In the comment section of Chris Clark’s Honda Accord COAL, Paul said this in response to Eric703’s reminisces of a friend’s family’s disappointment with downsizing:
This was a not uncommon issue when folks drastically downsized during the two energy crises, and not just into imported small cars. The Pinto was the best selling nameplate in 1974; how many folks that had traded a big Ford on one in 1974 were still driving it three years later?
Since my parents were two of those people that traded in a big[ger] Ford on a Pinto in 1974, I thought that the 1974 Pinto deserved a closer look.
Much has been written about the Pinto on these pages, so most everyone knows the history of the car’s gestation. To better compete with the imports, Lee Iacocca, using the same keen management tactic that VW executives would later emulate with their diesel engineers, pronounced, “I want a car that weighs less than 2,000 pounds and costs less than $2,000, and I don’t care how you do it.” We know at least part of how they did it.
The most well-known change for 1974 was the introduction of the 2.3-liter “Lima” four-cylinder engine. Developed in-house to be the Mustang II’s base engine, it also became the Pinto’s “step-up” engine. It was loosely based on the design of the now-standard 2.0-liter engine imported from Ford of Europe, officially called the EAO engine, but it had soon been dubbed “the Pinto engine” by Europeans.
The Lima engine looks visually similar, but in all details is distinctly different, with different bore spacing, a taller and heavier block, and no parts interchange. Ironically, this North-America only 2.3 Lima engine series came to also be called the “Pinto engine” in Europe and other parts of the world, and the Wikipedia entry for “Ford Pinto engine” includes both the European EAO and the Lima engines. This creates further confusion, but that’s the reality of the common misunderstanding of these two visually and conceptually related but yet dimensionally different engine families.
The Lima engine was developed by Ford after the decision was made that the upcoming Mustang II would be based loosely on the Pinto and not on the Maverick as originally conceived, hence the need for a four. Also, since the volumes of engines needed for both the MII and the Pinto were going to be quite substantial, it only made sense for Ford to build their four in NA rather than import it from Europe, especially after the dollar was devalued in 1971.
The Lima ultimately shared very little with the “Pinto” EAO engine – just some nuts and bolts, although they do look quite similar visually. Despite its larger displacement, in 1974 the 2.3 only generated two more hp (82) in the Pinto the 2.0 L Pinto engine’s 80, which was down from 86 hp in ’72 and 83 hp in ’73 due to emission controls. However, one had to rev the smaller engine to 5,400 to unlock it all, while the Lima made peak power at a lower 4,600. More importantly, its 112 lb-ft of torque came at a low 2,600 RPMs vs. 103 lb-ft @ 3,200 for the 2.0.
Due to its longer stroke, the Lima was neither as smooth nor as quiet as the 2.0 Pinto/EAO engine it was (loosely) based on. The Lima was designed specifically for American applications and driving style which favored a fatter and lower torque peak whereas the Europeans favored a high hp output, which also required a higher torque peak rpm. But that’s not to say the Lima engine didn’t have potential: it would be successfully turbocharged up to 205 hp in the Mustang SVO, and its very stout block and internals make it a favorite for those cranking up the boost to generate well over 400 hp. And somewhat ironically, the American Lima engine has found favor with European tuners and racers because the Lima block and its internals are known to be stronger than the European “Pinto” engine, which was also built there in 1.3,and 1.6 L versions.
Love it or hate it, the Lima would power various Fords in its original incarnation until 1997 and in larger 2.5-liter form until 2001. There was also a 2.0 L version used in the ’83-’88 Ford Ranger (not to be confused with the 2.0 “Pinto” EAO engine.
In the 1974 Pinto – especially the wagon – the Lima, with its additional torque, was likely a better fit. The main reason is that the required 5 MPH bumpers added a bit under 180 pounds over the 1973 model. Overall, the base sedan ballooned almost 250 pounds over the 1973 model and 457 pounds since its 1971 introduction. Ford added a lot of strengthening and sound deadening to the Pinto body for ’74 in order to cure the “tin can” reputation the early versions had. The wagon was now just under 2,600 pounds. It’s no wonder that the 1.6-liter “Kent” engine was dropped. The 2.0 Pinto engine would disappear for 1975 when the Cologne 2.8-liter V6 was added as an option.
The other big change for 1974 was the redesign of the short and long arm components of the front suspension for added strength – likely to accommodate the bumper and the Lima. The springs were also recalibrated for a softer ride. Finally, the center-mounted license plate holder was eliminated due to the massive new bumper.
The basic 2-door sedan started at $2,527 ($16,778 adjusted). Notable standard features (as noted in the brochure) include a fully synchronized, 4-speed manual transmission WITH floor-mounted shifter (the Vega and Gremlin still came with a standard 3-speed and with no 4-speed option in the Gremlin), impact resistant front and rear bumper system (if you have to add all of that cost and weight to a car, might as well call it out), DirectAire ventilation and 3-speed heater (not air conditioning, mind you, but ventilation), parking lamps, inside hood release and seat belt interlock system (like all 1974 cars sold in the U.S.).
For appearance and comfort, there were high back contoured all-vinyl front seats, floor mats (which, surprisingly, is NOT standard in most cars today), mini console, reversible keys with “keyless locking” (I’m guessing this means you can lock the door before closing it? You couldn’t do this before?), bright backlight and windshield moldings, and, finally, slotted “argent” wheels and hub caps.
Stepping up to the $2,676 Runabout ($17,767 adjusted) added a hatch in place of the tiny trunklet in the sedan as well as a fold-down rear seat and color-keyed carpeting in the passenger compartment and load area. In addition to the additional cargo space – up to 60 cubic feet – the $2,771 wagon ($18,398 adjusted) also got you “flipper” rear quarter windows.
Trust me, those rear passengers were not that comfortable. The tiny 94.2-inch wheelbase and rear-wheel drive made for a tight rear quarters, even for a kid.
Potential customers could really dress up their Pintos, starting with the $94 ($624 adjusted) Accent Group. This bought you bright exterior trim and black vinyl insert body protection moldings. If you coughed up $208 for the Luxury Décor Group ($1,381 adjusted; sedan – $192 on the Runabout & $137 on the wagon), you received everything in the Accent Group as well as upgraded interior trim with wood-tone accents and the same steering wheel you’d find in the Thunderbird and LTD.
At the top of the heap was the Sports Accent Group at $428 ($2,842 adjusted) which added the “super sound” package, lush 25-oz. cut-pile carpeting, steel-belted radial whitewalls with color-keyed wheel covers and a few other model-specific features, such as a funny-looking vinyl top on the Sedan and Runabout. On top of these packages, you could add actual air conditioning for $383 ($2,543 adjusted), “SelectShift” automatic transmission for $212 ($1,408 adjusted), a $222 ($1,474 adjusted) AM/FM Stereo, and a $149 ($989 adjusted) manual sunroof.
The Lima engine was a relative bargain at $52 ($345 adjusted). Of course, we can’t forget the $241 ($1,600 adjusted) Squire package for the wagon, which includes everything from the Luxury Décor Group plus woodgrain vinyl paneling, a cargo light, and the affectionate nickname “Country Squirt”.
Therefore, someone stepping down to a compact could land in a nicely outfitted car, but they still have to drive the thing. Early manual Pintos with the 2.0-liter engine were actually decent performers for their day, hitting 60 in about 11 seconds. By 1974, according to Automobile-Catalog.com, this combo fell to about 13.5 seconds. Add the SelectShift and it dropped further to 15.4 seconds. Moving up to a Lima-equipped wagon with SelectShift added another half second with a lot of noise, vibration, and harshness. Not that this is abnormally slow for 1974. It’s only about 2 seconds slower than a 302-powered Gran Torino four-door sedan. Of course, the Gran Torino was a lot smoother with a lot more room.
The Gran Torino will also only get about 13 mpg combined. A Lima-powered, SelectShift-equipped Pinto wagon gained…less than 5 mpg. That’s what my parents discovered when they traded in my mother’s turquoise blue 1967 Mustang 289 with a black vinyl top for a wagon identical to the one in these pictures. How could they not know? You’ll notice that in addition to horsepower numbers, gas mileage is also nowhere to be found in the Pinto brochure. Most people thought that small cars were just naturally fuel efficient.
Remember, Ford cares about your safety!
Not that my parents were strangers to the small-car scene. Over the years, their fleet included a 40-hp 1961 VW convertible, a 1969 Volkswagen Squareback, and my father had recently purchased a 1974 Super Beetle. However, my father, who clearly had an affection for air-cooled Volkswagens, was the primary driver of those vehicles. From my mother’s point of view, and likely from the point of view of the millions of people who traded in their decent-performing, pre-emissions V8s due to the gas crisis, this was a huge tradeoff for not quite enough benefit.
And that was the rub. In addition to the battering-ram bumpers, the more Ford attempted to “broughamize” the Pinto and Mustang II, which Iacocca called his “little limousine”, the more weight was added and the less efficient they became. On the flip side, the far more efficient Japanese and German competition offered a far more austere experience, often with a higher price that was just not enough to justify the better gas mileage. As Chris stated in his piece about his mother’s 1980 Honda Accord with the automatic transmission, “To [my father], the Accord must have seemed too small, too expensive, too slow, too uncomfortable and too under-equipped.” While the early Accord might have seemed like a luxury car to those stepping up from a Civic, it had nothing on a Pinto with the Sports Accent Group.
However, 544,209 individuals and businesses took a chance on the Pinto in 1974, which was a 12% improvement over 1973 and enabled it to be crowned the best-selling car of that year. I once asked my dad why they bought the Pinto, as I can’t imagine the test drive was very enthralling. His response was that they couldn’t afford any of its foreign competition. While in price the Pinto might have competed with the VW Beetle, Toyota Corolla and Datsun B210, in size, it was closer to the Dasher, Corona Mark II and 610.
Bumper to bumper, the sedan and Runabout are as long as a Chevy Bolt EUV, while the wagon is about an inch longer than my Mazda CX-5. The Corona Mark II wagon started at $3,129 ($20,755 adjusted), while a 610 wagon came in at an almost eye-watering $3,879 ($25,755 adjusted). The Dasher beats them both with a base price of $4,295 ($28,517 adjusted) for a wagon with a 75-horsepower 1.5-liter four, four-speed manual transmission, and no air. A Pinto Squire with the Lima, air, SelectShift, and sunroof was only $4,030 by comparison.
I asked my mother recently what she didn’t like about her Pinto, the only car they ever traded in before it was paid off. Her response was that it was ugly, slow and didn’t get much better gas mileage than her Mustang. She could look past the tight quarters and atrocious handling of the Mustang because it was a beautiful car with snappy acceleration. What did the Pinto have that could encourage owners to look past its glaring deficiencies? Not much, it turns out. Sales dropped 59% for 1975 and hovered around the 200k mark for the rest of its run.
Thanks also to the Standard Catalog of American Cars, the Standard Catalog of Imported Cars and Dezo’s Garage for information about the Pinto and its competition.
Also, there’s this road test by Bob Lindemann of the 1974 Pinto and Vega is pretty interesting.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1971 Ford Pinto – 1971 Small Car Comparison No. 4
Curbside Classic: 1971-72 2.0 OHC Pinto- The Fastest Pinto Ever Built
Car Show Classic: 1974 Ford Pinto Runabout – Little Boat
Curbside Classic: 1977 Ford Pinto – The Townsend Agency Cheaped Out
My cousin had the v6 Pinto Runabout – her father always bought Lincolns so she did the Ford thing for her first new car. The Pinto almost got her killed several times because it habitually stalled in the middle of intersections. The Pinto also got lousy mpg, @16mpg and it was near impossible to service because the engine was too large for access – read for some servicing like new plugs the engine needed to be removed. The v6 provided all the performance of a 4 w/ the mpg of a 6 or v8.
She never bought another Ford but she did buy the all new Cavalier in 1981 and that was another miserable experience.
” it was near impossible to service because the engine was too large for access – read for some servicing like new plugs the engine needed to be removed”. I worked in a Ford dealership and this isn’t true. The V6 wasn’t all that bad to service, but most customers didn’t keep up with oil changes or valve adjustments. It was an European engine that liked European levels of attention. The biggest problem we had with the Cologne V6 was in very cold weather the plastic cam gear would shatter on start up and it was a bastard to get to.
The OP is probably thinking of the Chevy Monza, which required either special sockets or jacking the engine (or both) to replace the spark plugs.
I may have mentioned this before in another Lima post, but I think it bears repeating…
The Lima 2300 was a very popular engine to build for 4-cylinder circle track racing. They had a large (for the time) displacement, were fairly stout, even in stock form, and dirt cheap in junkyards within a few years of introduction.
Here’s where it gets weird… by the late 1980s, some enterprising Lima engine builder discovered that the four valve per cylinder head from Volvo’s short-lived B234F engine (a DOHC head on Volvo’s famous “redblock” engine) was a sort of direct bolt-on for the Lima engine. I believe some cooling and/or oil passages had to be modified, but the bore spacing and head bolt pattern was a direct fit.
I’m not sure if I remember knowing that the 2.3 was loosely based on the 2.0 “EAO” engine, but that engine appears to have gone into production in 1970. The Volvo “redblock” OHC engine was derived from the OHV “redblock” engine (B18) introduced in the early 1960s.
Did Ford of England (or Europe) crib the design of the EAO engine from Volvo? I don’t think we can ever know. But how else would the bore spacing and head bolt pattern be common from the Volvo engine to the Lima engine?
Sheer coincidence. And I’d have to find the details of the issues other than the bore spacing being the same. I suspect some modifications were necessary.
It’s hardly the first time cylinder heads from another make have been swapped.
I just found the relevant forum post: https://www.rallyanarchy.com/phorum/read.php?5,113177
If you actually read it carefully, it makes it clear that the Lima and Volvo engines do not have the exact same cylinder spacing requiring some reworking of the combustion chambers and there are a ton of other issues that have to be addressed, including aluminum welding to the Volvo cylinder head.
It’s very much not a “bolt on” installation. It requires a significant amount of machining, welding and fabricating, including external oil lines and machining water openings to match, just for starters.
Although it’s been done at least once, the question as to whether it’s cost effective is highly questionable. There are aftermarket aluminum DOHC heads available that are probably better and cost no more (or less) in the final analysis.
Unfortunately I was one of the 244K+ $uckaaas…err…”happy” Pinto buyers for 1974. We traded a near new ’73 VW Super Bug in CLEMENTINE (bright orange) for a metallic brown, 2.3L, 4 spd Pinto wagon. After not much more than 10K miles were showing, it became obvious that at a minimum a complete tune up was required. On my ’56 Chevy 150…ok, but this new sorta hi-tech (for 1974) Ford Pinto???? UHHHH???
The car was creamed not long after by a clown in a hurry who couldn’t be bothered with the red STOP sign. Fortunately none of the 4 of us in the car got injured, primarily due to the low speed of the impact. However, not long after the Pinto was repaired I di$po$ed of it and bought a used up ’69 Nova 230 c.i. 6 with the semi-auto trans…….which worked quite nicely during our Wisconsin Winter! 🙂 DFO
“…For appearance and comfort, there were high back contoured all-vinyl front seats, floor mats (which, surprisingly, is NOT standard in most cars today)…”
I think the “floor mats” referenced here means a rubber/vinyl floor covering in lieu of carpeting, which required stepping up to the Runabout or one of the accent groups.
Bit of an odd story, but in June of ’75 I stayed with my Grandparents a few weeks (we never lived any closer than about a 3 hour drive from them) because I was going to Lafayette College for a week. After returning from Lafayette, my grandparents took me with them for a day trip to one of my Grandmother’s brothers cottage on the Susquehanna. Their son was a couple years younger than I, but didn’t yet have a driver’s license which I’d gotten the previous summer, so when they wanted someone to pick up some unpasturized milk at a nearby farm (most of them had likely been drinking) I was elected to drive his Mother’s Pinto with him giving me directions (I’d never been to the cottage before).
Othe than getting driven to typing class during the summer of ’72 (my Mother though we should learn to type) that was my only exposure to a Pinto…a bit surprising, since we were on our 2nd Ford Wagon, but at the time my Father owned a Renault 10 as his 2nd car (he started buying domestic small cars in 1980). My first car was a 1974 Datsun 710.
Not sure what year the Pinto was but guess it might have been a ’73…it had an automatic. I was a driver for Hertz a few year later, and it really surprises me that I never drove a Pinto nor Maverick while working for them 2 years, despite their specializing in Fords back then. Drove Granada, and (in ’78) Fairmont and plenty of LTD II and Thunderbirds (and several non-Fords, including a Toyota and Datsun which were just starting to show up in small numbers).
Ironically, this North-America only 2.3 Lima engine series was known in Europe and other parts of the world as the “Pinto” engine, but its correct name is “EAO”. It got its “Pinto” name because they were used in the 1971-1974 Pinto (as well as the Capri).
…The Lima ultimately shared very little with the Pinto EAO engine
I’m confused. Who’s on First?
I remember when several small US cars began advertising 34 highway mpg in 1974, I assume by lowering the axle ratio. I wonder how those performed in everyday driving.
The engine that was commonly called “the Pinto engine” especially in Europe was a European engine (EAO) that was designed there and was built there starting in 1970. Ford imported a 2.0 L version from Europe to use in the Pinto. That’s where the name comes from.
But Ford in the US wanted and needed a somewhat larger domestically-built four, so they designed a new engine which has some general design similarities to the “Pinto/EAO” engine, but was actually different in its key dimensions and such, and did not share parts. This new engine was the Lima 2.3. It was only built in NA.
And after 1974, the European 2.0 “Pinto” EAO four was no longer imported to the US.
Is that any clearer?
It confused me as well.
“The most well-known change for 1974 was the introduction of the 2.3-liter “Lima” four-cylinder engine. Developed in-house to be the Mustang II’s base engine, it also became the Pinto’s “step-up” engine. It was loosely based on the design of the now-standard 2.0-liter engine imported from Ford of Europe, but in all details is distinctly different, with different bore spacing, a taller and heavier block, and numerous other details. Ironically, this North-America only 2.3 Lima engine series was known in Europe and other parts of the world as the “Pinto” engine, but its correct name is “EAO”. It got its “Pinto” name because they were used in the 1971-1974 Pinto (as well as the Capri).”
The first sentence says the 2.3 Lima engine was introduced in 1974. The second to last sentence says the 2.3 Lima engine was known in the Europe as the Pinto engine. the last sentence says it got the Pinto name because it was used in the 1971-1974 Pinto. Now see sentence #1… Somewhere in there it appears that 2.3 should instead read 2.0 but it’s also saying the NorthAmerica only 2.3Lima IS the EAO as well as being known as the Pinto engine which is not what you explained.
I’ve edited that section for clarity.
Here’s where the confusion really comes from: although these two engine families (European EAO and American Lima) are quite similar in their architecture and look visually almost alike, their key dimensions are all different. Yet in common parlance, especially in Europe, both engine families are referred to as “the Pinto engine”. Even Wikipedia does that, with both engine families covered in their page called “Ford Pinto Engine”:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto_engine
The problem is semantic. In Europe both are commonly referred to as “the Pinto engine”. In the US we tend to refer to the 2.3 (and variants) as “the Lima engine”.
It’s clearly more accurate to differentiate between the two with their correct names, which is why Ford has never used the term “Pinto engine” and discourages its use, calling the European engine the “EAO” although it was called “OHC” when first built.
It’s all-too obvious that Ford in the US used the European EAO as a starting point in designing the Lima 2.3, but they had to make many significant changes to accommodate the larger displacement and such. So the question is (and the confusion stems from) are these in the same engine family, or not. It can be debated either way, but I prefer to say they are not, since nothing interchanges except possibly a few bolts and nuts.
Does that help?
Yes so the 2.0 was offered first and is the European EAO engine and then stateside they used that as a basis to create the 2.3 which is the Lima engine and was offered from 1974 onwards. The Europeans call them both Pinto engines probably since they were both used in Pintos and they suffered from the Forbidden Fruit Syndrome wherein a Ford Pinto is automotive nirvana to the average European, overshadowed only slightly by the Mustang II. And Maverick. /s.
Thanks.
I just caught that as well and was about to make that same comment! Sorry about that, folks. Paul, if you could correct that, I’d appreciate it.
My father, working at Ford’s Cleveland Casting Plant then, explained (roughly quoted) that the goal in creating the 2.3 was creating something more in line with what (non-enthusiast) Americans wanted from their cars, including maintenance schedules and all that….hence the stouter block, move to hydraulic lifters, and so on. I am amazed at all the high performance equipment (Esslinger, etc.) made for these engines for the circle track and drag strip.
My Pinto was a last-year 1980; I was accustomed to “malaise” zero-to-60 times, but had no complaint with performance or gas mileage. Here’s Popular Mechanics (fall 1975) telling us about Ford’s recent and latest changes under the hood–mostly aimed at gas mileage–along with the catalytic converters coming into use (helping likewise):
In the mid-eighties, I bought a ’74 Pinto wagon, that same green color, but with the Squire package. 2.3, 4-speed. A nice looking.
fun car to drive. Unfortunately, it was totaled one evening, being hit head on by… wait for it… another Pinto station wagon.
Thank you for explaining the differences between the Lima and European Pinto engines. This article clears up some confusion I’ve had about the relationship between the two, which, it turns out, seems to be little more than the fact that both were used in the 1974 Pinto.
I also seem to recall comments in a prior post about the early Pintos being almost nimble and lithe, with the 2.0 liter versions being a favorite at SCCA competitions. This was before getting the structural enhancements for the 1974 model year, when the cars became porky slugs. In contrast, its most direct competitor, the Vega, enjoyed a consistently good reputation for its handling, even while living down its reputation for consistently bad reliability. The Vega hatchback gained only about 300 lbs from 1971 to 1974, so that may have had something to do with it.
My mother got a 74 wagon after her 68 Satellite wagon. Had to be a let down for her in the power department. It had the 2.3 with automatic and it was a DOG. The dealer could never get that engine to work as intended. The car was so pitiful off the line that Jesse Owens could beat it across an intersection, with room to spare, after the light turns green.
I owned a very basic 1977 Pinto, bought new, with the 2.3 engine, 4-speed manual and no air conditioning. The handling was pretty good, but the engine left a bit to be desired (not very peppy, not very smooth). However, it was very dependable and durable. I put a lot of miles on it, and don’t recall it needing any work other than routine wear items.
The 2.3L also did duty in the SVO Mustang, where a turbocharger was added, along with internal upgrades to handle the extra power, but I don’t remember if Ford added balance shafts at that time to dampen the vibration in the four-cylinder power plant or not. Salvaging SVO motors from the junkyard is a possible upgrade path for Mustang II and Pinto owners, if there are any left to salvage.
The modern 2.3L Ecoboost engine shares nothing with its Lima ancestor except its displacement, with the aluminum alloy block and DOHC cylinder heads with sixteen (16) valves in those heads, so that’s another upgrade option, with some fiddling, as the Ecoboost is available as a crate motor from Ford Performance. One potential issue in the swap is that the Lima engine is a “slant” design, canted over about thirty degrees or so in the Pinto, to clear the low hood line. I can’t remember if it was more upright in the SVO Mustang or not.
“One potential issue in the swap is that the Lima engine is a “slant” design, canted over about thirty degrees or so in the Pinto, to clear the low hood line. I can’t remember if it was more upright in the SVO Mustang or not.”
Not sure what motor you’re thinking of, but Ford always mounted the Lima motor in the vertical (12 o’clock) position. I can say this with confidence as I’ve owned and serviced 4 Pintos over the years along with several Fox body Mustangs and a Ranger Pickup all using the Lima engine. The only slant four from this era I can think of is the Triumph four (first used in the Saab 99).
The Lotus 907 was also a slant four produced in this era.
They weren’t selling the “Pinto Pony MPG” model yet, in “74”?
CC effect. I just saw one of these in the grocery store parking lot the other day. It was a brown squire that looked pretty good. I got to meet the owner on the way out. She’s semi retired and her old car was totaled not long ago. She found it up for sale and said why not? She works part time and just needed something to drive. She did tell me that when she bought it she couldn’t remember ever seeing a pinto wagon before. She seems to be enjoying it.
Metro Toronto Police, circa the summer of 1978.
As a kid, I did like Ford’s Stallion packages from 1976.
Great post.
Significant other in 1978 had a ’74 Pinto Wagon, pea soup green just like the photo. I hated it – the handling was sloppy, the materiel quality cheap, and the 2.3 engine shook and sounded like it belonged in a tractor. Just as bad, simple maintenance was a headache – I can remember getting to the oil filter from below required double-jointed arms.
It was however fairly reliable, about the only charitable thing I could say about it.
Fascinating details here .
I wasn’t impressed with Pintos when new but as daily urban drivers they really did the job well and lasted a long time to boot .
Thanx for the Pinto/Vega comparo video .
-Nate
My favorite part of those old Bud Lindemann videos is those Rockford Files J-turns. I don’t think any road testers perform that maneuver, anymore.
My first ever time to be there when a car was bought was in 1973 when I was able to accompany my parents to pick out their brand new Caprice! But that’s a story for another time!!
The second car was with my neighborhood best friend Julio. His parents had moved here from Mexico and I just remember that his dad was some type of doctor that was hired by OSU.
Anyway Mr Julio drove a 1970 Mustang, dark green with no options at all!! Mrs Julio drove a 1965 Mercury Breezeway sedan that was getting a bit old. She wanted a new Toyota, he wanted a new Mazda and they settled on an early production 1974 Pinto wagon. It was loaded! She was so proud of her baby blue Pinto. And that car took us everywhere!
I don’t recall them ever having an issue with that car. They moved about a year and half later.
I would wonder about my friend for many years. Then, one day in 1998, a young man dropped off two keys to be made and asked for 4 of each. Said he was going to the pizza shop and would come back.
As we completed our transaction, I noticed the spelling of his last name and made a comment. I mentioned that I only ever knew of one family who spelled their name the same way. He looked at me, surprised, and said well they were not from around that area originally.
I said, “I think your dad drove a 1970 Mustang and mom a 1974 Pinto.” He looked at me and said that’s right. Who are you?
I told him I was Chip from his childhood! He said, no, can’t be. Uh? He told me that I had died in a head on accident!
Anyways we got to see both his parents who were thrilled!
Small world
I don’t get the engine thing.
The original Euro Pinto isn’t a bad unit, being revvy and smooth enough, and quite reliable (from memory, once they’d sorted the ohc oil supply). Not class-leading or even particularly ohc-feeling in my memory, but certainly ok. I get that a torquier job was needed for Stateside driving, especially as emissions stuff grew too, but why on earth make an (essentially) unrelated engine to do that, according to what’s written here? And, again according to this piece and many others from CC, a substantially rougher-running one? Why not just stroke the proven original, and fiddle with details a bit? Seems like a bizarre result of a lesser product for what has to be a fair bit of investment, given the differences.
It’s all quite logical. If you’re going to invest in a major brand new engine manufacturing facility, which is very expensive due to the huge transfer lines that machine the block and head and such, the cost of redesigning the engine that’s going to be built there for years on end by the millions is…peanuts.
The European “Pinto” EAO engine was maxed out at 2.0 L; it was a physically smaller unit designed for Europe to fill the 1.3 to 2.0 L range. In the US Ford needed a bigger engine with more torque. So they scaled it up some.
The real cost of building engines is in the transfer lines. This explains why Ford’s Cleveland small-block V8 has no major interchangeable parts with the Windsor small block V8; they were built at different facilities, so it made sense to change the Cleveland version for certain reason.
As to it running a bit rougher, any four that’s been stroked from 2.0 to 2.3 L will run rougher. The MB 2.3 was decidedly less smooth than the 2.0 version. And so on. 2.0 L was considered the biggest size for a four to run decently smooth without balance shafts.
The Lima 2.3 was later increased to 2.5 L too. I any case, it was a good unit, with a tougher block and such, which is why it became so popular with the go-fast crowd.
I went to a ritzy private school in the ’70s. Skiing and equestrian events were pretty much considered legitimate reasons for excused absences. Nonetheless, Pinto wagons were reasonably popular conveyances for mothers to drive for a few years. One friend’s mother drove one even though her husband was a heart surgeon, and they came from generational wealth on both sides of the family. It seems like the last time something similar happened was when the second-generation Prius was considered acceptable on the strength of HOV lane access and Hollywood product placement. There’s no faking wealth now though. If you live anywhere that neighbors can see each other’s homes, then you’d better step up and drive something that would have a four-figure monthly payment if you financed it. Otherwise, people will assume you’re a poor, and many will ask why you don’t buy an appropriate SUV or truck.
Out of interest, does anyone know how much, if any, Ford Cortina or Taunus there was in the Pinto? Or is it, engine apart, just rumour?
My understanding was quite a bit. Obviously the whole body is all new, but from what I seem to remember, the Pinto’s suspension and steering were heavily based on the Cortina MkII. And of course the 1.6 and 2.0 engines and almost certainly the 4-speed manual transmission.
My understanding was that they essentially started with a Cortina MkII and decided what to keep or adapt or change.
I think if you look into it, you’ll find that the Pinto’s front suspension was very close to that of the MK3 Cortina while the rear suspension combined a MK3 rear axle with a semi-elliptic leaf spring rear suspension similar to the MK2 Cortina’s. The MK2 Cortina had MacPherson strut front suspension, unlike the Pinto and MK3 Cortina. The MK3 Cortina and Pinto were also wider than the MK2.
Yes, I actually meant to say Mk3. It came out just before the Pinto in 1970, and obviously the engineers on both sides of the Atlantic were working in coordination.
The only halfway decent Pinto is the station wagon.
The 1966 – 1972 Opel Kadette station wagon was the major benchmark that Ford engineers sought to exceed. They failed in some very critical ways.
Ford engineers at the time that they were doing engineering analysis before developing the Pinto, found the OPEL Kadette to be the best handling small car in the marketplace at the time. (They must not have tested a Datsun 510, as the 510 had IRS, except the wagon which had a live axle)
There is no question that the OPEL Kadette did have better seats and better space utilization for its size, as well as a superb ride, even if its engines were very noisy but nearly as reliable as the L-16 in the Datsun and more reliable than Toyota four cylinder engines were in the late sixties.
The OPEL was narrow in width at approx 62″ in body width and maybe approximately 50″ wheel track.
The OPEL had a great design flip up station wagon lift gate that is much like a first generation 2001-2008 Honda Jazz / FIT lift gate, except The OPEL Kadette wagon had that in 1964. The otherwise beautiful but hugely POS, Chevy II wagon could have benefit from the German GM wagon hatch design in ’64…………but No, and yet still the VEGA kammback wagon was an abomination of bad design and poor space utilization.
The Vega was not ugly for sure but whatever engineers designed it and the Pinto must have been hung over and were probably engineers who barely skated through University by the skin of their teeth, with maybe just a 2.01 GPA.
Ford engineers made the Pinto with outstanding front suspension and with a good, proven , leaf spring , live axle rear suspension.
The Track was wider than even the Vega. This was a good thing. My guess is that the Pinto wheel track was about 55″ , and the Pinto was wider in external body width of perhaps 69, maybe 70″ inches. This was all great.
The KENT 1.6 liter English Ford engine was excellent and proven. The 2.0 liter SOHC
German Ford engine was excellent.
PINTO’S PROBLEMS (excluding the Fuel Tank and Fuel Filler Hose location on the non-stationwagons);
***Pinto problems as I saw it then was the interior space was horribly done. Seating comfort was Terrible. Only the VEGA was worse, with a much junkier interior.
The door panels and the dash, headliner, sunvisors and door handles, window cranks were good on the Pinto. The door panel design and vinyl was nice looking.
The trouble was that the idiots at Ford designed the car with a roof height that was about 3 inches too low. Yeah it may have been something that they wrongly believed would appeal to young people, but that was the Pinto’s Achilles Heel. The damn seats had to sit basically on the fricking floor, and it made a terrible car to drive anywhere for a long period sitting in those seating positions.
Pinto failed in interior space utilization, though the wagon cargo area wasn’t terrible, but Ford engineers failed to use that space to its full potential as OPEL (GM of germany) had done with the ’65-’73 Kadette Wagon cargo area, Now certainly the Pinto was wider on the exterior body by about nine inches and about five inches in wheel track, and the Pinto wagon had a longer overhang behind the rear wheels , but it only offered approximately the same functional space as the smaller cargo area of the OPEL Kadette Wagon.
Ford Engineering was way too cheap and didn’t make it acceptably decent in space utilization. The Pinto was mechanically reliable, the only early seventies American small car that was reliable. The AMC Hornet was reliable too but it was significantly larger. The Gremlin was an abomination that was a horrible package that probably exhibited the worst in space utilization other than the later POS Pacer of ’75. The Gremlin wasn’t horrible mechanically but it was in all other aspects.
The VEGA and PINTO were crudely done and poorly thought out.
Both Cars could have been superb, but both GM and Ford just didn’t give a szheet
at that time about a low priced small car. The Vega achilles heel was the beyond POS Reynolds Wrap aluminum 2300 trashmaster . Had GM simply lined the engine with sleeves for the bores of the pistons, it too would have been extremely reliable, but like the Corvair before it, GM knumbskull engineers proved that they were perhaps the worst in the entire auto industry, just took the view that it is good enough…..people love GM, so they will buy it and remain brand loyal.
Though they were better designed in chassis and suspension and overall wheel track (width) than the prior European Captive Imports (OPEL Kadette) & (Ford Cortina).
Overall, they were horrible where it counted.
The seats and seating postion in 1969 to 1972 OPEL KADETTES were way better than the seats in any PINTO or VEGA.
Gas mileage from the 1,9 liter cam in head OPEL engine which Kadettes featured from 1969 to 1972 got much better MPG than all but the 1.6 liter Kent engine.
Sure the OPEL engine was noisy but it delivered approximately the same horsepower and torque as the larger 2000cc Pinto engine and the Vega 2300.
The Pinto looked like turd, except the wagon which looked nice.
The Pinto looked okay in the front but the sloped rear of the standard Pinto looked like cow manure. Ford should have sought to combine the rear sheet metal of a late model Corvair to the Pinto behind the rear windshield. That combination would have looked stunning and could have incorporated a hatch back as well.
The Vega had early sixties/mid sixties Ferrari looks but its junkmobile engine doomed it. Install a later PONTIAC IRON DUKE (the 1977 Pontiac Astre , their version of the vega featured the IRON DUKE), and the Vega becomes a decent car……then go junkyard shopping for seats from a 1980’s Toyota Celica Supra, and it would be quite comfortable. People might not realize that The IRON DUKE was not entirely a US GM Pontiac design. GM do Brasil had inherited the old Chevy II four which was extremely rough running but reliable. Brazillian GM engineers reworked the old engine and smoothed out its notorious vibrations and shaking. Pontiac engineers sought a solution for a decent engine to use it its version of the vega. The Brazilian engine proved to be the best existing template to copy and improve. Pontiac engineering took the best improvements that the Brazillians had done, and then ultimately made other improvements such that it was no longer the 1962 Chevy engine with 1970 Brazillian advancements but a new improved mid seventies Pontiac casting of very similar design and size and near exact displacement. Pontiac further revised the Iron Duke for a cross flow head design in about 1979 or 1980. The 2.5 liter Pontiac IRON DUKE remains the most durable domestic GM four cylinder ever built. Yeah, its ordinary and its horsepower is relatively low but it provides substantial torque and delivers very good MPG for such a low tech, old fashioned ordinary, pushrod four cylinder. It is quite a good engine with GM throttle body efi as it was during the 1980’s. Carb or EFI, it is decent enough to provide reliable low horsepower power that will provide decent mpg and cruise at up to 85mph on the highway.
It is a plain shame that American small car offerings were so badly done compared to the imports at the time circa 1970-1971.
The OPEL 1900 (later called Manta in’73) and The CAPRI were nicer than anything other than the Datsun 240Z at that time when they went on sale in the USA in 1970.
The 1967-1970 Ford Cortina (Ford’s captive import) was way way nicer than both the Pinto or Maverick, and nicer than the ’66-’70 Falcon. The interior and seats and dash on the Cortina were light years better than anything that the ’66-’70 Falcon, or the ’70’-’74 Maverick, or any ’71-’80 Pinto, or any ’71-’77 Vega ever had.
Once the Japanese became smart enough to make the seats in the Corolla just a little bit better than the Pinto and Vegas seats were, they got every college educated twenty something baby boomer buying Toyotas and Datsuns because by 1972 the Japanese had proven that all of their offerings were more durable and reliable than OPELs and Volkswagens.
No way were you going to spend your hard earned money on American junk that was a POS
It amazes me just how frikken horribly done the small American cars of 50 years ago actually were. Detroit was great at building a 17 foot long , big v8, automatic car that delivered 9 to 11 miles to the gallon. Some of those were also nightmares with inadequate brakes and nothing that could be termed handling.
The USA car makers almost never learn and they seem to really screw things up.
Case in point: In hindsight, had GM, FORD, AMC taken more of a 1963-1964 Chevy II type of dimensional packaging or 1964-1965 Rambler American type of dimensional packaging, or even the much smaller but roomy, and boxy like a later Volvo would be, as the 1961-1963 Rambler American type of dimensional packaging was. Now, I am not saying that they should have re-made those cars, ABSOLUTELY NO, what I am saying that the size and relative space dimensions would have been much better than the much lower height that was seen on Vega & Pinto, etc.
The Pinto and Vega both had excellent suspensions, brakes and steering.
Had they been more like those with more modern everything, they might have had a home run, but perhaps it would have cannibalized sales from the bigger car lines.
Volvo made that very early Chevy II , 1961-1963 Rambler American its template for designing the modern boxy Volvo shape that would exist virtually unchanged from about 1969 to 1993.
The Pinto and Vega are just horrible in the utilization of interior space.
There was no excuse for that.
AMC was even worse with the Gremlin and Pacer.
Interior space inside a 1961-1963 Rambler American is impressive for its size, considering it is a reskinned 1950 Nash, it is remarkable.
I have not purchased an American car in decades. .
Honda and Toyota are what I do own today.
New cars are too expensive to take a chance on buying something junky, so I currently buy only new Hondas and new Toyotas.
The resale value is better and you get your money’s worth.