Ford Pinto
[[File:Ford Pinto|frameless|upright=1.25|alt=]]
Ford Pinto
Manufacturer Ford Motor Company
Production 1970–1980
Model year(s) 1971-1980
Assembly St. Thomas, Ontario
Edison, New Jersey
Richmond, California
Successor Ford Escort
Class Subcompact car
Body style(s) 2-door coupé
2-door sedan delivery
2-door station wagon
3-door hatchback
Layout FR layout
Engine(s) 1.6L, 2.0L & 2.3L I4, 2.8L V6
Transmission(s) 4-speed manual; "Selectshift Cruise-O-Matic"[1]
Wheelbase 94.0 in (2,390 mm)[2]
Length 163 in (4,100 mm)[3]
Width 69.4 in (1,760 mm)
Height 50 in (1,300 mm)
Curb weight 2,015–2,270 lb (914–1,030 kg) (1970)
Related Mercury Bobcat, Mustang II

The Ford Pinto is a subcompact automobile that was produced by the Ford Motor Company for the 1971–1980 model years. The car's name derives from the Pinto horse. Initially offered as a two-door sedan, Ford offered "Runabout" hatchback and wagon models the following year, competing in the U.S. market with the AMC Gremlin and Chevrolet Vega, as well as imported cars from Volkswagen, Datsun, and Toyota. By January 1971, the Pinto had sold over 100,000 units.[4] In its last model year, Ford built 68,179 units.[5]

A rebadged variant, the Mercury Bobcat, debuted in 1974 in Canada and in March 1975 in the US.[6] The Pinto and the smaller, imported Ford Fiesta were ultimately replaced by the front-wheel-drive Ford Escort.

The Pinto's legacy was affected by controversy surrounding the safety of its fuel tank design and Ford's 1978 recall of the car; legal scholar Gary T. Schwartz cites the case surrounding it as key in the evolution of modern tort law, stating that it "raises essential issues about both the form and the substance of modern products liability doctrine."[7]


Gremlin-Pinto-Vega in 2010

1971 Gremlin X, 1972 Pinto Runabout &
1973 Vega GT photographed in 2010

U.S. automakers had first countered imports such as the Volkswagen Beetle with compact cars including the Ford Falcon, Chevrolet Corvair and Plymouth Valiant. These cars had six cylinder engines, but actually comprised a larger class of vehicles. As the popularity of smaller Japanese imports from Toyota and Datsun increased throughout the 1960s, Ford North America responded by introducing the Ford Cortina from Ford of Europe as a captive import. U.S. automakers would soon introduce their own subcompacts.

The Pinto was introduced on September 11, 1970. The AMC Gremlin was the first to arrive on the market six months before the Pinto, and the Chevrolet Vega was introduced the day before the Pinto. Both the Pinto and the Vega were new, but the Pinto used powertrains proven in Europe from the European Ford Escort, while the Vega's innovative aluminum engine would prove troublesome. The Gremlin was designed around a six-cylinder engine, and was derived largely by truncating the rear body from the compact-class AMC Hornet to achieve its short length.



1973 Ford Pinto Runabout

CEO of Ford Lee Iacocca wanted a 1971 model that weighed less than 2,000 pounds and that would be priced at less than $2,000.[8] A team of stylists at Ford was assigned to design the Pinto's exterior and interior instead of using the European Ford Escort. Robert Eidschun's design of the exterior theme was eventually chosen in its entirety. The clay models of the Pinto were finalized in December 1968 after which Eidschun left Ford to join Chrysler, as a studio Design Manager.

Ford North America's decision to create an all-new vehicle instead of integrating a design from international corporate resources paralleled GM North America's approach when creating the Chevrolet Vega — opting not to use the established Vauxhall Viva/Opel Kadett marketed at the time at GM dealerships in Canada, and USA Buick dealerships from 1967. Designers working on products intended for North America had more freedom with exterior dimensions and engine sizes in relation to Japanese counterparts, where those criteria were dictated by Japanese government regulations. Typically, Detroit manufacturers created products that emulated import aspects with market-driven improvements.

While the previously introduced Ford Maverick offered either straight-6 or V8 engine and twin bench seats, the Pinto offered an inline-4 engine, and bucket seats – more in keeping with small imports such as the Volkswagen Beetle, available since 1949, the Toyota Corolla, introduced to North America March 1968, and the newly introduced Datsun 1200 which appeared in 1970.

Compared with imports, seating was low to the floor. Styling somewhat resembled the larger Ford Maverick in grille and tail light themes, but with a fastback profile.


Ford introduced the Pinto under the tagline The Little Carefree Car, and made the first retail delivery in North America to Charles J. Pinto of Pinto, Maryland, in a record 25 months from concept to production. On hand to deliver the Pinto was Arthur Kowell, president of Kowell Ford Inc., according to the Cumberland Times-News of Sept. 13, 1970.

The Pinto was introduced as a two-door sedan, after structural work on alternate body styles encountered obstacles.[9] Entry level Pintos were priced on launch at around $1850, making the Pinto the least expensive Ford since the "Six" of 1958, undercutting GM's Chevrolet Vega and directly targeting imported models — which continued to add competitors such as the Mazda 1200 in 1971, the Subaru DL in 1972, and the Honda Civic in 1973.[10]

Pintos were manufactured in St. Thomas, Ontario; Edison, New Jersey; and in Richmond, California.[11] The Pinto would be later complemented by the German built, smaller front-wheel-drive Ford Fiesta, and formally replaced by the Escort for the 1981 model year.

A hatchback became available on February 20, 1971, debuting at the Chicago Auto Show[9](also, in 1971, the Pinto brochure came with a paper cutout Pinto that one could fold together to make a 3D model[12]). The Runabout went on sale five days later, priced at $2,062.[9] The hatch itself featured exposed chrome hinges for the liftgate and five decorative chrome strips, pneumatic struts to assist in opening the hatch, a rear window approximately as large as the sedan's, and a fold down seat — a feature which became simultaneously an option on the sedan. The hatchback model matched the sedan in all other dimensions and offered 38.1 cubic feet (1.08 m³) of storage space.[9] By 1972, the glass portion of the hatch enlarged to the entire size of the hatch itself, ultimately to be replaced with a full glass rear hatch.

On February 24, 1972,[9] the Pinto station wagon debuted with an overall length of 172.7 in (4,390 mm) and 60.5 cubic feet (1.71 m³) of cargo volume.[9] The wagon offered optional flip-open rear-seat windows, the 2.0-liter engine was standard equipment along with front disc brakes.

1977 Ford Pinto Cruising Wagon

1977 Ford Pinto Cruising Wagon

The Ford Pinto Cruising Wagon was marketed from 1977–1980 and styled to resemble a small conversion van or sedan delivery, complete with a round side panel "bubble windows". A Pinto Squire wagon featured faux wood side paneling similar to the Ford Country Squire. Ford offered appearance packages but not a factory performance package similar to the Cosworth Vega or the 304 V8 Gremlin X.

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


Except for 1973 and 1980, the Pinto was available with a choice of two engines. For the first five years of production, only four cylinder inline engines were offered. Ford changed the power ratings almost every year.[13]

Of particular note is the introduction in 1974 of the 2.3 litres (140 cu in) OHC I4 engine. This engine would be updated and modified several times, allowing it to remain in production into 1997. Among other Ford vehicles, a turbocharged version of this engine would later power the performance based Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, Mustang SVO, and the European-built Merkur XR4Ti.[13]

Initial Pinto deliveries in the early years used the English (1,600 cc (98 cu in)) and German (2,000 cc (120 cu in)) engines tuned for performance (see below). The 2,000 cc engine used a two barrel carburetor where just one bore was bigger than that used on the Maverick. With the low weight (not much above 2,000 lb (910 kg)) and the SOHC engine it rated a 10.8 second 0-60 time. With the advent of emission control requirements, Ford moved from the European sourced to domestically sourced engines, using new or modified designs. New safety legislation impacted bumpers and other parts adding to the weight of the car, reducing performance.

Revised SAE standards in 1972 dropped the Pinto's 1.6 l (98 cu in) engine to 54 bhp (40 kW) — and the 2.0 l (120 cu in) engine to 86 hp (64 kW).[14]

  • 1.6 L Kent - 54 hp (40 kW)
  • 2.0 L EAO - 86 hp (64 kW)
  • 2.0 L EAO - 86 hp (64 kW)
  • 2.0 L EAO - 86 hp (64 kW)
  • 2.3 L (140 CID) OHC - 90 hp (67 kW)
  • 2.3 L OHC - 83 hp (62 kW)
  • 2.8 L (170 CID) Cologne V6 - 97 hp (72 kW)
  • 2.3 L OHC - 92 hp (69 kW) and 121 ft·lbf (164 N·m)
  • 2.8 L Cologne - 103 hp (77 kW) and 149 ft·lbf (202 N·m)
  • 2.3 L OHC - 89 hp (66 kW) and 120 ft·lbf (160 N·m)
  • 2.8 L Cologne - 93 hp (69 kW) and 140 ft·lbf (190 N·m)
  • 2.3 L OHC - 88 hp (66 kW) and 118 ft·lbf (160 N·m)
  • 2.8 L Cologne - 90 hp (67 kW) and 143 ft·lbf (194 N·m)
  • 2.3 L OHC - 88 hp (66 kW) and 118 ft·lbf (160 N·m)
  • 2.8 L Cologne - 102 hp (76 kW) and 138 ft·lbf (187 N·m)
  • 2.3 L OHC - 88 hp (66 kW) and 119 ft·lbf (161 N·m)

Reception and criticismEdit

Road & Track faulted the suspension and standard drum brakes, calling the latter a "serious deficiency," but praised the proven 1.6 L Kent engine, adapted from European Fords. The larger 2300 inline-4 found in the Chevrolet Vega was an innovative, brand new design using an aluminum alloy block and iron head, but needed more development work as initially released. Consumer Reports rated the 1971 Pinto below the Vega but above the Gremlin.

In 2004, Forbes named the Pinto to its list of Worst Cars of All Time.[15]

Citing the Pinto's alleged engineering and safety problems, Time magazine and Dan Neil named the Pinto to their 2008 list of the Fifty Worst Cars of All Time.[16]

In 2009, Business Week named the Pinto to their list of the Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years.[17]

Fuel tank controversyEdit

Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[9] and the fuel tank, in all too common occasions, to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[9] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel.

Allegations and lawsuitsEdit

Critics alleged that the vehicle's lack of reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank meant the tank would be pushed forward and punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential[18] — making the car less safe than its contemporaries.

According to a 1977 Mother Jones article, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the monetary value of a human life—what became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.[16][19][20]

An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident that killed Lilly Gray and severely burned 13-year old Richard Grimshaw. The accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,[21] in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design.


The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pressured Ford to recall the Pinto, motivated by public outcry and pressure from groups such as Ralph Nader's Center for Auto Safety. Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. The 27 deaths attributed to Pinto fires is the same number of deaths attributed to a transmission problem in the Pinto, which resulted in 180 total deaths in all Ford vehicles, and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem.[22]

In 1978, Ford initiated a recall providing a plastic protective shield to be dealer-installed between the fuel tank and the differential bolts, another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber, and a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision.[9][23]

Schwartz paperEdit

In a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[7] discussed the way the case changed tort law and liability, noting that its outcome had more to do with evolving public standards on the propriety of making monetary risk-assessments involving human lives than with any specific flaw in the Pinto per se; he argues that the Pinto was not substantially more dangerous than other cars of the time, and that while its worse-than-average record for fatalities-with-rear-end fire (combined with the fact that Ford was aware of this risk) justified the damages leveled against it, the punitive damages against it show a broader rejection of the previously-widespread practice of assigning values to human lives in risk assessments.[24][25]

According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited NHTSA database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.

Schwartz's study said:

  • The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
  • The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
  • The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).

However, he concludes that the Pinto did indeed have a higher rate of fatalities when rear-end fires were involved, that Ford was aware of this risk, and that it was therefore reasonable to hold them responsible for damages. On putative damages he cites the case as showing public dissatisfaction with (and, since liability is ultimately decided by jury trials, potentially undermining the concept of) risk-damage assessments where human lives are involved; the paper concluded by calling for additional regulation to require that auto makers provide the public with aggregate safety information so that buyers could make decisions about such potential trade-offs themselves.

Gallery - Ford PintoEdit

See alsoEdit


  2. "Carfolio 1970 Pinto".
  4. "How Stuff Works Pinto".
  5. "building just 68,179 Pintos that year".
  6. Mays, James C. Ford and Canada: 100 Years Together (Montréal: Syam Publishing, 2003), p.116.
  7. 7.0 7.1 (3.94 MB)
  8. [1][dead link]
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 "Birth of the Ford Pinto".
  10. "Quart in a Pinto", The Motor (magazine) 3558: pages 26–27. 1970-08-26. 
  11. Smith, Charles (March 25, 2006). "Lofty ambition / Developer revs up former Ford factory in Richmond for real live-work spaces", The San Francisco Chronicle. 
  13. 13.0 13.1 Gunnell, John A. and Lenzke, James T. (1995). Standard Catalog of Ford Cars, 1903-1990. Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-140-4. 
  14. "HowStuffWorks "The Birth of the Ford Pinto"".
  15. "The worst cars of all time". Forbes, Dan Lienert 1/27/2004.
  16. 16.0 16.1 "1971 Ford Pinto - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time", Time (September 7, 2007). 
  17. "Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years". Business Week, Damian Joseph, October 30, 2009.
  18. The Ford Pinto Case. State University of New York Press, Douglas Birsch and John Fielder, 1994, page 3. 
  19. Mark Dowie (September/October, 1977). "Pinto Madness". Mother Jones,.
  20. "Fatalities Associated With Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires," by E.S. Grush and C.S. Saundy, Environmental and Safety Engineering.
  21. "Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.".
  22. Pinto "Madness," a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational and Network Analysis, M T Lee and M D Ermann, Social Problems, Vol 46, No 1 Feb 1999
  23. "NHTSA Recalls for the 1975 Ford Pinto".
  24. Motavalli, Jim (February 25, 2010). "At the Toyota Hearing, Remembering the Pinto", The New York Times, JIM MOTAVALLI, Feb 25, 2010. 
  25. Motavalli, Jim (February 25, 2010). "Cursed Cars: The Ford Pinto", Minneapolis Cars Examiner,, October 29th, Nathan Hook. 

External linksEdit

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Smallwikipedialogo This page uses some content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Ford Pinto. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. As with Tractor & Construction Plant Wiki, the text of Wikipedia is available under the Creative Commons by Attribution License and/or GNU Free Documentation License. Please check page history for when the original article was copied to Wikia

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.