Introduced on September 11, 1970, the Ford Pinto was marketed as “the little carefree car” and eventually, more than three million were sold.
We were drawn to this original TV spot for the 1971 Ford Pinto because it shows us gearheads a little more mechanical hardware than the usual commercial of its time. We get to actually see the 1600 cc Ford Kent inline four, the original base engine at the Pinto’s introduction. (Later on, bigger fours and even a V6 were offered.) The Kent is a gem of an engine from Ford UK that powered an entire fleet of Formula Ford open-wheel racers, where many Formula 1 drivers launched their careers. We also get a good look at the Dagenham four-speed transmission and the rack-and-pinion steering unit, too. Ford’s front-engine, rear-drive subcompact was an early adopter of rack steering in the USA.
Marketed under the line, “the little carefree car,” for its introduction the Pinto was priced at just $1,919 and aimed directly at the Volkswagen Beetle, the far-and-away sales leader of the import-subcompact class at the time. Ford would go on to produce more than three million vehicles before the car was discontinued in 1980, including some badged as Mercury Bobcats, and the Pinto also served as the mechanical foundation of the Mustang II.
Unfortunately, the Pinto is remembered today as one of Ford’s most controversial products, due to a vulnerability in the fuel tank and mounting that led to some horrifying fires and fatalities. They were followed by lawsuits, investigations, and a big black eye as a damning corporate memo surfaced and one of Ford’s top engineers, Harley Copp, turned whistle blower. For the Ford Motor Company, the Pinto was anything but a “little carefree car.” Entire books have been written on the Pinto fuel tank fires and the legal and ethical mess that ensued, but when this commercial was produced, all that was several years in the future. Video below.
Pinto got a bad rap, they were actually pretty good cars. I owned two, a 74 wagon and a 76 hatch. Both gave many miles of driving with minimal problems. Ford took a lot of flak over the fuel tank position, but that same position was used on many Ford cars including Mavericks and Mustangs. The difference was the shorter rear body and no rear firewall to slow down any flames. Ford’s refusal to install a tank shield was a bean counter decision that in hindsight should have been overridden by management, but for whatever reason wasn’t. Even with it’s flaws, I’d still rather have a Pinto than a Vega.
Pinto’s were pure garbage. I’d never buy an American made car. I’ve always associated anything American-made with poor quality.
Wow. Talk about misinformed! For the time, Pinto’s were great cars. I would never by japanese vehicles personally. I will always do my best to support American companies. Know why? I am an American!
People were still buying them new in 1980, even after the gas tank scandal and after its’ layout had become fundamentally obsolete, so they had to have something going for them.
In 1971 I started working as a mechanic (they didn’t call us technicians yet) at a Chevrolet dealership. I found the Vegas so appalling bad that when I was shopping for a small economical car a year later I went across the street to a Ford dealership and bought a new Pinto. It cost me $1995 with the 2 liter engine and automatic. The Pinto was SO much more reliable than the Vegas I was fixing every day at work. I only had it for 3 years because I bought a house and decided I needed a truck, but in that time it was completely trouble free. As I recall, some research group crunched the numbers later and found that the incidence of fires in Pintos was no higher than any other subcompact car of the 70s, the same as a Toyota Corolla for example.
That’s hiding the problem in the big numbers. An airliner crashes upon takeoff when the engines fall off, killing all aboard. The airline issues a statement that itssafety record is as good as any, so therefore there is no problem. That may be a sound defense of the airline’s safety record overall, but it doesn’t address the trouble, or how to fix it.
The infamous Winamac law suit has important details that no media ever reported. Did you know:
1. The Pinto had just been fueled up, but the driver omitted re-attaching the fuel cap. This is why many subsequent vehicles had tethers to keep the fuel cap handy and more memorable.
2. The weather conditions were horrible, creating a poor visibility environment. The Pinto driver tried to pull off onto the should after re-thinking the status of the fuel cap. Fatefully, the vehicle was still partially in the lane of traffic
3. The vehicle that rear-ended the Pinto was traveling at full highway speed, as its driver was distracted when reaching down for a dropped item (a marijuana joint).
In a product defect law suit, the behavior of drivers is rarely admissible. But the real lesson from Winamac was the smoking gun from the internal communications.
Although any product can be dangerous (often via new learnings from unintended usage), product liability is all about what a manufacturer does with new knowledge. In other words, trials are won or lost based on a manufacturer’s response to 3 simple questions: What did you know? When did you learn it? What did you then do about it?
I believe there were around 50 lawsuits, the most notable to my knowledge being Grimshaw v Ford. McG
Karl, you are completely wrong, all of Pintos’ domestic competitors used the same fuel tank location with no more “protection” it’s just they were such inferior cars to the Pinto they didn’t sell nearly as well…So were not in anywhere near the accidents as the Pinto was, which by the way had nothing to do with Pinto driver’s mistakes or carelessness it had alot to do with other idiot drivers. The “flaming bomb” is totally media hype as I have personally had a “rearend” experience which ruptured the fuel tank and THERE WAS NO FIRE OR EXPLOSION!
Leave it to MCG to get a conversation going, can’t miss with a Pinto thread. We must remember, “those times they were a’ changin’, and economy cars were uncharted territory for Americans. Europeans were well versed in small cars, but in America, they had some pretty big shoes to fill. The reason they failed so quickly, was Americans were used to 455 Buicks, and poor Pinto gas pedal was on the floor all day. That and strict maintenance was the key. My old man never changed oil, but with an Oldsmobile, you could get away with that.
To be clear, Pinto wasn’t the first all American small car,, it was the Gremlin that beat them all to the punch. On April Fools Day, 1970, the Gremlin undercut the VW, the then cheapest car, by $100 bucks. Pinto and Vega were relatively new designs, where Gremlin was nothing new, just smaller,,and cheap.
I too liked the Pinto, with the Kent motor, the OHC motors, Vega too, were the 1st time we saw rubber timing belts, and a poor design and to this day I refuse to own a vehicle with one. My old man dabbled in car repair as a sideline in the 80s, and had a slew of Pintos/Bobcats, most front or rear damage. Out of the dozens, I never remember any that had caught or been in a fire. LOTS of cars have gas tanks in the utmost back, it was all hype.
Then the Asians came on board, and blew everything we held dear in vehicles, out of the water, and we never recovered.
Oh, wait, the 1st rubber timing belt, I think, was the Pontiac OHC 6, but in any numbers, it was the Pinto/Vega.
I LOVE FORD PINTO’S, I got 3 on the road right now, 2 1972s 2.0 with 4 speed and a 1973 2.0 with auto trans. Had at least 15 or more since the mid 80s, So easy to work on. I like the 2.0 motors, I had a 1971 2.0 auto trans model I sold 5 yrs ago that was rear-ended so hard it buckled the back side and did not blow up past owner said. Both 1/4 panels were bent like a beer can. The last owner of it said he got hit in 1998. I painted it with a Captain America paint job to hide the damage some. Here’s a video of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7sbfTmI2K8&ab_channel=WilliamCRAZYLACYFurmage
How many of these cars are still on the road? I live on one of the major classic car drive routes in my part of the country, and never see one.
They never were a collector car. They were the car of the day. I see a lot more Pintos for sale than vegas or chevettes or datsun 510s or any jap car other than 240Zs from that era. I don’t get your point.
The Pinto was really a Mk3/ TC Cortina with a different skin. And I have had a LOT of Cortinas as a dealer , they were an average and cheap car here in Oz. And prettier than the Pinto. The Kent engines were nothing special and not that fast either. The 2 litre rubberband engine went quite well but broke rubber bands as well as wore out cams.And were a damned heavy thing. As it seems only the Germans can build.
The Escort was the skinnier version of the same mechanicals
Fires? I have seen a couple here and they really were little different in fuel tank location than most other cars of the period. Of most makes and country.
Though some Jap cars had the tank up high in the boot,under the back window, probably safer but hardly good for weight distribution.