Pinto crash test

[StevenGuthmiller]

1 hour ago, 1930fordpickup said:

The only reason for that is the fuel tank issues. No they were not great cars but they were not the worst cars either. We had 4 at our house that had over 100,000 miles.  Vega's were far worse cars over all around here. When I was in high school in the mid 80's there were more than a few Pinto's in the lot. Not a single Vega still around. While I worked at the gas station in Toledo after school rarely a Vega came in. I worked within a mile of the Hydro-Matic plant. When a Vega would pull in at night, it had a small block under the hood and you never seen that car in the winter or the rain. 

I suppose that they were probably no worse than any other car in the 70s.

But that's not saying much.

 

 

 

Steve

 

[horsepower]

14 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

Yet you will still find the Pinto on nearly every "worst car ever built" list.

 

 

 

Steve

I doubt if most people making the claims and laughing about exploding Pintos really know the truth about the two most famous instances, in the first where an elderly woman lost her life that Pinto was hit from the rear by a full size vehicle that was travelling fast enough that the force of the impact completely obliterated the rear of the car up to the middle of the doors and the front windshield posts were pushed beyond vertical and were actually slanting forward the impact. Sadly there was no way to say if she died from the fire major injuries from the force of the impact. The second one was a young teenage girl had stopped at a self-service gas station and filled her Pinto to the top. Shortly after pulling out on the main road she realized her mistake and made a U-turn on the main road in front of the gas station and stopped to get her cap. At this point a full size Dodge van travelling at approximately 45 mph struck the stopped Pinto dead (yeah I know, poor choice of words) in the rear crushing the rear of the and resulting in the spraying of ten gallons of gasoline being sprayed over both the interior and exterior of the vehicles, unfortunately the force of being hit at a dead stop by something that weighed almost three times as much as the Pinto the body had been deformed enough to prevent any chance of extracting any passengers. I seriously doubt if ANY vehicle from that time period had been subjected to the same impact forces that they wouldn't have suffered a fire also. In fact has anyone ever pulled floor mat out of trunk/hatch hatch of a '64 -1/2 through a '73 Ford Mustang and looked at the floor of the trunk? Yep. That IS the top of the gas tank and even worse is that it bolts in all around the edge of the trunk, this forces the tank to actually be forced into the roll of being a structural part of the rear uni-body frame. A few years ago a young nursing student in our community stopped at a red light on her way home and while sitting there a car being driven by repeat drunk driver struck her at around 55 mph mph never made an attempt to stop or swerve. The people who lived in the house on the corner said that they felt the impact and heard AND saw the explosion through their closed drapes. That was just one of many instances of the Mustangs being involved in fiery crashes,  and for all the bad press that the Pinto got about its design I guess they didn't realize that from 1974 through 1978 the Ford Mustang II shared the same design of the chassis with the Pinto, the only difference being a piece of 1/4" plastic sheet that was formed to go between the rear axle and the fuel tank that was supposed to stop the chances of the tank being punctured by a rear end collision.

[MrObsessive]

Delton, I remember the incident about the young girl at the gas station with her Pinto. I believe that happened in the early '80's? I think she also had a couple friends with her in the car that died as well?

I never was a fan of the Pinto when they were new. I knew folks that had them and I don't remember them being worried too much about the fire issue. I do believe that's one of the reasons however you no longer see center gas filler necks in the rear of any car built today.

They're either on the right or left side. That also I think has a lot to do with gas tank placement these days. In my Challenger, the gas tank is under the rear seat. Safer place for it as it's not hanging way out there in the back as the cars of old. The Saturn I had before was the same way. It took me a bit to figure out why the rear seat seemed to sit "higher" than the front seats. Well, that also had its tank right directly under the rear seat with the filler door on the passenger side rear.

[Ace-Garageguy]

7 hours ago, horsepower said:

I doubt if most people making the claims and laughing about exploding Pintos really know the truth about the two most famous instances, in the first where an elderly woman lost her life that Pinto was hit from the rear by a full size vehicle that was travelling fast enough that the force of the impact completely obliterated the rear of the car up to the middle of the doors and...the second one was...a full size Dodge van travelling at approximately 45 mph struck the stopped Pinto...crushing the rear...I seriously doubt if ANY vehicle from that time period had been subjected to the same impact forces that they wouldn't have suffered a fire also...

Exactly. It's tiring hearing the legions of rebleaters who become vehicle structural and safety experts from reading one or two articles on the interdwerbs.

The hysterical media, as usual, made the Pinto seem like a devil-possessed potential fiery deathtrap...but only to the stupid, the ignorant, and the easily terrified.

Nothing much has changed.

EDIT: Just for the record, I've owned several. The most fun was a thinly disguised race-car on the street, with dual sidedraft Webers on a 2.0 liter, headers, cam, lowered and stiffened suspension, and as much weight removed as was humanly possible. The other end of the spectrum was a 2.4 liter automatic wagon. It was a slow dog, but entirely adequate for a shop parts getter.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[espo]

In reading Horespowers post he makes a very good point. about the circumstances of the two mentioned deaths attributed to the Pinto. This type of collision has little to do with the Pinto and everything to do with the driver error by the person rear ended the Pinto. Just a few years later the California Highway Patrol was trying to sue Ford because some idiot driver ran into the rear of a stopped CHP car doing a traffic stop. The force of the impact was such that the rear of the patrol car collapsed the body and frame of the patrol car and the gas tank was mounted between the trunk floor and the rear differential. Somehow the CHP felt that this type of impact shouldn't allow the gas tank to be pushed into and be punctured by the differential.  This is all basic physics of a vehicle being struck at a high rate of speed, somethings are just inevitably going to happen. Were the gas tank locations the most ideal ? Maybe not, but I don't think in these cases it wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome. The impact alone would be enough to cause great bodily harm if not death even if the car didn't have a gas tank.   

[StevenGuthmiller]

All that I know about the flaming Pinto was that Ford conducted 11 rear crash tests on them in 1970 after production had started and of the 11, 8 of them had ruptures of the fuel tank and several burst into flames.

The three cars that did not had a $5.00 safety device installed to protect against fuel spills due to ruptures, which Ford declined to implement.

At least 27 people burned to death in Ford Pintos.

Lord knows how many total fires or related injuries.

 

I guess you can defend Ford and the Pinto if you would like, but I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the car was flawed and dangerous.

Granted, it was not the only car in history to have problems, but when a company knows that their customers might die due to the use of their product and ignores it, it's a problem.

The Pinto didn't get a "bad rap".

The "rap" was deserved.

 

 

 

Steve

[jas1957]

Well I know of one Pinto that did burn on impact.   About 1982 a co-worker’s father was killed when his Pinto was rear ended at a traffic light about a mile from where we worked.  Pretty bad time,  I had to drive through the intersection on my way to & from work.  You could see the scorched pavement for a long time.

[peteski]

I owned 2 mid-70s Pinto station wagons as winter beater cars in the late 80s.  Paid about $200 for each.  They got me from work and back during the winter (while I had my Camaro put away).  They were what one would expect from a $200 car (rotted floors, no heater, broken turn signal stalk fixed with a piece of aluminum tube, etc.), but back then I was young and I didn't mind.  One of them I think had a broken modulator valve (automatic tranny), and when I floored it (or maybe when I quickly stepped off the gas pedal - I don't remember now), it would suck the transmission fluid into the intake manifold, creating a large, dense, white cloud of smoke!  What fun that was!  I felt like double-oh-seven!.

[StevenGuthmiller]

18 minutes ago, peteski said:

I owned 2 mid-70s Pinto station wagons as winter beater cars in the late 80s.  Paid about $200 for each.  They got me from work and back during the winter (while I had my Camaro put away).  They were what one would expect from a $200 car (rotted floors, no heater, broken turn signal stalk fixed with a piece of aluminum tube, etc.), but back then I was young and I didn't mind.  One of them I think had a broken modulator valve (automatic tranny), and when I floored it (or maybe when I quickly stepped off the gas pedal - I don't remember now), it would suck the transmission fluid into the intake manifold, creating a large, dense, white cloud of smoke!  What fun that was!  I felt like double-oh-seven!.

Smoke coming from a Pinto........scary proposition!

 

 

 

Steve

[1930fordpickup]

14 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

All that I know about the flaming Pinto was that Ford conducted 11 rear crash tests on them in 1970 after production had started and of the 11, 8 of them had ruptures of the fuel tank and several burst into flames.

The three cars that did not had a $5.00 safety device installed to protect against fuel spills due to ruptures, which Ford declined to implement.

At least 27 people burned to death in Ford Pintos.

Lord knows how many total fires or related injuries.

 

I guess you can defend Ford and the Pinto if you would like, but I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the car was flawed and dangerous.

Granted, it was not the only car in history to have problems, but when a company knows that their customers might die due to the use of their product and ignores it, it's a problem.

The Pinto didn't get a "bad rap".

The "rap" was deserved.

 

 

 

Steve

Yes Steve The bad wrap because of the gas tank is well deserved. Just don't forget more people were killed by the side saddle tanks on Chevy and GMC pickups. But everyone forgets about that.  Funny how that works. I have found it very strange how GM always gets a pass that Ford And Chrysler are never given. I guess that old saying still exists, If it is good for GM it is good for US BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH. 

[Bucky]

This post is not exactly Pinto related, but it does pertain to a ruptured gas tank. In 1976, I suffered a head-on crash while driving my 1975 Dodge Coronet 2dr hardtop. I was hit by a 1972 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. He hit my car so hard that all the running gear went backwards and split the gas tank, spilling all 25 gallons of gas I had pumped into it, not long before the crash. Very fortunate that there were no sparks, as I was trapped in the driver's seat until the jaws of life got there. 

[stitchdup]

56 minutes ago, 1930fordpickup said:

Yes Steve The bad wrap because of the gas tank is well deserved. Just don't forget more people were killed by the side saddle tanks on Chevy and GMC pickups. But everyone forgets about that.  Funny how that works. I have found it very strange how GM always gets a pass that Ford And Chrysler are never given. I guess that old saying still exists, If it is good for GM it is good for US BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH. 

uhm, I'll just say corvair (or vw ghia copy) lol

[1930fordpickup]

35 minutes ago, Bucky said:

This post is not exactly Pinto related, but it does pertain to a ruptured gas tank. In 1976, I suffered a head-on crash while driving my 1975 Dodge Coronet 2dr hardtop. I was hit by a 1972 Cadillac Coupe de Ville. He hit my car so hard that all the running gear went backwards and split the gas tank, spilling all 25 gallons of gas I had pumped into it, not long before the crash. Very fortunate that there were no sparks, as I was trapped in the driver's seat until the jaws of life got there. 

Keith we are all glad nothing went wrong. 

[Bucky]

Thanks! Happy to report that I'm still kicking, these 43 years later! LoL

If I had been in a Pinto.............

[Snake45]

5 hours ago, 1930fordpickup said:

Yes Steve The bad wrap because of the gas tank is well deserved. Just don't forget more people were killed by the side saddle tanks on Chevy and GMC pickups. But everyone forgets about that.  

Yeah. That thing was SO flammable that when Dateline NBC  tried to replicate the carnage on film, they finally had to set the inferno off with a model rocket motor. One of the first documented cases of "fake news." 

[NYLIBUD]

I own a 2009 Crown Vic, ex police car.And the way the trunk is designed, that’s to be able to carry all the police equipment, they relocated the gas tank further back..So one hit in the wrong place..and BOOOOOMMMMMM???????.!!!!!!!!

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, NYLIBUD said:

I own a 2009 Crown Vic, ex police car.And the way the trunk is designed, that’s to be able to carry all the police equipment, they relocated the gas tank further back..So one hit in the wrong place..and BOOOOOMMMMMM???????.!!!!!!!!

Police cars aren't supposed to be crashed into. They're designed to crash into other cars. 

[StevenGuthmiller]

18 hours ago, 1930fordpickup said:

Yes Steve The bad wrap because of the gas tank is well deserved. Just don't forget more people were killed by the side saddle tanks on Chevy and GMC pickups. But everyone forgets about that.  Funny how that works. I have found it very strange how GM always gets a pass that Ford And Chrysler are never given. I guess that old saying still exists, If it is good for GM it is good for US BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH. 

You're right, and I don't give GM a pass for bad design either.

Bad is bad no matter who makes it.

 

 

 

Steve

[1930fordpickup]

7 hours ago, NYLIBUD said:

I own a 2009 Crown Vic, ex police car.And the way the trunk is designed, that’s to be able to carry all the police equipment, they relocated the gas tank further back..So one hit in the wrong place..and BOOOOOMMMMMM???????.!!!!!!!!

The biggest problem with these cars, was that the company that put all of the police packaging into the trunks used fasteners that were to long and they would puncher the fuel  tanks when rear ended.  A former officer has told me this. He said , yes they are looking out for us? 

[slusher]

I had a 76 Pinto and it was a good car. It had a few problems fuel pump,Voltage regulater' but  I being 16 was the worst problem. It went the I went everywhere.  There was many flawed gas tank locations on many trucks and cars. It’s the Pinto everyone remembers but you hit any car or truck just right and it will burn or blow up....

[StevenGuthmiller]

5 hours ago, slusher said:

I had a 76 Pinto and it was a good car. It had a few problems fuel pump,Voltage regulater' but  I being 16 was the worst problem. It went the I went everywhere.  There was many flawed gas tank locations on many trucks and cars. It’s the Pinto everyone remembers but you hit any car or truck just right and it will burn or blow up....

Of course.

But a rear collision at 31 MPH is not going to cause a fuel rupture, and possibly fire and explosion on 8 out of 11 cars tested in the vast majority of cars, past or present.

That's just a little too bad to try to make excuses for.

 

 

Steve

[madhorseman]

Well, someone must not have been paying attention.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/10/20/gm-settles-deadly-ignition-switch-cases-120-million/777831001/

[slusher]

11 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

Of course.

But a rear collision at 31 MPH is not going to cause a fuel rupture, and possibly fire and explosion on 8 out of 11 cars tested in the vast majority of cars, past or present.

That's just a little too bad to try to make excuses for.

 

 

Steve

Good point Steve, I could not remember the collision speed...

[espo]

On 12/9/2019 at 7:51 PM, Snake45 said:

Police cars aren't supposed to be crashed into. They're designed to crash into other cars. 

While that sounds funny at first, I'm afraid it is an all to common event at least in this area. For some strange reason there are some drivers around here who will drive straight into a car parked on the side of the road and if it has flashing red lights it just seems that much more of an attraction to them. We have lost far to many fine officers to this problem in the last few years and I understand it has happened in other parts of the country also. " Move over , it's the law. " 

[Bronzekeg]

don't know about crashing them, but they made for sweet looking pro stock drag cars.