| Mercury Bobcat |
Articles about Ford Pinto |
Website Links For Ford |
Information AboutMercury Bobcat |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT FORD PINTO | |
| ford vehicles | |
| pinto | |
| rear wheel drive vehicles | |
| station wagons | |
| subcompact cars | |
| 1970s automobiles | |
| 1980s automobiles | |
| corporate scandals | |
| 1971 introductions | |
The Ford Pinto was a for the 1981 model year. Body Styles included a 2-door Coupe , a three-door Hatchback , a two-door Station Wagon , and the ''Ford Pinto Cruising Wagon'', produced from 1977 to 1980 and styled to resemble a small conversion Van (very much the trend in the late 1970s) complete with a round "bubble window" in the side panels. The car's 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 A-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. '' Road & Track '' faulted the suspension and standard Drum Brake s, calling the latter a "serious deficiency". But they praised the 1.6 L '' Kent '' engine, especially compared to the much-larger '' 2300 '' found in arch-rival Chevrolet Vega . Original engines included a British -built 1.6 L OHV I4 and a German-built 2.0 L SOHC I4 . In 1974 , the 1.6 L powerplant was dropped and a new 2.3 L engine became available; a 2.8 L V6 was available from 1975. ENGINES
SAFETY PROBLEMS Through early production of the model, it became a focus of a major Scandal when it was discovered that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a Rear-end Collision which often resulted in deadly fires and explosions. The problem was that the vehicle lacked a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, and in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the Differential , which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap. Ford was allegedly aware of this design flaw but refused to pay the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. This discovery of Ford's apparent gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, inconclusive criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos. Ford lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four." One particularly appalling case resulted in a judicial Opinion which has become a staple of Remedies courses in American Law School s. In ''Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.'', 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (4 Dist. 1981) {Link without Title} , the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reviewed Ford's egregious conduct in painstaking detail, and upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford. It also upheld the judge's reduction of the punitive damages from the jury's original verdict of $125 million. Of the two plaintiffs, one was killed in the collision that caused her Pinto to explode, and her passenger, 13-year old Richard Grimshaw, was badly burned and scarred for life. More recently, it has been argued (in a well-known 1991 law review paper by Gary Schwartz {Link without Title} ( PDF ), among others) that the case against the Pinto was less clear-cut than commonly supposed. Only 27 people ever died in Pinto fires, which given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built) was no worse than typical for the time. Schwartz argues that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, and that the supposed 'smoking gun' document showing Ford's callousness actually referred to the auto industry in general rather than the Pinto specifically. Due to the alleged engineering, safety, and reliability problems, Forbes Magazine included the Pinto on its list of the worst cars of all time. Ironically Ford had originally planned to include an inexpensive rubber bladder inside the gas tank that would have prevented most of the explosive crashes that plagued the cars run, in addition Ford had also planned to include revolutionary dual front air bags. The addition of these two safety features would have added a few hundred dollars to the base price of the vehicle, but would have probably made it a much safer vehicle. PINTO PANGRA The Pinto Pangra was a modified, sporting Pinto produced in limited numbers by a Ford dealer, Huntington Ford in Arcadia , California . Approximately 200 were sold during 1973 and (to a limited degree) 1974 , and in addition the components were sold in kit form. A Pangra cost approximately $5,000. The most visible modification was a slanted fiberglass nose with pop-up headlights. Internally, the stock 2 liter engine was fitted with an AK Miller turbocharger; a "Can-Am" suspension package with Koni dampers lowered the car and improved the handling; aluminum wheels with wider tires were fitted, as were Recaro seats, a revised dash with a new center console, full instrumentation, and a digital tachometer. IN POPULAR CULTURE The Pinto, along with the Yugo , AMC Gremlin , AMC Pacer , and arguably the Geo Metro , enjoys a reputation of being an American symbol for a "cheap economy car" or "cheapness", and the Pinto has made its way into popular culture because of this. Also, its reputation for being unsafe is frequently lampooned. Examples include:
SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|