Curbside Classics takes you back to 1971 for a virtual comparison test of six small cars, based (and partly borrowed) from a C/D test.
Few cars are more polarizing than the Pinto. Commonly derided for its exploding gas tank and general crappiness, other folks found (still find, obviously) it to be cheap, fairly reliable transportation with a variable fun quotient, depending on its configuration. Sometimes cars develop their reputations later in life, but the underdeveloped Pinto was pretty much an open book right from the beginning. A children’s book, at that. The Pinto should have been called the Foal; it was a baby car.
Although its incendiary qualities weren’t yet recognized, C/D‘s editors were very disappointed with its Lego-car structural integrity and build quality. “We can see it reviving all those terrible old Ford (Model T) jokes, like ‘What time is it when one Ford follows another Ford down the road? (answer: ‘tin after tin’)”. Actually, the Model T was made out of very high quality steel, so the joke is more than bit ironic.
Ford’s quest to keep weight and price low, (and possibly a rushed timeline) contributed to the tin can effect. “Whenever you hit a bump, the steering wheel whips around in your hands and the whole car rattles and rustles like a burlap bag full of tin cups. Self destruction seems only moments away.” As in when a GM X-body with locked rear brakes plows into that cute ass-end with its vulnerable gas tank .
I guess I was too young in 1971 to fully grasp the Pinto’s structural deficiencies. I was too busy grasping the steering wheel and stick shift of a 2-liter, 4-speed version through the narrow, snaking, river-hugging Jones Falls Road. Of all the Fords I was being paid as a seventeen-year old dealership car jockey to shuttle to the distant body shop down this road, that particular Pinto configuration was the most fun (the Mach1 Mustang had it beat except on the tightest of curves). Apparently I wasn’t the only one to appreciate the Pinto’s handling qualities:
“The rack-and-pinion steering and the shifter for the four-speed transmission are light and direct and the whole car bites into corners as though it knew what it was about.” Helps explain why the Pinto had a successful career as an SCCA Class B racer. Although not with the venerable Kent 1.6-liter pushrod engine that was in C/D‘s test Pinto. If they had tested the optional German OHC 2.0 version, the Pinto might well have moved up a notch in the rankings. The British engine was a noisy and gutless little lump, despite its pedigree in past (and future) Euro-Fordmobiles. In this version it made all of 75 (gross) horsepower, resulting in a very un-frisky zero-to-sixty time of fifteen seconds.
But it wasn’t just the acceleration; the Pinto with the 1.6 engine failed in the key freeway cruising test: it was a buzz-bomb. Detroit had (mostly correctly) identified the imports’ one major weakness: unpleasant cruising on the freeways at higher speeds. The tiny engines long favored in Europe and Japan due to their different conditions were not conducive to the American way of driving.
That’s why Detroit responded with six-cylinder compacts in 1960. But they defined a new larger “compact” class, rather than competing directly with the smaller imports. And now, with the import wave turning into a tsunami, Ford and GM were determined to take them head-on. And quiet comfortable freeway cruising was the one chink in the imports’ armor they sought to capitalize on.
The Gremlin sure excelled in that particular category. Unfortunately it was the only one. In just about every other dynamic aspect, it was an epic fail. But Ford was starting with a clean sheet. But they should have just left the 1.6 back in old Blighty,and started with the 2.0 as standard. Bean counters.
My memory of driving dozens of new Pintos off the transporter trucks tells me that well over two-thirds or more 1971s had the 2.0, although more of those came with the three-speed automatic. That combination was still as much of a drag as was the (brief) gf who had one of those. Too much moaning and not enough action.
Mercifully, the 1.6 disappeared after 1973. But the Pinto’s sporting qualities also started to evaporate about then too. De-smogged motors, despite their growth in displacement, became duller. Automatics became more common. Power steering, too. And Ford slathered on the sound-deadening insulation to mitigate those tin-can reverberations. In its later years, the Pinto became terminally boring, if freeway compliant.
With a ten-year production run, the Pinto outlasted its cross-town competitor, the Chevy Vega. And after the omni-present VW, it’s the most common of these six cars in Eugene today; I had to choose from between three (update: at least a half dozen or more) Pintos I’ve shot. This red example is particularly rare though, for all you Pinto-philes. The “Runabout” hatchback became available half-way through the first 1971 model year. And by 1972, the glass portion of the hatch doubled in size. Why do I actually remember useless details like these?
This particular Pinto speaks to me in the most sympathetic way possible (for a Pinto), and not just because of its relative rarity. It has that just-right balance of patina, freshness, and historical accuracy, right down to the vintage aftermarket wheels. Very unlike this late stage evolution (that’s a factory-direct Pinto Cruising Wagon). You younger folks (thankfully) don’t know what you were missing. The seventies started out on a high note, but . . . .
Tell me one specific model Detroit car that got better looking with age? (update: I’ve come to admit there were some exception’s to this rule). Designers spend years developing and styling a new car, just to start mucking it up in year two or three. And the government’s ridiculous five-mile bumpers didn’t help either. But this first-year Pinto is still frisky and as cute as a baby, even after almost four decades. Not bad for a tin can.
Related 1980 Pinto Wagons CC here
1971 Comparison Car #5 is here
I had a 79 Pinto ESS. It was supposed to be Ford’s idea to compete with the Golf maybe, I really don’t know. But it was a nicely equpped car, it came with everything, including a full rack of gauges, a/c, ps pb sunroof, full glass hatchback, ‘styled’ steel wheels and the 2.3 Lima and a 4 speed tranny. Mine was silver with blackouts not unlike the ‘cruiser’ version of the Pinto wagon mentioned in the post. There were other color schemes too. For the times, it wasn’t a bad car, but certainly not a 320i, either. Mine was fairly zippy, but it leaked oil from the rear main seal, and had other minor maintenance issues. I ignored the rear main leak too long, and spun the cam bearings. I had a racer friend replace the cam & bearings, we threw on a header and bigger two barrel and intake, and voila, slightly faster Pinto. At one time Pintos had their own classification in SCCA, and Racer Brown was a great place to get the go faster parts. By the time this car was built, the whole fire issue had been settled and my car had a big piece of foam behind the gas tank and ahead of the rear bumper. The car had pretty decent sound proofing, and true to form, was not a bad freeway cruiser. The car was a lot better than the earlier versions, but still not as nice as the contemporary Chevy Monza. You could get a V6 or even a SBC in one of those and go quick right out the box. And the fuel mileage wasn’t that much worse. I liked the one I had, but frankly, I don’t want another one. The 304 Gremmy from last week would be more fun.
One of my friends from high school had a Pinto, his brother had a 428 SCJ ’68 Mustang, and another brother had a ’73 Mach 1 with a 302 (they liked Fords, obviously). Well, the ’68 got wrapped around a tree and the motor & tranny was transplanted into the Mach. The 302 was put into the Pinto along with it’s C4 automatic. It was fast, about as fast as the Mach that weighed 1000 pounds heavier, but was scary to ride in – I was convinced it was falling apart every time I rode in it. But it was fast.
I had a neighbor years ago who ran a cheapo corner car dealership. They were mostly crap cars on their way to the junkyard, but every so often he’d get something half-decent at the auction. One day he shows up with a Pinto that someone stuffed a 302 & automatic into. Unfortunately, there was not a lot of attention to detail and the swap was pretty primitive. But, like your friend’s Pinto, it was damned fast. It also had extremely scary handling: with the V8 in front it was an understeering pig, and the original brakes were way too undersized to handle the speed the 302 could generate. I did a lap of our small town with that thing and was very glad to get back to our neighborhood, as I did not want to risk my life any further. My neighbor sold that car for about $2500 (this was in 1986), so for once he made a tidy profit.
From the right angle, in the right color, and with the right wheels… this isnt a bad looking car. I can see the European influence, its better looking than the Mustang II that was based on it, the shorter length fits the style better. We had one when I was kid for a beater daily driver, I dont remember it being any crappier than the 78 Caddy that replaced it…
Not a bad looking car. A family that lives in the crappy little apartments at the bottom of the hill from my rental has a pinto just like this one that Paul shot, with the edition of the stylsh yellow, red, and blue 6 in wide tape stripe down each side. It is their one and only daily driver.
Those five trim strips on the hatch look aftermarket, but they were standard on the ’71 Runabout. In ’72 it got a bigger rear window, as Paul said, and the trim went away. The wagon came standard with the front disc brakes and the 2.0 motor.
Those trim strips look ridiculous! The only advantage to the original Pinto runabout hatch is that it sort of covers whatever is rattling around in the wayback. The full glass hid nothing — but it sure looked a heck of a lot better. The all-glass hatches in the last couple years looked even better.
Some thoughts on the Pinto: When I was in the USAF, the officers in my outfit/office were all in competition with one another as far as “keeping up with the Joneses” went. One bought a new 1971 Pinto, soon, others bought them as well. A sergeant who heli-arced my window guide bracket on my ’64 Chevy’s driver’s door window owned Corvettes and his good history rewarded him with unusually low insurance rates. When another bracket broke on my car, I went to him and he had a new Pinto. I asked why? Well, it all came crashing down on him one evening and he got into a race with the CHP at speeds up to 150 mph (he had an LT1, and it was fast)! He eventually stopped and that was the end of the ‘Vettes for him, hence the Pinto! He gave me a ride in it and it wasn’t a ‘Vette, that’s for sure! The passenger seat wasn’t adjustable on his model, either. Decent enough for the times, I suppose, but in California, the Toyotas were simply better cars, as another friend of mine had a nice yellow 1971 Corolla 2 dr. wagon to prove it.
I had a ’72 wagon, with fake woodgrain on the sides. I paid $650.00 for it in 1982.
Don’t remember how long I kept it, but I loved the gas mileage at that time. One time when I was working in New York I looked at a new 1974, with all of the pollution ad-ons
the car ran like crap, even the salesman admitted it.
I had a ’72 that I bought in ’77 for $300 to use as a work car. It was the 2.0 with A/T. When I say work car,I don’t mean a commuter. I had gotten a job with an RCA auto radio wholesaler,and was doing dealer installs.I beat the living hell out of that car,as much as 120 miles a day,in NYC and suburbs. It never once left me stranded,got 30 mpg,and no one ever paid the slightest bit of attention to it!
That very original red ’71 looks to have its original license plates on it too. Hurrah for Oregon! I like the beanhole mags on the car too, very emblematic of the time.
Actually, I’m pretty sure those are Ford factory rims from a Mustang II or later year Pinto, ’74 or thereabouts. My sister drove a ’74 Pinto “Sport” (or some such name), loaded with even a sunroof, and it had these rims on it. The factory center hubs are missing on these. IIRC when issued with a Mustang II they had the prancing horse on a red background, and on the Pinto there were two concentric silver circles on the red background.
Now, THAT’s useless trivia for you.
The Pinto could be a reliable if primitive little beast, and it would be a lot better remembered if Ford had extended the “frame rails” to which the rear axle attached, all the way to the back of the car. There was a gap of approximately a foot between them and the sheetmetal transom panel to which the rear bumper attached. When hit hard from behind, this area just collapsed and drove the gas tank into the rear axle. Ford unwittingly corrected that error for 1974, when the rails were extended all the way to the rear in order to hold up the much heavier 5mph bumpers mandated that year.
Allegedly the design flaw was due to Iacocca’s demand that the engineers design a car that would be “2,000 lbs. for $2,000″, just as the original Mustang had been “2,500 lbs. for $2,500″. Sometimes you can’t go to the well twice.
When I was in S. California in 1986, I was amazed at all the early Pintos still running around the freeways. Here in Midwest, all the pre-78′s were rusted to the ground by then.
But, what I didn’t see there were any Vegas. Looks like even in rust-free CA, they were junked early.
It never fails – write about a Pinto, get a million Pinto stories. These cars were as common as pennies back in the day. I even had one, a poop-brown ’75. I loved that car beyond all reason. Damn. Now even I’ve told my Pinto story.
I too had one, a Baby Blue 72. 2.0/4 spd. with a dark blue interior. It was not a Runabout, so it seemed more solid. It also had a manual crank factory metal sunroof.
It was about 8 years old at the time. I was working in downtown LA, going to school at LACC and living in Hollywood. It wasn’t much at the stop light Grand Prix, consistently being beat out by the “extra” right lane “no parking 6AM-9AM” cheaters. But a fun car non-the-less.
(After that I had a new 82 5.0 HO Capri………I would intentionally shut down those cheaters! Fun especially when it was some snot nosed new BMW lol)
Medium Blue Metallic ’73 with a white interior, a 2.0 liter with a four-speed. Only option an AM radio. I thought it was just fine…until a lady in a ’67 Ambassador ran a red light in front of it.
I drove a 1971 pinto for years. It was a very
Reliable car. However the structural integrity
Was awful. I used many rolls of duck tape
I used staps to keep the doors closed. The
Dash fell all over the place