible for the company to have readied and installed a modification kit in the 1973 Pinto in which sisters Judy, 18, and Lyn, 16, Ulrich and their cousin Donna Ulrich, 18, were riding when they died.
Many jurors reported they agreed with the belief of panel member Janet Olson, 31, who operates a small trucking business with her husband. The Pinto, Olson said, is “as good as any other subcompact in America.” Selmer also said the jury was convinced that the Ulrich Pinto was struck “at a higher rate of speed” that the prosecution claimed and that no car could have withstood such an impact.
Both beliefs echoed key claims of the defense. Jurors admitted they were concerned that crash test films Ford showed in court made by the automaker for evidentiary purposes. Selmers said he believed the closing speed in the accident was between 40 and 45 miles per hour and said if the state could have proved a lower closing speed the verdict might have been different.
- Raymond Schram, a 41-year-old steelworker and the only Pinto owner on the jury, said he had plans to get rid of his car, “I don’t think any small car is safe,” he said, but added his family needs a small car for gas mileage savings.
- I look in my mirror now” when driving, he said.
- While Ford’s defense hewed to the plan outlined by Neal in his opening statement, the prosecution’s case was severely limited and weakened by Judge Staffeldt’s strict adherence to rules of evidence in criminal trials.
The state was hampered most seriously by bench rulings that restricted expert testimony to the 1973 model Pinto; Cosentino was thus prevented from showing crash test films of other model year Pintos conducted by Ford and NHTSA.
View full answer
How many people were killed in Pintos?
Deaths and Injuries Lead to Litigation – Before long, the Pinto’s defective design began causing serious injuries — and fatalities. An official total of 27 deaths was tied to the vehicle, though some estimates are far higher. Of course, even at the conservative end of the spectrum, 27 preventable fatalities caused by a car with a propensity to explode and burn is still 27 too many.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was critical of the vehicle and was quick to launch an investigation into the Pinto. While the NHTSA determined in 1974 that a was not merited, Ford ultimately issued its own recall in 1978. The recall affected approximately 1.5 million Pintos with model years from 1971 to 1976 (as well as the similar Mercury Bobcat, from 1975 to 1976).
While the recall finally took unsafe vehicles off the streets, by then it was already too late: the terrible damage had already been done. An accident in 1972 led to the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company. In Grimshaw, a California appellate court upheld an order for $2.5 million in, plus an additional $3.5 million in punitive damages.
- Part of the court’s reasoning was that Ford knew about the dangers, but pushed the Pinto onto an unwitting consumer market anyway.
- The Ford Company’s cold cost analysis revealed that debuting the hazardous Pinto as-is and simply paying for subsequent lawsuits would be cheaper than making expensive safety modifications.
In other words, Ford decided that profits were all that mattered, and that irreplaceable human life ultimately carried a lower value than an inanimate heap of aluminum, plastic, and glass. In the aftermath, Lee Iacocca had this to say: “Clamming up is what we did at Ford in the late ’70s when we were bombarded with suits over the Pinto, which was involved in a lot of,
- The suits might have bankrupted the company, so we kept our mouths shut for fear of saying anything that just one jury might have construed as an admission of guilt.
- Winning in court was our top priority; nothing else mattered.” If you or someone you love was hurt by a defective or, you may be entitled to compensation for the damages you’ve suffered.
To schedule a free, confidential consultation with an experienced, call our at (215) 709-6940, or contact us online. We don’t charge a fee unless you win, so call right away to get started. : Ford’s Fiery Pintos Lead to Injuries, Deaths, and Lawsuits
View full answer
Was Ford punished for the Pinto?
Costs –
| Sales: | 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks |
| Unit cost: | $11 per car, $11 per truck |
| Total cost: | 12.5 million X $11 = $137.5 million |
Thus, the costs of the suggested safety improvements outweigh their benefits, and the “Fatalities” report accordingly recommends against any improvements–a recommendation that Ford followed. Likewise in the Pinto case, Ford’s management whatever its exact reasoning, decided to stick with the original design and not upgrade the Pinto’s fuel tank, despite the test results reported by its engineers.
Between 1971 and 1978, the Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths. Ford puts the figure at 23; its critics say the figure is closer to 500. According to the sworn testimony of Ford engineers, 95 percent of the fatalities would have survived if Ford had located the fuel tank over the axle (as it had done on its Capri automobiles). NHTSA finally adopted a 30-mph collision standard in 1976. The pinto then acquired a rupture-proof fuel tank. In 1978 Ford was obliged to recall all 1971-76 Pintos for fuel-tank modifications. Between 1971 and 1978, approximately fifty lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto. In the Richard Grimshaw case, in addition to awarding over $3 million in compensatory damages to the victims of a Pinto crash, the jury awarded a landmark $125 million in punitive damages against Ford. The judge reduced punitive damages to 3.5 million. On August 10, 1978, eighteen-year-old Judy Ulrich, her sixteen-year-old sister Lynn, and their eighteen-year-old cousin Donna, in their 1973 Ford Pinto, were struck from the rear by a van near Elkhart, Indiana. The gas tank of the Pinto exploded on impact. In the fire that resulted, the three teenagers were burned to death. Ford was charged with criminal homicide. The judge in the case advised jurors that Ford should be convicted if it had clearly disregarded the harm that might result from its actions, and that disregard represented a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct. On March 13, 1980, the jury found Ford not guilty of criminal homicide.
For its part, Ford has always denied that the Pinto is unsafe compared with other cars of its type and era. The company also points out that in every model year the Pinto met or surpassed the government’s own standards. But what the company doesn’t say is that successful lobbying by it and its industry associates was responsible for delaying for seven years the adoption of any NHTSA crash standard.
- Furthermore, Ford’s critics claim that there were more than forty European and Japanese models in the Pinto price and weight range with safer gas-tank position.
- Ford made an extremely irresponsible decision,” concludes auto safety expert Byron Bloch, “when they placed such a weak tank in such a ridiculous location in such a soft rear end.” Has the automobile industry learned a lesson from Ford’s experience with the Pinto? Some observers thought not when, in February 1993, an Atlanta jury held the General Motors Corporation responsible for the death of a Georgia teenager in the fiery crash of one of its pickup trucks.
At the trial, General Motors contended in its defense that when a drunk driver struck seventeen-year-old Shannon Moseley’s truck in the side, it was the impact of the high-speed crash that killed Moseley. However, the jury was persuaded that Moseley survived the collision only to be consumed by a fire caused by his truck’s defective fuel-tank design.
Finding that the company had known that its “side-saddle” gas tanks which are mounted outside the rails of the truck’s frame, are dangerously prone to rupture, the jury awarded $4.2 million in actual damages and $101 million in punitive damages to Moseley’s parents. What undoubtedly swayed the jury was the testimony of former GM safety engineer Ronald E.
Elwell. Although Elwell had testified in more than fifteen previous cases that the pickups were safe, this time he switched sides and told the jury that the company had known for years that the side-saddle design was defective but had intentionally hidden its knowledge and had not attempted to correct the problem.
At the trial, company officials attempted to paint Elwell as a disgruntled employee, but his testimony was supported by videotapes of General Motors’ own crash tests. After the verdict, General Motors said that it still stood behind the safety of its trucks and contended “that a full examination by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the technical issues in this matter will bear out our contention that the 1973-1987 full size pickup trucks do not have a safety related defect.” Since then, however, the Department of Transportation has determined that GM pickups do pose a fire hazard and that they are more prone than competitors’ pickups to catch fire when struck from the side.
Still, GM has rejected requests to recall the pickups and repair them. Meanwhile, the Georgia Court of Appeals has thrown out the jury’s verdict in the Shannon Moseley case on a legal technicality–despite ruling that the evidence submitted in the case showed that GM was aware that the gas tanks were hazardous but did not try to make them safer to save the expenses involved.
View full answer
Why did Pintos catch on fire?
The Pinto, a subcompact car made by Ford Motor Company, became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas tank was ruptured in a collision. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company rushed the Pinto through production and onto the market.
View full answer
Was Ford sued for the Pinto?
Trial – A 1972 Pinto rear-end impact and fire in Orange County, California, resulted in the death of the driver Lily Gray and severe injury to passenger Richard Grimshaw. Gray’s family and Grimshaw filed separate suits against Ford, but the actions were consolidated for trial.
The jury awarded $127.8 million in damages ; $125 million in punitive damages, and $2,841,000 in compensatory damages to Grimshaw and $665,000 in compensatory damages to the Gray family. The jury award was the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases. The jury award was the largest against an automaker until a $150 million verdict in a 1996 case, Hardy vs.
General Motors, The judge reduced the jury’s punitive damages award to $3.5 million, which he later said was “still larger than any other punitive damage award in the state by a factor of about five.”
View full answer
What Ford blew up when rear ended?
Exploding Jeeps: A Lesson Not Learned Remember the popular Ford Pinto that turned out to be a deadly ride if rear-ended? In 1970, Ford decided to move ahead with production of their new Pinto, even though their engineering crash tests showed it had a flawed design that would cause the gas tank to explode if the car was hit from behind.
An estimated 500 people died in rear-end collisions involving Pintos. A hauntingly similar problem involves Chrysler’s Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty SUVs, which are designed with cheap plastic fuel tanks that can easily rupture in rear-end collisions because the tank is positioned between the rear axle and the bumper.
Like the Pinto, these exploding Jeeps have caused death and destruction on America’s roads. NHTSA Fails to Protect Jeep Passengers In 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began an investigation of the Jeep Grand Cherokee model years 1993-2004 and the Jeep Liberty model years 2002-2007.
NHTSA’s investigation found at least 37 accidents and 51 wrongful deaths were related to the Jeep SUV’s gas tank issue. Even though NHTSA estimated 5.1 million vehicles were affected, they ordered a voluntary recall of only 2.7 million Jeeps in June 2013. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles immediately resisted the order, announcing their vehicles were safe and disputing the number of deaths attributed to the problem.
Two weeks later Fiat Chrysler acquiesced but stated they would only recall 1.56 million vehicles. Sergio Marchionni, the CEO of Fiat Chrysler, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and the head of NHTSA, David Strickland, met in the summer of 2013 to determine how Chrysler would correct the problem.
- They agreed that Chrysler would install a trailer hitch to the recalled vehicles.
- However, the agreement allowed Chrysler to install fake, non-functioning trailer hitches.
- They would not provide wiring capabilities to connect trailer brakes, nor were these hitches capable of safely towing trailers or loads.
In fact, dealers were instructed to tell vehicle owners not to use the trailer hitches for any type of towing. Worse, their engineers knew that the hitch would provide almost no safety improvement in crashes over 20 miles per hour. Today, only about a third of the recalled Jeeps have been retrofitted with the tow hitch because of a delay in manufacturing the part.
Jeep a Tragic Ride Back to the Future Over four decades ago, Ford proceeded with production of the Pinto after an internal “cost analysis” determined that it would be more expensive to correct the gas tank’s flawed design than to pay out catastrophic injury and wrongful death settlements. After the truth was exposed in an article by, a mandatory recall was ordered, and lawsuits and criminal charges ensued.
It took the Ford corporation years to repair its reputation. Last week, a Georgia jury awarded $150 million in a wrongful death verdict to the family of a 4-year-old boy who was killed in 2012 when the Jeep Grand Cherokee he was riding in exploded after being rear-ended.
The fuel tank was punctured during the crash and leaked fuel which ignited, burning the young boy to death in the back seat of the vehicle. The death of the 4-year-old boy is just one of at least 50 deaths that are attributed to the Jeeps’ fuel tank issue. Consumers are now left questioning the failure of this corporation along with the regulatory agency that let these vehicles remain on the road.
NHTSA in Bed with Big Auto NHTSA claims that consumer safety is their number one priority. But if that is to be believed, why did they allow Chrysler to negotiate the number of vehicles to be recalled, putting corporate profits ahead of consumer safety? Why was Chrysler allowed to proceed with an inadequate fix of their SUVs, and why have they been allowed to drag their feet bringing in the defective vehicles to install this very inadequate fix? It shouldn’t come as a surprise that David Strickland, who stepped down as the head of NHTSA in 2014, now works as a lobbyist for a law firm that represents auto manufacturers, and which counts Chrysler as one of its clients.
- Corporations need to be held accountable.
- The subordination of human safety to corporate profits is an issue that should have been resolved with the Ford Pinto litigation in the ‘70s.
- A $150 million wrongful death verdict may be the only way Chrysler will feel pressured to improve its vehicles, and it will send a message to other auto makers that they will be held accountable.
An even stronger message can be sent by the Court by preserving the jury verdict and forcing Fiat Chrysler to pay the family every last cent of the $150 million award. Consumers who own a recalled Jeep SUV may file complaints with the or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Office of Defects Investigations at,
View full answer
How much did a Ford Pinto cost in 1972?
Car of the Week: 1972 Ford Pinto Story and photos by Brian Earnest Mike Christensen had no idea when he helped his wife Jude track down and buy her little 1972 Ford Pinto that his own pride and joy — a stellar 1966 Mustang — would wind up suffering through an identity crisis.
- When we started showing it, and even to this day, I’ll park it next to my ’66 and I might get a look from people, but then they all just gravitate to the Pinto and she can just spend hours talking to the people and everyone who’s had one at some point in their life,” Christensen says.
- And I’m over here thinking, ‘Hey dude, I got a really nice ’66 over here!’ I feel like a second-class citizen!” Such is life living in the tiny shadow of the Christensens’ sparkling orange Pinto.
It was a bit of a surprise purchase for the Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., couple, and aside from the Mustang getting a little less attention, they haven’t regretted the acquisition for a second. “I just like that era — you know, disco and everything. I love the ‘70s,” Jude says.
- To me, driving it is just nostalgia.
- It takes you back to a time when we were younger.
- I never owned a Pinto in the past, but it just gives me a good feeling.” Ford cranked out more than 3 million of the gas-sipping Pintos in the 1970s, but attrition has taken a heavy toll and nice specimens are fairly scarce these days, particularly in northern climates such as Wisconsin.
Even though they are a die-hard Ford couple, a Pinto wasn’t on the Christensens’ radar. That is, until they spotted one a few years back not far from their home. “We had the ‘66 Mustang and we were showing that, and I thought, ‘You know what, I’d like to have my own classic car.’ I didn’t know what I wanted, but I knew it had to be a Ford, of course,” Jude laughs.
I’m not a fancy person, so I just wanted a nice little car and we happened to notice there was a Pinto for sale, I didn’t remember them at all. I just saw that Pinto sitting over there on the street and just thought, ‘This is the cutest little car I’ve ever seen,’ so right then it was like, ‘I want a Pinto.'” That Pinto sold before they could check it out, however, and Jude figured she would wind up with something else someday.
About a year later, though, Mike spotted one for sale online in San Diego, Calif. This time, they weren’t too late. “We’d never bought a car without seeing it, let alone way across the country,” Jude said. “So I contacted the seller and he was very honest.
- He emailed us pictures of it and was a very nice guy.
- I did the financing and arranged for Autobahn to pick it up and bring it back here and here it comes, this big honking car hauler rolls up in front of our house with a little Pinto on top, just like a cherry on a sundae!” That was in 2010, and the car wasn’t in the wonderful shape it’s in today, but it was still excellent for an unrestored car almost four decades old.
The couple planned to have the car restored so they could show it, and the operation turned out to be fairly painless. “It didn’t need a whole lot of work. The motor ran really, really well,” Mike said. “I just did a little cleanup on it, a little detailing.
The body was solid, but the paint was fried so we had the body painted in the original Medium Coral paint.” Mike rebuilt the carburetor, put in a new flywheel and gave the little Ford a tuneup. Inside, the Pinto just needed a little repair to the driver’s seat and a new OEM-style dash cover. With new paint and a set of fresh rubber, it was looking new again.
Mike does admit to getting a few puzzled looks when he took the car in to get it repainted. “You know the old story, we all have more money in our cars than we will probably ever get out of them, but that’s not the reason we are in the hobby. Everyone I talk to has overspent, but it’s a car they want and they want it done right and they enjoy driving it, and that’s the enjoyment they get out of it.
- For us it was money well spent.” It doesn’t take much to spend more on a restoration than a Pinto originally cost.
- The popular Ford compact Runabout models carried a base price of just $2,078 brand new.
- The Pinto was available only as a two-door sedan initially in 1971.
- A station wagon was added for 1972 and the Runabout two-door hatchbacks were also added mid-season.
After building 352,402 Pintos for their 1971 debut year, Ford churned out 480,405 copies for the sophomore selling year in 1972. That number grew to a high-water mark of 544,209 for 1974. It was exactly the kind of reception Ford President Lee Iacocca wanted when he pushed for the launch of the new Pinto.
The company leader wanted a budget-priced — under $2,000 — gas miser than could compete with the growing number of economy models already on car lots and on the drawing boards of the other automakers, including the VW Beetle, Plymouth Valiant, Chevrolet Corvair and Vega, AMC’s Gremlin and various offerings from Japanese brands.
The Pintos featured simple uni-body construction with rear-wheel drive, longitudinally mounted engine and live axle rear end. Buyers could get either a 1.6- or German-built 2.0-liter inline four in the first three years before a 2.2-liter four debuted in 1974.
- A six-cylinder would join the menu from 1975-’79.
- Standard equipment included ventless door windows; highback, slim-line bucket seats; all-vinyl upholstery; two-pod instrument cluster; glovebox; interior dome light; floor-mounted transmission controls; rack-and-pinion steering; hot water heater; Direct-Aire Ventilation system; and 6.00 × 13 rayon blackwall tires.
The Pinto soldiered on through the 1970s and spun off the Mercury Bobcat variant, which arrived in 1975 — one year later after it was available in Canada. Eventually, the Pinto lineup was phased out, along with the Ford Fiesta, in favor of the Escort.
The resilient Ford compact probably could have survived even longer had it not been for the wave of bad press it received from its infamous “exploding gas tank” scandal. Controversy dogged the Pinto after an article in Mother Jones came out in 1977 claiming a faulty fuel tank design made the Pintos unsafe and blamed the flaw for a series of fiery crashes.
The magazine claimed Ford knew about the flaw, but had done a cost-benefit analysis of fixing the issue and decided against making any changes. The company wound up fighting several high-dollar lawsuits and took a huge PR hit. Since then, various studies and investigations have taken place both defending and criticizing FoMoCo.’s handling of the issue, whether the gas tank design was really any more dangerous than that of other vehicles on the market, and whether the company did in fact cover anything up.
In any case, the Pinto’s reputation was permanently scarred, which no doubt makes it an even more unique collector vehicle today. “You get a lot of looks. Sometimes she gets a wave or a thumb up, and other times you may just get a laugh,” Mike says. “That’s OK, as long as I like the car, that’s all that matters,” adds Judy.
“I’ve had comments, but I figure, well, every car has their thing.” The Pinto has certainly filled the bill as a fun, bargain hobby car for owners like the Christensens, who happily drive their shiny little Ford to weekend car shows around Wisconsin.
The couple often caravans with the Pinto and one of their three other hobby cars — the ’66 Mustang, a 1973 Mustang Mach 1 and a 1974 Mustang II. “It’s like being back in the ‘70s,” Jude says. “No power steering, no power brakes But I love driving it.” Mustang Mike still has a hard time wrapping his head around the popularity of the orange Pinto.
And he can be pretty certain that their Pinto will be the only one wherever it goes. “Especially one as stock as,” he says “Even back years ago, guys were stuffing V-8s under the hood and making them into hot rods To find one in such original condition with original numbers-matching drive train.
View full answer
What car replaced the Pinto?
Jan 12, 2021, 09:16 AM by Mike Blake Playing on the equine theme that starred Mustang (possibly named after the P-51 Mustang fighter plane) and included Bronco and Maverick, Ford launched the Pinto subcompact in 1970 for the 1971 model year. Marketed to combat Euro and Japanese compacts, Pinto was created as Ford’s smallest model, under the guidance of Blue Oval president Lee Iacocca, who mandated a 1971 model that weighed under 2000 pounds and cost less than $2000 (US). During production, Pinto was subjected to a battery of crash tests and while the results were less than stellar – fuel leaks that required minor retooling – to save production time and costs, Ford chose to continue with the design at hand until new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) testing rules were to come into play in 1977.
- A design error occurred when, in an effort to create more interior room in the subcompact, Pinto’s steel fuel tank was located behind the rear axle and in front of the bumper, which made it subject to rear-impact fuel spills and fires.
- Pinto thrived and was popular with the public, despite some negative critiques by the media.
Despite a high-profile accident involving a Pinto in 1972, in which a driver was killed and a 13-year-old passenger suffered third-degree burns over 90-percent of his body after the car was struck from behind at an estimated speed of 30 mph, Pinto sales and reception were solid.
- The shine came off the horse in 1977, when the accident case went to trial, and Mother Jones magazine printed an article labeling Pinto: a “firetrap” and a “lethal car,” citing 500 to 900 fatal Pinto fires.
- While some of the article information was exaggerated or incorrect, and while fire-related deaths involving Pinto did reach 27 at the time of the trial (a total consistent with other subcompacts on the market), the course had been set, sensationalistic and inaccurate stories proliferated, and the public grew skeptical of Pinto.
Prior to the falling out, Pinto had its fans – and it still does. A 10-year-run made it a classic. Over its decade, Pinto was offered as a 2-door sedan, 2-door sedan delivery, 2-door station wagon and 3-door hatchback. For its first five years, Pinto was outfitted with 4-cylinder engines that ranged from 1.6 liters to 2.3 liters and delivered from 75 hp to 100 hp – adding a 103-hp 2.8-liter V-6 in 1976. From a design perspective, the fastback sedan was the first body style, but the 1971 Runabout hatchback might have been the most iconic Pinto, launched in February 1971. The hatchback 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.
The original Pinto measured 163 inches long, 69.4 inches wide and 50 inches high on a 94-inch wheelbase, and by 1972, the hatch was redesigned, with the glass portion of the hatch enlarged to almost the entire size of the hatch itself. Also in 1972, Pinto debuted its station wagon, Ford’s first two-door wagon since its 1965 Falcon.
The wagon stretched to 172.7 inches long and came with a 2.0-liter engine, flip-open rear windows and faux wood side paneling for its Pinto Squire trim level. From 1974-1978, the big design change was the addition of federally mandated 5mph bumpers. A 2.3-liter engine option was added, and in 1975, a 2.8-liter V-6 was offered, and the Mercury Bobcat (a rebadge) was marketed. In 1977, Pinto styled up with slanted back urethane headlamp buckets, parking lamps, and grille. Runabouts got an optional all-glass rear hatch and the Pinto Cruising Wagon, sedan delivery made the line-up, with round side panel “bubble windows” and a choice of optional vinyl graphics.
For 1978 Pinto was redesigned, as it moved away from its similarity to Ford’s Maverick and became a modern Fairmont sibling with rectangular headlamps, inboard vertical parking lamps, and a taller slanted back grille. The interior was re-imagined, with a new rectangular instrument cluster and modified dash-pad for vehicles without the optional sports instrumentation.
The V-6 engine was put to bed, and only the 2.3-liter 4-cylinder was offered. The final production year was 1980, as Ford Escort replaced Pinto in the Blue Oval lime-up. But for 10 years, Pinto was a huge part of American automotive consciousness, with 3,173,491 models built, but cut from the line well before its predicted 11-million-unit build-and-sale.
Ford had combated the ‘made in Japan” car trend and “Lee’s Car” made history good and bad, for Ford, and gained fans as well as detractors during its controversial decade. Over the years they have been saved, restored, made into racers, dragsters, performance monsters and classic icons. They have certainly endured past their 10-year-run.
In 2021, the Carlisle Ford Nationals (June 4-6) celebrate the 50th birthday of the Pinto. With over 3 million made between 1971 and 1980, there are still many that make the car show circuit with dozens planned for this summer’s event. Not only will the Carlisle Ford Nationals celebrate the Ford Pinto but also its Mercury sister, the Mercury Bobcat.
- Expect a very special showcase within Building T featuring the Pinto as well as even more Pintos and Bobcats on the National Parts Depot Showfield.
- If you have a Pinto or Bobcat that fits this amazing theme, be sure to visit the event page direct at CarlisleEvents.com to learn more, apply for consideration, purchase tickets and more! Mike Blake, former editor of KIT CAR magazine, joined Carlisle Events as senior automotive journalist in 2004.
He’s been a “car guy” since the 1960s and has been writing professionally for about 30 years.
View full answer
Did they make a 4 door Pinto?
| Ford Pinto | |
|---|---|
| Ford Pinto | |
| Overview | |
| Manufacturer | Ford |
| Also called | Mercury Bobcat |
| Production | September 1970–1980 |
| Model years |
|
| Assembly | United States:
Canada: Southwold, Ontario ( St. Thomas Assembly ) |
| Designer | Robert Eidschun (1968) |
| Body and chassis | |
| Class | Subcompact car |
| Body style |
|
| Layout | FR layout |
| Chassis | Unibody |
| Related |
|
| Powertrain | |
| Engine |
|
| Transmission |
|
| Dimensions | |
| Wheelbase | 94.0 in (2,388 mm) |
| Length | 163 in (4,140 mm) |
| Width | 69.4 in (1,763 mm) |
| Height | 50 in (1,270 mm) |
| Curb weight | 2,015–2,270 lb (914–1,030 kg) (1971) |
| Chronology | |
| Predecessor | Ford Cortina (captive import) |
| Successor | Ford Escort / Mercury Lynx |
The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car that was manufactured and marketed by Ford Motor Company in North America from 1971 until 1980 model years. The Pinto was the first subcompact vehicle produced by Ford in North America. The Pinto was marketed in three body styles throughout its production: a two-door fastback sedan with a trunk, a three-door hatchback, and a two-door station wagon.
- Mercury offered rebadged versions of the Pinto as the Mercury Bobcat from 1975 until 1980 (1974–1980 in Canada ).
- Over three million Pintos were produced over its ten-year production run, outproducing the combined totals of its domestic rivals, the Chevrolet Vega and the AMC Gremlin,
- The Pinto and Mercury Bobcat were produced at Edison Assembly in Edison, New Jersey, St.
Thomas Assembly in Southwold, Ontario, and San Jose Assembly in Milpitas, California. Since the 1970s, the safety reputation of the Pinto has generated controversy. Its fuel-tank design attracted both media and government scrutiny after several deadly fires related to the tanks rupturing occurred in rear-end collisions,
View full answer
How much is a Ford Pinto today?
A: The average price of a Ford Pinto is $9,399.
View full answer
What was the Chevy equivalent of a Pinto?
In honor of the Thanksgiving that just passed, let’s pay tribute to two of the biggest turkeys to ever roll out of Detroit: the Chevy Vega and the Ford Pinto. The big wigs at each company probably thought that these cars would be their saving grace when they introduced them in 1971.
- In reality, the names Pinto and Vega became running jokes after these nearly identical beasts underperformed in terms of sales, performance and reliability.
- It’s a good thing that the Pinto was such a failure sales-wise, as this deathtrap could’ve been responsible for thousands of deaths if anyone actually bought it.
The genius who designed this car must have been a pyromaniac, as they placed the gas tank behind the rear bumper, which turned what should’ve been minor fender-benders into fireworks displays, To make matters worse, the door hinges on these things were so poorly designed, they would trap drivers within the flaming wreckage.
- Instead of fixing the cars, Ford did the unthinkable and figured that it would be cheaper to pay for lawsuits, leaving these four-wheeled firecrackers as is.
- When it comes to the Chevy Vega, the flaws can be traced to the laziness of design more than an ethical misstep,
- These cars would rust out in just a few years while the engines would start burning oil after just 50,000 miles.
Because most of these cars practically disintegrated, there are very few of these money-pits still on the road. What do you think were the worst cars to make it out of Detroit? Leave your thoughts below:
View full answer
What was the ethical dilemma that Ford faced with the Pinto?
Ethical considerations of Ford engineers working on the Pinto project. The extent to which cost and schedule pressures led to the decision not to fix the Pinto fuel system problem. How well the engineers in the Pinto case met their obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
View full answer
Was Ford found guilty in the Pinto case?
Ford Motor Co. was acquitted of reckless homicide by the Pinto jury today after 25 hours of deliberation. The verdict climaxed the 10-week trial of the first American corporation criminally prosecuted in a product defects case. Ford attorney James Neal said the jury’s decision vindicates Ford and its subcompact Pinto, which he believes has been “maligned by one-sided articles” in the national media.
- I’m grateful, relieved and proud,” the former Watergate prosecutor said.
- I thought the verdict was fully justified.” Prosecutor Michael Cosentino said that despite Ford’s acquittal, the trial should serve as a lesson to corporations that “they can be brought to trial and have 12 citizens judge their actions.” The prosecutor said there was a strong possibility he would ask for a review of several of trial judge Harold Staffeldt’s rulings.
Legal observers had said that a guilty verdict could have set new precedents in criminal law, perhaps forcing large corporations to assume the same moral and legal responsibilities as individuals. Neal said he hope Ford’s acquittal would deter other prosecutors from bringing similar criminal charges against corporations, but said he didn’t oppose corporate prosecutions or the imposition of higher safety standards throughout industry.
The prominent Nashville attorney said he didn’t know what effect the verdict would have on the dozens of civil suits pending against the Pinto’s maker, but admitted a conviction in the Winamac case would have had a devastating impact on Ford. The rural jury found Ford innocent of a charge of failing to warn about or offer to repair fuel system defects in the Pinto before Aug.10, 1978 – the day three young women were fatally burned when the fuel tank of their 1973 Pinto exploded in flames after a rear-end collision with a van near Goshen, Ind.
Jury foreman Arthur Selmer, a 62-year-old farmer, said although some panel members may have thought the Pinto was a “reckless auto,” Ford was able to prove “they did everything to recall” the car beginning in June 1978 after government investigations of complaints about Pinto.
- The state never presented enough evidence to convince us Ford was guilty,” he said.
- The jurors went through 25 ballots during four days of deliberations.
- They were deadlocked 8 to 4 in Ford’s favor early in the proceedings, the foreman said.
- The jury later stalled at 11 to 1 for acquittal.
- James Yurgilas, 31, a self-employed housing salesman and the last holdout on the jury, said he was “somewhat” upset when asked if he could live with his verdict.
Appearing weary and dejected, Yurgilas said he felt the Pinto was “not safe” but finally agreed the nation’s second largest automaker did notify owners of the auto’s alleged safety hazards in timely fashion. Neal and his associates presented detailed evidence from employes about Ford’s 1978 effort to recall 1.6 million 1971-76 model Pintos and 30,000 1975-76 model Mercury Bobcats for fuel system modifications.
Ford’s voluntary recall was prompted by an announcement in May 1978 from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it had made on initial determination of a safety defect in the subcompacts’ fuel systems which made them prone to massive fuel leakage in low to moderate-speed rear-end collisions.
Neal maintained Ford “did everything in its power to do the recall as quickly as humanly possible.” He said testimony showed it was impossible for the company to have readied and installed a modification kit in the 1973 Pinto in which sisters Judy, 18, and Lyn, 16, Ulrich and their cousin Donna Ulrich, 18, were riding when they died.
Many jurors reported they agreed with the belief of panel member Janet Olson, 31, who operates a small trucking business with her husband. The Pinto, Olson said, is “as good as any other subcompact in America.” Selmer also said the jury was convinced that the Ulrich Pinto was struck “at a higher rate of speed” that the prosecution claimed and that no car could have withstood such an impact.
Both beliefs echoed key claims of the defense. Jurors admitted they were concerned that crash test films Ford showed in court made by the automaker for evidentiary purposes. Selmers said he believed the closing speed in the accident was between 40 and 45 miles per hour and said if the state could have proved a lower closing speed the verdict might have been different.
Raymond Schram, a 41-year-old steelworker and the only Pinto owner on the jury, said he had plans to get rid of his car, “I don’t think any small car is safe,” he said, but added his family needs a small car for gas mileage savings. “I look in my mirror now” when driving, he said. While Ford’s defense hewed to the plan outlined by Neal in his opening statement, the prosecution’s case was severely limited and weakened by Judge Staffeldt’s strict adherence to rules of evidence in criminal trials.
The state was hampered most seriously by bench rulings that restricted expert testimony to the 1973 model Pinto; Cosentino was thus prevented from showing crash test films of other model year Pintos conducted by Ford and NHTSA.
View full answer
