Topzle Topzle

Ford Pinto

Updated: Wikipedia source

Ford Pinto

The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car that was manufactured and marketed by Ford Motor Company in North America from 1970 until 1980. 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 occurred when the tanks ruptured in rear-end collisions. A subsequent analysis of the overall safety of the Pinto suggested it was comparable to other 1970s subcompact cars. The safety issues surrounding the Pinto and the subsequent response by Ford have been cited widely as business ethics and tort reform case studies.

Infobox

Manufacturer
Ford
Also called
Mercury Bobcat
Production
September 1970 – July 1980
Model years
mw- 1971–1980 (Pinto)1974–1980 (Bobcat)
Assembly
United States: Edison, New Jersey (Edison Assembly)Milpitas, California (San Jose Assembly)Canada: Southwold, Ontario (St. Thomas Assembly)
Designer
Robert Eidschun (1968)
Class
Subcompact car
Body style
2-door sedan2-door sedan delivery2-door station wagon3-door hatchback
Layout
FR layout
Chassis
Unibody
Related
Mercury BobcatFord Mustang II
Engine
97.6 cu in (1.6 L) Kent I4122.0 cu in (2.0 L) EAO I4 140.4 cu in (2.3 L) L23 I4 170.9 cu in (2.8 L) Cologne V6
Transmission
4-speed manual3-speed C3/"Selectshift/Cruise-O-Matic" automatic
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)
Predecessor
Ford Cortina (captive import)
Successor
Ford Escort / Mercury Lynx

Tables

· Production history
Units
Units
Calendar year
Units
1971
352,402
1972
480,405
1973
484,512
1974
544,209
1975
223,763
1976
290,132
1977
225,097
1978
188,899
1979
199,018
1980
185,054
Total production 3,173,491
Total production 3,173,491
Calendar year
Total production 3,173,491
Calendar year
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Units
352,402
480,405
484,512
544,209
223,763
290,132
225,097
188,899
199,018
185,054
Total production 3,173,491
· Powertrain
Inline-four engine
Inline-four engine
Engine name
Inline-four engine
Ford Kent I4
Ford Kent I4
Engine name
Ford Kent I4
Years available
1971–1973
Displacement
98 cu in (1.6 L)
Power
75 hp (56 kW; 76 PS) (1971)54 hp (40 kW; 55 PS) (1972–1973)
Torque
96 lb⋅ft (130 N⋅m) (1971)
Ford EAO I4
Ford EAO I4
Engine name
Ford EAO I4
Years available
1971–1974
Displacement
122 cu in (2.0 L)
Power
100 hp (75 kW; 101 PS) (1971)86 hp (64 kW; 87 PS) (1972–1974)
Ford LL23 I4
Ford LL23 I4
Engine name
Ford LL23 I4
Years available
1974–1980
Displacement
140 cu in (2.3 L)
Power
90 hp (67 kW; 91 PS) (1974)83 hp (62 kW; 84 PS) (1975)92 hp (69 kW; 93 PS) (1976)89 hp (66 kW; 90 PS) (1977)88 hp (66 kW; 89 PS) (1978–1980)
Torque
110 lb⋅ft (150 N⋅m) (1975)121 lb⋅ft (164 N⋅m) (1976)120 lb⋅ft (160 N⋅m) (1977)118 lb⋅ft (160 N⋅m) (1978–1979)119 lb⋅ft (161 N⋅m) (1980)
V6 engine
V6 engine
Engine name
V6 engine
Ford Cologne V6
Ford Cologne V6
Engine name
Ford Cologne V6
Years available
1975–1979
Displacement
170 cu in (2.8 L)
Power
97 hp (72 kW; 98 PS) (1975)103 hp (77 kW; 104 PS) (1976)93 hp (69 kW; 94 PS) (1977)90 hp (67 kW; 91 PS) (1978)102 hp (76 kW; 103 PS) (1979)
Torque
139 lb⋅ft (188 N⋅m) (1975)149 lb⋅ft (202 N⋅m) (1976)140 lb⋅ft (190 N⋅m) (1977)143 lb⋅ft (194 N⋅m) (1978)138 lb⋅ft (187 N⋅m) (1979)
†Horsepower and torque ratings are net output after the 1971 model year.
†Horsepower and torque ratings are net output after the 1971 model year.
Engine name
†Horsepower and torque ratings are net output after the 1971 model year.
Engine name
Years available
Displacement
Power
Torque
Inline-four engine
Ford Kent I4
1971–1973
98 cu in (1.6 L)
75 hp (56 kW; 76 PS) (1971)54 hp (40 kW; 55 PS) (1972–1973)
96 lb⋅ft (130 N⋅m) (1971)
Ford EAO I4
1971–1974
122 cu in (2.0 L)
100 hp (75 kW; 101 PS) (1971)86 hp (64 kW; 87 PS) (1972–1974)
Ford LL23 I4
1974–1980
140 cu in (2.3 L)
90 hp (67 kW; 91 PS) (1974)83 hp (62 kW; 84 PS) (1975)92 hp (69 kW; 93 PS) (1976)89 hp (66 kW; 90 PS) (1977)88 hp (66 kW; 89 PS) (1978–1980)
110 lb⋅ft (150 N⋅m) (1975)121 lb⋅ft (164 N⋅m) (1976)120 lb⋅ft (160 N⋅m) (1977)118 lb⋅ft (160 N⋅m) (1978–1979)119 lb⋅ft (161 N⋅m) (1980)
V6 engine
Ford Cologne V6
1975–1979
170 cu in (2.8 L)
97 hp (72 kW; 98 PS) (1975)103 hp (77 kW; 104 PS) (1976)93 hp (69 kW; 94 PS) (1977)90 hp (67 kW; 91 PS) (1978)102 hp (76 kW; 103 PS) (1979)
139 lb⋅ft (188 N⋅m) (1975)149 lb⋅ft (202 N⋅m) (1976)140 lb⋅ft (190 N⋅m) (1977)143 lb⋅ft (194 N⋅m) (1978)138 lb⋅ft (187 N⋅m) (1979)
†Horsepower and torque ratings are net output after the 1971 model year.

References

  1. Bloomberg Businessweek
    https://web.archive.org/web/20100220054514/http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/108046/fifty-ugliest-cars-of-the-past-50-years.html
  2. oldcarbrochures.com
    http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford/1971_Ford/1971%20Ford%20Pinto%20Brochure/1971%20Ford%20Pinto-06-07.html
  3. automobile-catalog.com
    http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/1971/842090/ford_pinto_2-door_sedan_1600-cc.html
  4. Ford and Canada: 100 years together
  5. The San Francisco Chronicle
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/25/HOG2UHS4701.DTL
  6. Sherefkin 2003.
  7. jenningsforddirect.co.uk
    https://web.archive.org/web/20191116233808/https://www.lookers.co.uk/new-cars
  8. Lewis 2003, pp. 262–231.
  9. Danley 2005: Initial planning on the Pinto, a second-generation subcompact, began in 1967 ... In January 1969, in a vict
  10. How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda
    https://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44525121.pdf
  11. Gioia 1992: The Pinto was brought from inception to production in the record time of approximately 25 months (compared t
  12. Management Decision
    https://doi.org/10.1108%2F00251749210015661
  13. Wojdyla 2011: The genesis of the Ford Pinto came sometime in 1968 when Ford's then-president Lee Iaccoca decided that hi
  14. Wojdyla 2011: But at the time, management's attitude was to get the product out the door as fast as possible.
  15. Sherefkin 2003: Iacocca ordered a rush program to build the Pinto ... The Pinto quickly became known as "Lee's car." He
  16. fordpinto.com
    https://pintopage.fordpinto.com/Pinto%202000%20Coupe.htm
  17. Spokane Daily Chronicle
    https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=HJNYAAAAIBAJ&pg=5900%2C2733608
  18. Great Cars
    http://gt-cars.co.uk/ford-pinto-a-little-carefree-car-gone-very-very-wrong/
  19. auto.howstuffworks.com
    https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto.htm
  20. The Motor
  21. Standard Catalog of Ford
  22. "1980 Ford Pinto brochure"
    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/40/f2/60/40f2609e7d16248e91a8a72ae8715d90--ford-pinto-ford-maverick.jpg
  23. Jones 1978: Soon after the Pinto was introduced, 26,000 were recalled because accelerators were sticking.
  24. Chicago Tribune
    http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1970/10/31/page/10/article/ford-recalls-26-000-pinto-cars
  25. Associated Press 1971: For many of the motorists, it's the second time around ... Last October Ford recalled some 26,000
  26. Jones 1978: 220,000 Pintos were recalled for modifications to prevent possible engine compartment fires.
  27. Chicago Tribune
  28. Associated Press 1971: About 165,000 American owners of Ford's new Pinto are affected by the automaker's announcement th
  29. "1972 Ford Pinto brochure (rev 08-09)"
    https://web.archive.org/web/20191116233751/http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php/New-Brochures---May/1972-Ford-Pinto-Brochure-Rev/1972-Ford-Pinto-Rev--08-09
  30. automobile-catalog.com
    http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/pinto/pinto_station_wagon/1972.html
  31. fordpinto.com
    http://pintopage.fordpinto.com/72%20Pinto%20Sprint%20Package.htm
  32. oldcarbrochures.com
    http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford/1973_Ford/1973%20Ford%20Pinto%20Brochure/index1.html
  33. "1974 Ford Pinto brochure (Rev 10-11) brochure"
    https://web.archive.org/web/20191116233749/http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php/New-Brochures---March/1974-Ford-Pinto-Brochure-Rev/1974-Ford-Pinto-Rev--10-11
  34. Lewis 2003, pp. 286–290.
  35. Automotive Atrocities! - The Cars We Love To Hate
  36. Paintref.com
    http://paintref.com/cgi-bin/brochuredisplay.cgi?year=1976&manuf=Ford&model=Pinto&smod=&page=1&scan=1
  37. Lewis 2003, pp. 289–303.
  38. Lewis 2003, pp. 304–309.
  39. Lewis 2003, pp. 310–315.
  40. Ford Pinto 3-Door
    https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/ford/79pi/bilder/3.jpg
  41. https://www.motortrend.com/features/ford-pinto/ Gold, Arron, The History (and Tragedy) of the Ford Pinto: Everything Yo
    https://www.motortrend.com/features/ford-pinto/
  42. Autoweek
    https://www.autoweek.com/news/a2099001/ford-100-defective-pinto-almost-took-fords-reputation-it/
  43. Popular Mechanics
    https://books.google.com/books?id=TM8DAAAAMBAJ&q=mercury+bobcat+1974&pg=PA62
  44. "The Ford Pinto"
    http://pintopage.fordpinto.com/Production%20Figures.htm
  45. Standard Catalog of Ford Cars, 1903–1990
  46. "1974 Mercury Bobcat Brochure Canada"
    https://web.archive.org/web/20181021024655/http://www.autolit.com/Store/1974-mercury-bobcat-brochure-canada.html
  47. Lewis 2003, p. 290.
  48. Lewis 2003, p. 315.
  49. American Cars, 1973–1980: Every Model, Year by Year
  50. Consumer Reports, January 1971, pp. 8-17.
  51. Car and Driver
    http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/chevrolet-vega-vs-ford-pinto-archived-comparison
  52. fordpinto.com
    http://pintopage.fordpinto.com/Road%20Test.htm
  53. Forbes
    https://www.forbes.com/2004/01/23/cx_dl_0126featslide_7.html
  54. Time
    https://web.archive.org/web/20070914092027/http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657866,00.html
  55. Time
    https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1908719_1908717_1908696,00.html
  56. Popular Mechanics
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g261/4345725/?slide=2
  57. "Take that back: Famous recalls, from Tylenol to Toyota"
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024405-take-that-back-famous-recalls-from-tylenol-to-toyota
  58. Av Club
    http://www.avclub.com/product-misplacement-20-plus-brands-given-unhelpful-mo-1798237706
  59. Lee & Ermann 1999: The Pinto story has become a landmark narrative" (Nichols 1997:324), a definitive story used to suppo
  60. Harvard Business Review
    https://hbr.org/2011/04/ethical-breakdowns
  61. The Ford Pinto Case
  62. USA Today
  63. Kitman, Jamie (March 24, 2011). "Don't Like Government Regulation? How'd You Like Another Pinto?". Cartalk.com.
  64. Lee & Ermann 1999: Conventional wisdom holds that Ford Motor Company decided to rush the Pinto into production in 1970 t
  65. Danley 2005
  66. Schwartz 1991
  67. Schwartz 1991: Having reflected on these invocations of the Ford Pinto case, I have arrived at two general observations.
  68. Rossow 2015:'Fixed-barrier' meant that the vehicle was moving (towed backward) into a stationary barrier ... The 20 mph
  69. Lee & Ermann 1999: pg 36, 43
  70. Lee & Ermann 1999: In the design stage (1967–1970), no company or government standard on rear-end fuel tank integrity ex
  71. Schwartz 1991: In August 1970, 1971 model-year Pintos began coming off the assembly line. Just a few days later, NHTSA-w
  72. Strobel 1979: Ford then joined other automakers in an aggressive lobbying campaign that was successful in delaying and s
  73. Gioia 1992: The tank was positioned between the rear bumper and the rear axle (a standard industry practice for the time
  74. Schwartz 1991: Page 1015 and Footnote 9, "The court of appeal opinion referred to the Pinto's bumper as the flimsiest of
  75. Danley 2005: A few months later Ford began crash-testing modified Mavericks in part to prepare a response to NHTSA'S pro
  76. Lee & Ermann 1999: Engineers in the design stage were still trying "to find out how to conduct crash tests" (Feaheny 199
  77. Hemmings Classic Car
    https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/collision-course
  78. Gioia 1992: Ford had crash-tested 11 vehicles; 8 of these cars suffered potentially catastrophic fuel tank ruptures. The
  79. Lee & Ermann 1999: Occupational caution encouraged engineers to view many design adjustments that improved test performa
  80. Schwartz 1991: As for additional design proposals brought forward by the plaintiffs, several of them-for example, a blad
  81. Lee & Ermann 1999: Ford whistle-blower Harley Copp's argument - that the Pinto would have been safer had its gas tank be
  82. Gioia 1992: I began to construct my own files of incoming safety problems. One of these new files concerned reports of P
  83. Lee & Ermann 1999: When Gioia became Recall Coordinator, he inherited about 100 active recall campaigns, half of them sa
  84. autosafety.org
    http://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/phpq3mJ7F_FordMemo.pdf
  85. Rossow 2015
  86. Gioia 1992: The National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA, a federal agency) had approved the use of cost-benef
  87. Danley 2005: In calculating the benefits, the analysis used a figure of $200,000 per life. NHTSA developed this figure i
  88. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
  89. Lee & Ermann 1999: Based on the information given to it by lawyers preparing cases against Ford, the Center for Auto Saf
  90. Schwartz 1991:The Mother Jones article is suffused with outrage at companies that apply a pernicious cost-benefit analys
  91. Schwartz 1991: According to the Mother Jones article, as of 1977, somewhere between 500 and 900 persons had been killed
  92. Schwartz 1991:To sum up, the Ford document has been assigned an operational significance that it never possessed, and ha
  93. Lee & Ermann 1999: Dowie (1977) accurately explains in part of his Mother Jones article that Ford employees wrote this d
  94. The Liability Maze: The Impact of Liability Rules on Innovation and Safety
  95. Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach
  96. Lee & Ermann 1999:pg 41
  97. Dowie 1977: Ford knows the Pinto is a firetrap, yet it has paid out millions to settle damage suits out of court, and it
  98. Dardis & Zent 1982: On August 10, 1977, Ralph Nader and Mark Dowie held a press conference to notify the public that unn
  99. Center for Auto Safety 2009
  100. Schwartz 1991: Pg 1019, Schwartz noted, "The Mother Jones article had encouraged consumers to write to NHTSA and demand
  101. Lee & Ermann 1999: By 1977, the social context had changed. Dowie's (1977:18) article had labeled the Pinto a "firetrap"
  102. Dardis & Zent 1982: On August 11, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began an investigation of t
  103. Jones 1978: But NHTSA, a Department of Transportation agency, informed Ford on May 8 about the results of the new invest
  104. Dardis & Zent 1982: In May 1978, NHTSA determined that pre-1977 model year Ford Pintos were subject to "fuel tank damage
  105. Investigative Report: Alleged Fuel Tank and Filler Neck Damage in Rear-end Collisions of Subcompact Cars Passenger Cars, 1971–1976 Ford Pinto, 1975–1976 Mercury Bobcat
    http://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/ODIPinto.pdf
  106. Jones 1978: A spokesman for NHTSA said that his agency and Ford began a "process of negotiation" after May 8 that led to
  107. Lee & Ermann 1999: NHTSA engineer Lee Strickland was assigned to determine if Pinto (and Chevrolet Vega) tank problems w
  108. Business and Economic History
  109. Schwartz 1991: Relying on a variety of external sources (including Ford), NHTSA indicated that it was aware of thirty-ei
  110. Lee & Ermann 1999: Beginning in the late 1970s, claims consistent with "Pinto Madness" readily gained public acceptance,
  111. Lee & Ermann 1999: By the time of its Pinto investigation, NHTSA had essentially abandoned its original mission of forci
  112. Danley 2005: Ford could have refused to recall and have chosen instead to defend the Pinto's design in the formal recall
  113. Lee & Ermann 1999: the Pinto was the subject of the largest recall in automobile history at the time.
  114. "Re: 1971–1976 Pinto and 1975–1976 Bobcat Fuel Systems (Except Station Wagons) Campaign No. 293"
    https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/Pinto%20Recall.pdf
  115. Jones 1978: In a prepared statement, Ford Vice President Herbert L. Misch said: "Ford informed NHTSA that it does not ag
  116. NHTSA
    https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/1975/FORD/PINTO
  117. Sherefkin 2003: Ford customers filed 117 lawsuits, according to Peter Wyden in The Unknown Iacocca.
  118. Danley 2005: Two important legal cases were central. One was a civil trial that began in August 1977 in Orange County Ca
  119. Schwartz 1991: The Pinto was then struck by a car, which had originally been traveling at about fifty miles per hour but
  120. Danley 2005: pg 208
  121. Schwartz 1991:pg 1016
  122. Lee & Ermann 1999: Based on information given to it by lawyers preparing cases against Ford, the Center for Auto Safety
  123. Schwartz 1991: after deliberating for eight hours - awarded the Gray family wrongful death damages of $560,000; Grimshaw
  124. The Wall Street Journal
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB876346627583219500
  125. Los Angeles Times
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-apr-19-me-goldstein19-story.html
  126. Danley 2005: pg 209
  127. Los Angeles Times
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-mar-14-la-fi-toyota-litigate14-2010mar14-story.html
  128. Stanford Law Review
    https://law.vanderbilt.edu/files/archive/212_Corporate-Risk-Analysis.pdf
  129. Stanford Law Review
    https://law.vanderbilt.edu/files/archive/212_Corporate-Risk-Analysis.pdf
  130. Southern California Law Review
  131. Schwartz 1991: Hence, there was nothing clearly wrong in subjecting Ford to liability for harms resulting from that latt
  132. Epstein 1980
  133. Becker, Jipson & Bruce 2002: There is little doubt about the importance of State of Indiana v. Ford Motor Company from a
  134. The Christian Science Monitor
    https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0314/031435.html
  135. Schwartz 1991: In August 1978 - half a year after the verdict in the tort case - a 1973 Pinto was involved in a fatal cr
  136. People
    http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20075738,00.html
  137. Gladwell 2015: A former head of the N.H.T.S.A. testified on Ford's behalf, stating that in his opinion the Pinto's desig
  138. Becker, Jipson & Bruce 2002
  139. Sherefkin 2003: The low point for Ford came in 1979 when Indiana authorities charged the automaker with reckless homicid
  140. Becker, Jipson & Bruce 2002: Two main perspectives emerged after the Pinto trial as to how the case outcome would affect
  141. Epstein 1980: The important point here is that neither the drama of the case nor its outcome should be allowed to obscur
  142. Becker, Jipson & Bruce 2002: The very fact that there has not been another product liability criminal prosecution since
  143. Becker, Jipson & Bruce 2002: Paul Weaver worked for the Ford Motor Company from 1978 to 1980 in the corporation's public
  144. Schwartz 1991 Footnote pg 1029
  145. Schwartz 1991 pg 1031
  146. Schwartz 1991 pg 1033
Image
Source: —
Tip: Wheel or +/− to zoom, drag to pan, Esc to close.