Mini Classifieds

Beautiful 1980 Pinto

Date: 04/13/2020 11:53 am
GRILLE NEEDED '71,'72,'73 for a '73 Pinto
Date: 02/10/2017 09:30 am
pinto for sale
Date: 09/11/2016 09:47 pm
Wanted '75 Bobcat Instrument Cluster & Wiring Harness
Date: 12/09/2018 06:59 am
74 pinto
Date: 09/11/2016 06:32 pm
1979 Pinto 3-door Runabout *PRICE REDUCED*

Date: 01/21/2023 04:19 pm
1977 Pinto Cruizin Wagon

Date: 04/11/2024 03:56 pm
Need 77 or 78 Cruising Wagon Speedometer Tachometer Assembly
Date: 06/24/2020 06:12 am
looking for parts
Date: 06/19/2020 02:32 pm

Why the Ford Pinto didn’t suck

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suckThe Ford Pinto was born a low-rent, stumpy thing in Dearborn 40 years ago and grew to become one of the most infamous cars in history. The thing is that it didn't actually suck. Really.

Even after four decades, what's the first thing that comes to mind when most people think of the Ford Pinto? Ka-BLAM! The truth is the Pinto was more than that — and this is the story of how the exploding Pinto became a pre-apocalyptic narrative, how the myth was exposed, and why you should race one.

The Pinto was CEO Lee Iacocca's baby, a homegrown answer to the threat of compact-sized economy cars from Japan and Germany, the sales of which had grown significantly throughout the 1960s. Iacocca demanded the Pinto cost under $2,000, and weigh under 2,000 pounds. It was an all-hands-on-deck project, and Ford got it done in 25 months from concept to production.

Building its own small car meant Ford's buyers wouldn't have to hew to the Japanese government's size-tamping regulations; Ford would have the freedom to choose its own exterior dimensions and engine sizes based on market needs (as did Chevy with the Vega and AMC with the Gremlin). And people cold dug it.

When it was unveiled in late 1970 (ominously on September 11), US buyers noted the Pinto's pleasant shape — bringing to mind a certain tailless amphibian — and interior layout hinting at a hipster's sunken living room. Some call it one of the ugliest cars ever made, but like fans of Mischa Barton, Pinto lovers care not what others think. With its strong Kent OHV four (a distant cousin of the Lotus TwinCam), the Pinto could at least keep up with its peers, despite its drum brakes and as long as one looked past its Russian-roulette build quality.

But what of the elephant in the Pinto's room? Yes, the whole blowing-up-on-rear-end-impact thing. It all started a little more than a year after the Pinto's arrival.

 

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company

On May 28, 1972, Mrs. Lilly Gray and 13-year-old passenger Richard Grimshaw, set out from Anaheim, California toward Barstow in Gray's six-month-old Ford Pinto. Gray had been having trouble with the car since new, returning it to the dealer several times for stalling. After stopping in San Bernardino for gasoline, Gray got back on I-15 and accelerated to around 65 mph. Approaching traffic congestion, she moved from the left lane to the middle lane, where the car suddenly stalled and came to a stop. A 1962 Ford Galaxie, the driver unable to stop or swerve in time, rear-ended the Pinto. The Pinto's gas tank was driven forward, and punctured on the bolts of the differential housing.

As the rear wheel well sections separated from the floor pan, a full tank of fuel sprayed straight into the passenger compartment, which was engulfed in flames. Gray later died from congestive heart failure, a direct result of being nearly incinerated, while Grimshaw was burned severely and left permanently disfigured. Grimshaw and the Gray family sued Ford Motor Company (among others), and after a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned against Ford Motor Company. Ford did not contest amount of compensatory damages awarded to Grimshaw and the Gray family, and a jury awarded the plaintiffs $125 million, which the judge in the case subsequently reduced to the low seven figures. Other crashes and other lawsuits followed.

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

Mother Jones and Pinto Madness

In 1977, Mark Dowie, business manager of Mother Jones magazine published an article on the Pinto's "exploding gas tanks." It's the same article in which we first heard the chilling phrase, "How much does Ford think your life is worth?" Dowie had spent days sorting through filing cabinets at the Department of Transportation, examining paperwork Ford had produced as part of a lobbying effort to defeat a federal rear-end collision standard. That's where Dowie uncovered an innocuous-looking memo entitled "Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires."

The Car Talk blog describes why the memo proved so damning.

In it, Ford's director of auto safety estimated that equipping the Pinto with [an] $11 part would prevent 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries and 2,100 burned cars, for a total cost of $137 million. Paying out $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury and $700 per vehicle would cost only $49.15 million.

The government would, in 1978, demand Ford recall the million or so Pintos on the road to deal with the potential for gas-tank punctures. That "smoking gun" memo would become a symbol for corporate callousness and indifference to human life, haunting Ford (and other automakers) for decades. But despite the memo's cold calculations, was Ford characterized fairly as the Kevorkian of automakers?

Perhaps not. In 1991, A Rutgers Law Journal report [PDF] showed the total number of Pinto fires, out of 2 million cars and 10 years of production, stalled at 27. It was no more than any other vehicle, averaged out, and certainly not the thousand or more suggested by Mother Jones.

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

The big rebuttal, and vindication?

But what of the so-called "smoking gun" memo Dowie had unearthed? Surely Ford, and Lee Iacocca himself, were part of a ruthless establishment who didn't care if its customers lived or died, right? Well, not really. Remember that the memo was a lobbying document whose audience was intended to be the NHTSA. The memo didn't refer to Pintos, or even Ford products, specifically, but American cars in general. It also considered rollovers not rear-end collisions. And that chilling assignment of value to a human life? Indeed, it was federal regulators who often considered that startling concept in their own deliberations. The value figure used in Ford's memo was the same one regulators had themselves set forth.

In fact, measured by occupant fatalities per million cars in use during 1975 and 1976, the Pinto's safety record compared favorably to other subcompacts like the AMC Gremlin, Chevy Vega, Toyota Corolla and VW Beetle.

And what of Mother Jones' Dowie? As the Car Talk blog points out, Dowie now calls the Pinto, "a fabulous vehicle that got great gas mileage," if not for that one flaw: The legendary "$11 part."

Why the Ford Pinto didn't suck

Pinto Racing Doesn't Suck

Back in 1974, Car and Driver magazine created a Pinto for racing, an exercise to prove brains and common sense were more important than an unlimited budget and superstar power. As Patrick Bedard wrote in the March, 1975 issue of Car and Driver, "It's a great car to drive, this Pinto," referring to the racer the magazine prepared for the Goodrich Radial Challenge, an IMSA-sanctioned road racing series for small sedans.

Why'd they pick a Pinto over, say, a BMW 2002 or AMC Gremlin? Current owner of the prepped Pinto, Fox Motorsports says it was a matter of comparing the car's frontal area, weight, piston displacement, handling, wheel width, and horsepower to other cars of the day that would meet the entry criteria. (Racers like Jerry Walsh had by then already been fielding Pintos in IMSA's "Baby Grand" class.)

Bedard, along with Ron Nash and company procured a 30,000-mile 1972 Pinto two-door to transform. In addition to safety, chassis and differential mods, the team traded a 200-pound IMSA weight penalty for the power gain of Ford's 2.3-liter engine, which Bedard said "tipped the scales" in the Pinto's favor. But according to Bedard, it sounds like the real advantage was in the turns, thanks to some add-ons from Mssrs. Koni and Bilstein.

"The Pinto's advantage was cornering ability," Bedard wrote. "I don't think there was another car in the B. F. Goodrich series that was quicker through the turns on a dry track. The steering is light and quick, and the suspension is direct and predictable in a way that street cars never can be. It never darts over bumps, the axle is perfectly controlled and the suspension doesn't bottom."

Need more proof of the Pinto's lack of suck? Check out the SCCA Washington, DC region's spec-Pinto series.

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 139,553
  • Total Topics: 16,263
  • Online today: 555
  • Online ever: 1,681 (March 09, 2025, 10:00:10 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 523
  • Total: 523
F&I...more

My Somewhat Begrudging Apology To Ford Pinto

ford-pinto.jpg

I never thought I’d offer an apology to the Ford Pinto, but I guess I owe it one.

I had a Pinto in the 1970s. Actually, my wife bought it a few months before we got married. The car became sort of a wedding dowry. So did the remaining 80% of the outstanding auto loan.

During a relatively brief ownership, the Pinto’s repair costs exceeded the original price of the car. It wasn’t a question of if it would fail, but when. And where. Sometimes, it simply wouldn’t start in the driveway. Other times, it would conk out at a busy intersection.

It ranks as the worst car I ever had. That was back when some auto makers made quality something like Job 100, certainly not Job 1.

Despite my bad Pinto experience, I suppose an apology is in order because of a recent blog I wrote. It centered on Toyota’s sudden-acceleration problems. But in discussing those, I invoked the memory of exploding Pintos, perpetuating an inaccuracy.

The widespread allegation was that, due to a design flaw, Pinto fuel tanks could readily blow up in rear-end collisions, setting the car and its occupants afire.

People started calling the Pinto “the barbecue that seats four.” And the lawsuits spread like wild fire.

Responding to my blog, a Ford (“I would very much prefer to keep my name out of print”) manager contacted me to set the record straight.

He says exploding Pintos were a myth that an investigation debunked nearly 20 years ago. He cites Gary Schwartz’ 1991 Rutgers Law Review paper that cut through the wild claims and examined what really happened.

Schwartz methodically determined the actual number of Pinto rear-end explosion deaths was not in the thousands, as commonly thought, but 27.

In 1975-76, the Pinto averaged 310 fatalities a year. But the similar-size Toyota Corolla averaged 313, the VW Beetle 374 and the Datsun 1200/210 came in at 405.

Yes, there were cases such as a Pinto exploding while parked on the shoulder of the road and hit from behind by a speeding pickup truck. But fiery rear-end collisions comprised only 0.6% of all fatalities back then, and the Pinto had a lower death rate in that category than the average compact or subcompact, Schwartz said after crunching the numbers. Nor was there anything about the Pinto’s rear-end design that made it particularly unsafe.

Not content to portray the Pinto as an incendiary device, ABC’s 20/20 decided to really heat things up in a 1978 broadcast containing “startling new developments.” ABC breathlessly reported that, not just Pintos, but fullsize Fords could blow up if hit from behind.

20/20 thereupon aired a video, shot by UCLA researchers, showing a Ford sedan getting rear-ended and bursting into flames. A couple of problems with that video:

One, it was shot 10 years earlier.

Two, the UCLA researchers had openly said in a published report that they intentionally rigged the vehicle with an explosive.

That’s because the test was to determine how a crash fire affected the car’s interior, not to show how easily Fords became fire balls. They said they had to use an accelerant because crash blazes on their own are so rare. They had tried to induce a vehicle fire in a crash without using an igniter, but failed.

ABC failed to mention any of that when correspondent Sylvia Chase reported on “Ford’s secret rear-end crash tests.”

We could forgive ABC for that botched reporting job. After all, it was 32 years ago. But a few weeks ago, ABC, in another one of its rigged auto exposes, showed video of a Toyota apparently accelerating on its own.

Turns out, the “runaway” vehicle had help from an associate professor. He built a gizmo with an on-off switch to provide acceleration on demand. Well, at least ABC didn’t show the Toyota slamming into a wall and bursting into flames.

In my blog, I also mentioned that Ford’s woes got worse in the 1970s with the supposed uncovering of an internal memo by a Ford attorney who allegedly calculated it would cost less to pay off wrongful-death suits than to redesign the Pinto.

It became known as the “Ford Pinto memo,” a smoking gun. But Schwartz looked into that, too. He reported the memo did not pertain to Pintos or any Ford products. Instead, it had to do with American vehicles in general.

It dealt with rollovers, not rear-end crashes. It did not address tort liability at all, let alone advocate it as a cheaper alternative to a redesign. It put a value to human life because federal regulators themselves did so.

The memo was meant for regulators’ eyes only. But it was off to the races after Mother Jones magazine got a hold of a copy and reported what wasn’t the case.

The exploding-Pinto myth lives on, largely because more Americans watch 20/20 than read the Rutgers Law Review. One wonders what people will recollect in 2040 about Toyota’s sudden accelerations, which more and more look like driver error and, in some cases, driver shams.

So I guess I owe the Pinto an apology. But it’s half-hearted, because my Pinto gave me much grief, even though, as the Ford manager notes, “it was a cheap car, built long ago and lots of things have changed, almost all for the better.”

Here goes: If I said anything that offended you, Pinto, I’m sorry. And thanks for not blowing up on me.

10-STEP Simple 302 Install. No cutting neccisary!!

Started by beegle55, May 11, 2009, 09:41:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

smallfryefarm

Quote from: 71hotrodpinto on July 05, 2009, 01:25:30 AM
You have to remember that the newbies (like myself when i did mine) need to be told all the little details that they may come across that can make their life hell.
Right smallfryefarm?


AMEN 71hotrodpinto.
i came into my project thinking with all my brilliant know how and expert ability that i would have it done and looking good in two months. And now i sit here very humble 7 months later still finishing up loose ends. I look back and think S.O.B. that was quite painfull
Smallfryefarms Horsepower Ranch

75bobcatv6

Quote from: 71pintoracer on July 09, 2009, 11:31:49 PM
What the hell, let it stick out! If ya got it, flaunt it! :lol:

This is why no one wants to race you eh ? Course i would have anyways just to have fun.

71pintoracer

Quote from: turbo74pinto on July 09, 2009, 04:02:10 PM
[And if you'd like (at least in the 71-73 cars) to have the carb and the dist below the hood line (I'm exaggerating a little) then you have to do something about the steering shaft header interference.
What the hell, let it stick out! If ya got it, flaunt it! :lol:
If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?

turbo74pinto

[And if you'd like (at least in the 71-73 cars) to have the carb and the dist below the hood line (I'm exaggerating a little) then you have to do something about the steering shaft header interference.

from what i remember in my 76, everything fit under the hood...but not with an air cleaner.  although i think i had to do some reshaping of the oil pan around the rack if i remember correct. i may have also lowered the mounts on the frame

Also what bell housing and trans are we talking about?

small flywheel mustangii bell and c4 is what i used and it still needed a little work in the firewall area.

not as easy as it is played out to be...although is anything?

bob

Take a job big or small, do it right or not at all.

71hotrodpinto

You big time funny guy! Ha ha ..

What headers?? The only thing that comes close outside of the hooker swap headers are the old school Mustang II headers. And if you'd like (at least in the 71-73 cars) to have the carb and the dist below the hood line (I'm exaggerating a little) then you have to do something about the steering shaft header interference.

I lowered my steering rack 2 in and then modified (near made from scratch LOL) my mustang II Cyclone/Blackjack headers to snake over the steering shaft and then point out straight along the transmission.


Also what bell housing and trans are we talking about?

You have to remember that the newbies (like myself when i did mine) need to be told all the little details that they may come across that can make their life hell.
Right smallfryefarm?
Still though have to admire your candor :lol:


95' 302,Forged Pistons,Polished rods
B303,1.7 Rockers,beehives
'68 port/polish heads                   
Coated Must II headers
Edelbrock Airgap
Holley570,Msd dist,CraneHI6
Mil

pintoguy76

I'd like to know that too. And what headers did you use that didnt require any cutting? I'd drop in a V8 in my 74 2.3 wagon probably if I didnt have to do any cutting and welding. I'll stick to 2.3 turbo's, otherwise.
1974 Ford Pinto Wagon with 1991 Mustang DIS EFI 2.3 and stock Pinto 4 Speed

1996 Chevy C2500 Suburban with 6.5L Turbo Diesel/4L80E 4x2

1980 Volvo 265 with 1997 S-10 4.3 and a modified 700R4

2010 GMC Sierra SLE 1500 4x2 5.3 6L80E

popbumper

Yes, please tell us - I am confused about the core support, too! Looks like everything is welded in place; how does it come out without cutting?

Chris
Restoring a 1976 MPG wagon - purchased 6/08

turbo74pinto

works back to 74.  the 71-3 had less room at the core support, fire wall, and tranny tunnel.  but it also depends on what engine the car came with from the factory.  the 1.6, 2.0, 2.3 and 2.8s all have different frame mounts for the engine.  im not 100% sure about the 1.6 and 2.0s though. if i remember right, the factory 2.3 cars will drop right in.  i dont know about the 1.6 or 2.0 cars. i think when i did the v8 swap in my 2.8 wagon, i had to move and/or modify the mounts on the frame.  it also depends on what headers you use.  the factory miis will drop right in.  the hooker pro comps i had needed the rear 2 primaries to be run through the inner fender.  i dont know about any other aftermarket headers.

bob

ps, doesnt the core support need to be cut?   ???
Take a job big or small, do it right or not at all.

Carolina Boy

If life gives you a lemon, squeeze it in your moonshine and buy a Pinto.

dholvrsn

At least those park bench bumper and square headlight Pintos are good for something!  8)
'80 MPG Pony, '80-'92
'79 porthole wagon, '06-on
'80 trunk model. '17-on
-----
'98 Dodge Ram 1500
'95 Buick Riviera
'63 Studebaker Champ
'57 Studebaker Silver Hawk
'51 Studebaker Commander Starlight
'47 Studebaker Champion
'41 Studebaker Commander Land Cruiser

75bobcatv6


beegle55

Quote from: smallfryefarm on May 12, 2009, 08:47:09 AM
Nice list i wish my 71 was this simple. My ten steps had about 10 steps inside the 10 steps, one of which involved pulling out my hair. But little at a time i gotter in their.

Now that I think about it, this would probably only work in a Pinto of a later year, '76 onward because they could accomidate the V6 and may be better suited for a V8 install using my method. I know it works on a '78.

    -beegle55
2005 Jeep GC 5.7 HEMI
1993 Ford Mustang
1991 Ford Mustang GT
1988 Ford Mustang
1980 Ford Pinto Cruising- Mint, Fully documented
1979 Ford Pinto Trunk- 2.3L 4 speed
1978 Ford Pinto HB- 302 drag car
1976 Ford Pinto Runabout- 40,000 mi, V6
1972 Ford Maverick Grabber (real)
1970 Ford Mustang 302

Carolina Boy

Beegle, get a good close up of the mount with a ruler, the ear spacing is the stickler, Right? I too am researching substitue mounts. I have ideas in my head that are hard to explain. I will try to put them on paper and post later.

Your post is great and valued!!! It is only that the mounts are hard to find or way over priced, even used. I only want to make life simpler if I can for all of us.
If life gives you a lemon, squeeze it in your moonshine and buy a Pinto.

smallfryefarm

Nice list i wish my 71 was this simple. My ten steps had about 10 steps inside the 10 steps, one of which involved pulling out my hair. But little at a time i gotter in their.
Smallfryefarms Horsepower Ranch

popbumper

Quote from: beegle55 on May 11, 2009, 10:41:23 PM
Well if you go ahead with the 8" swap while considering a V8, at least you will be sitting pretty if and when the V8 lands itself into your wagon. Even if it doesn't happen, you will still be sittin' pretty!  8)

    -beegle55

Good news is, I already HAVE the rear end - as time and money allows (more a matter of TIME, the dang front end ate up a lot of time and I need to recoup some family time before I get in any more trouble  :P), so I'll probably get it on the car this Fall. I really need to find a good block and start building a motor on the side.

Chris
Restoring a 1976 MPG wagon - purchased 6/08

beegle55

Good question. I would say maybe look around on eBay to see if any come up. As for any aftermarket manufactures, I'm not aware of any. I'm not sure if a Maverick V8 motor mount would be the same or not; that's the only car I could think of that might have similar mounts. Someone may be able to help the thread out by giving some sources of motor mounts. I have a MII donor car hopefully lined up so I will be able to get everything I need for the swap and maybe a console and rallye wheel as well, but only if the stars align. Sorry I couldn't help more... I will post pictures tonight.

    -beegle55
2005 Jeep GC 5.7 HEMI
1993 Ford Mustang
1991 Ford Mustang GT
1988 Ford Mustang
1980 Ford Pinto Cruising- Mint, Fully documented
1979 Ford Pinto Trunk- 2.3L 4 speed
1978 Ford Pinto HB- 302 drag car
1976 Ford Pinto Runabout- 40,000 mi, V6
1972 Ford Maverick Grabber (real)
1970 Ford Mustang 302

Carolina Boy

OK, I'll play dumb. Where do you get MII motor mounts or is there something similar to use? That is my only hold back. Some pictures would be nice also.
If life gives you a lemon, squeeze it in your moonshine and buy a Pinto.

beegle55

Well if you go ahead with the 8" swap while considering a V8, at least you will be sitting pretty if and when the V8 lands itself into your wagon. Even if it doesn't happen, you will still be sittin' pretty!  8)

    -beegle55
2005 Jeep GC 5.7 HEMI
1993 Ford Mustang
1991 Ford Mustang GT
1988 Ford Mustang
1980 Ford Pinto Cruising- Mint, Fully documented
1979 Ford Pinto Trunk- 2.3L 4 speed
1978 Ford Pinto HB- 302 drag car
1976 Ford Pinto Runabout- 40,000 mi, V6
1972 Ford Maverick Grabber (real)
1970 Ford Mustang 302

popbumper

I'm glad to know ya! You understand what it's "all about". I may just go V8 yet. In the meantime, with my front end complete, I have an 8" rear end swap to think about - with the same attention to detail!! ;D


Chris
Restoring a 1976 MPG wagon - purchased 6/08

beegle55

Quote from: popbumper on May 11, 2009, 10:10:53 PM
Aw, Beegle, you are making me angry! The more I read about you guys and your V8 setups, the more I want to do it. Now, wouldn't a 302 look really sweet on my cleaned up front end? Where does this nutty stuff end?

>>>>arggghhh....... ???

Chris

We, in the business of Pintos, thrive off of nuttiness or else we wouldn't own these great little cars to begin with  ;D And a shiny 302 would be a great add to your wagon, especially if you continue to carry out your attention to detail and great work! Whatever you decide, I'm sure it will come out looking good in the end!

   -beegle
2005 Jeep GC 5.7 HEMI
1993 Ford Mustang
1991 Ford Mustang GT
1988 Ford Mustang
1980 Ford Pinto Cruising- Mint, Fully documented
1979 Ford Pinto Trunk- 2.3L 4 speed
1978 Ford Pinto HB- 302 drag car
1976 Ford Pinto Runabout- 40,000 mi, V6
1972 Ford Maverick Grabber (real)
1970 Ford Mustang 302

popbumper

Aw, Beegle, you are making me angry! The more I read about you guys and your V8 setups, the more I want to do it. Now, wouldn't a 302 look really sweet on my cleaned up front end? Where does this nutty stuff end?

>>>>arggghhh....... ???

Chris
Restoring a 1976 MPG wagon - purchased 6/08

beegle55

Here are the steps to an easy 302 swap using a setup from a Mustang II (front sump oil pan, Pinto-compatible headers, MII bell-housing, C4 or similar trans, MII engine mounts)

1.) Remove old engine components and clean out engine bay.
2.) Remove top of the radiator support, radiator, grill, etc parts in the front of the engine bay.
3.) Bolt engine to transmission, headers to engine, starter to engine, MOTOR MOUNTS TO ENGINE
4.) Lift setup with engine hoist.
5.) Slide the engine/trans into the bay
6.) With careful maneuvering, headers fit right in, bell housing bolts sit right on the firewall edge.
7.) Lower and bolt down motor mounts to the car.
8.) Hook up shifter, trans cables, fuel lines, etc.
9.) Replace the front engine bay components removed in step 2.
10.) Final check and bolt-ups, electronics, fuel lines, etc and you are ready to start and enjoy with the final button up.

Used on our 1978 Ford Pinto drag car. Makes engine install/removal a ten-step breeze. Enjoy!

    -beegle55
2005 Jeep GC 5.7 HEMI
1993 Ford Mustang
1991 Ford Mustang GT
1988 Ford Mustang
1980 Ford Pinto Cruising- Mint, Fully documented
1979 Ford Pinto Trunk- 2.3L 4 speed
1978 Ford Pinto HB- 302 drag car
1976 Ford Pinto Runabout- 40,000 mi, V6
1972 Ford Maverick Grabber (real)
1970 Ford Mustang 302


Welcome to FordPinto.com, home of the PCCA - the Pinto Car Club of America. Founded in 1999 with the goal of creating a dedicated meeting place with strong appeal to Ford Pinto and Mercury Bobcat owners and enthusiasts across all generations. Each day new members join the PCCA family expanding the knowledge base and enhancing our community.


Our site offers extensive information, technical and historic as well as live classifieds ads to find what you are looking for. One of our main goals is to save you time, money and a lot of hassle when searching for information about our cars. Not a member of our family yet? Please feel free to sign up
 for a free account and join the informative discussions in the forums when looking for that tidbit of info you seek. We, the members of FordPinto.com look forward to welcoming you to our family and hearing from you. We are here to assist in any way we can.


FordPinto.com supports the development of parts resources or parts re-manufacturing as opportunities arise. We promote the efforts of individuals and companies that endeavor to re-manufacture, sell, or otherwise distribute additional resources for the Ford Pinto or Mercury Bobcat.

As always, we at FordPinto.com encourage comments and suggestions on how we may be able to improve your experience with us. We take what our members have to say very seriously. Don't hesitate to submit your ideas and feedback.

management@fordpinto.com