Ford Pinto: The only car that would ever actually explode without planning and a setup, and the one that convinced Hollywood that all other cars will do that, too.
If everyone drove pintos the roads would be safer. Just imagine how careful people would drive if they knew that if they get into any modestly damaging crash it would mean terrifying end trapped burning alive in their piece of shit car.
The cost to repair them all exceeded the cost of paying the families of those killed in the Pinto crashes. So the company accepted the less expensive route and decided to pay claims rather than fix their cars.
From Time Magazine's Top 50 Worst Cars of All Time:
"The car tended to erupt in flame in rear-end collisions. The Pinto is at the end of one of autodom's most notorious paper trails, the Ford Pinto memo , which ruthlessly calculates the cost of reinforcing the rear end ($121 million) versus the potential payout to victims ($50 million). Conclusion? Let 'em burn."
1) Ford Pintos exploded about as much as any other car it's size during the years of it's release
2) People who drive cars know that it's unsafe. the fact that we worry about minor explosions is ridiculous when compared to the 50,000+ people that die every year in car accidents. Saying we ought to ban cars that kill people, means... well.... banning all cars!
3) government should not save us from ourselves, nor our own buying decisions. only we can make our choices.
@PianoForteAndrew The design of the Pinto had the gas tank at the rear, which resulted in the car exploding into flames if it was ever rear ended. So no they did not explode as much as any other car, it was much more frequent for Pinto's.
The issue people had with it was that Ford calculated that it would be cheaper for them to settle deaths in court rather than recall all the cars. The cost of human life is not something a company should be negligent about.
and the cost of one's own life is not something one should be negligent about. I'll have to concede to you on this, because it turns out the Ford Pinto was not subject to the same type of consumer reporting we have today, so Ford indeed was in the wrong. If it was though, as cars are today, subject to all the minute criticisms that are a click away, it would be the individual's fault for buying and using, not the companies fault for making it.
@PianoForteAndrew Actually your points don't stand because Ford realized after the huge fault in their cars but did not release the information about it or did anything to fix the problem or recall the cars because they felt it would be cheaper to settle each death or injury in court.
Your first point is incorrect because they exploded much more frequently than other cars due to the design and people did not know it was unsafe becase Ford disclosed that information. Your 3rd point I agree with
@arielrodrigo: S.Korean pretending from Argentina. These guys are who wrote a lot of complaints against Toyota without reason... People who is being paid by hyundai or VANK (S.Korean organization to damage Japan's and China's reputation)... although we don't mind about Asia, we should try to think about these guys.
Por supuesto, este payaso no tiene amigos y probablemente le esté pagando hyundai (el único fabricante que apareció para hablar mierda de Toyota en noviembre 2009)... coincidencia?
Reality is Toyota is the winner , they killed more people on pourpose because they knew the endless list of problems and waited till one police officer and his family died , then the world realise that japanese toyota are totally shitty crap . Be number one in sales is not for TOYOTA, being number one in recalls YES !!!!!!
@rejectofsoul24 Sadly back then there was no fuel systems standard. This didn't come until after the pinto problems. Like most safety rules, they're reactionary & only come around after the disaster happened, including injuries & deaths
if I recall correctly this comes from a news report, they wanted to show to car exploding but only had enough money budgeted to do one take, the solution rig the car with explosives. Long story short they got sued.
Ironic Really; Although Ford was eventually cleared of any wrong doing and it was proven that Pintos were no more likely to have gas tank explosions than other small cars of the day, the vilification of the company is what people remember nearly 40 years later.
It's a shame Toyota didn't learn from this PR disaster.
@NixonNow72 > it was proven that Pintos were no more likely to have gas tank explosions than other small cars of the day
This is correct. Pintos are NO MORE LIKELY to catch fire than their contemporaries. NHTSA figures on deaths by fire in Pintos: 28 confirmed. NOT "hundreds". These are figures from the feds. Mustangs, Crown-Vics/Marquis etc all have burned to death many times more people than Pintos.
The car was a target. The "horrific" crash tests were rigged, also confirmed.
@palevictory please do your research. the problem is that the fuel filler tube didn`t go far enough into the gas tank and often came out let alone a rear end collision.the exhaust is mounted right over the exhaust so when the filler tube came out in a rearend collision gas sloshed all over the hot exhaust setting fire to the car.the fix for all this costed ford $5 a cheap and simple fix that they eventually addressed in the later pinto models.
I DID my research. I've owned Pintos. I've done the work. I also KNOW how many of them actually caught fire and killed people. Like I said, more people burned to death in Crown Vics than ever did in Pintos.
The Pinto simply was NOT than prone to fire. The vast majority of crash tests resulted in NO fire. The ones that did required the Pinto's tank be over-filled and the car hitting it be fitted with incendaries to set the fuel on fire.
@gokartbuyer (Continued) What's more, the fuel spilled was NOT set fire by any hot exhaust, it was ignited by sparks from failed electrical wiring. Let's not forget that to pull that filler tube out of the tank, you had to crush half the car from behind. Like I said, I DID my homework here and I know what went on with those tests. They were rigged, not unlike the tests that Dateline did with that GM pickup that was claimed to be a "fire hazard". Neither vehicle actually was.
You are correct about the filler tube, broke away from the gas tank itself rather than from the side of the car. However, the exhaust exited on the right side of the car, the filler tube was on the left. As this was during the gas crisis of the 1970's, having an added locking gas cap worsened the issue.
That said, owned two modified Pinto's, great sleeper car on winding roads.
I was a mechanic during the 70's and the problem with the Pinto was the gas tank sat off to one side and when rear ended it would tear open on the differential spilling it's contents. The recall call cure for this was believe it or not a plastic cover that went over the differential to keep the tank from ripping open when rear ended. No car is perfect. 64-72 Chevy trucks and Ford Mustangs had the gas tanks INSIDE the passenger compartments. Stupid idea!
Yeah... Pintos had a weird thing with the gas tank, where, whenever you got rear-ended it would burst into flames or explode.. I believe this is why they stopped making them awhile back.
@hellogoodbye753 There is a Bolt (or a few) whose rather large size and threaded end face the Gas tank, the act of rearing ending forced the bolt to puncture the gas tank. technically to solve the problem, all they needed to do was sheer the bolt down, or put a covering on it.
@Shatteredworld That would be a very proactive way, I agree. But it amazes me how none of the engineers would actually find this flaw earlier on in the making of the Pintos BEFORE the accidents started to occur.
Say what you will about toyota recalls, at least they're doing something about it. that's more than we can say for Ford. not to mention the recent disaster they caused.
@ardvarkkkkk Look up "1980 Chevrolet Citation Crash Test" looks a lot better then that car. Also made in the 80's. Let me guess, you don't think before you speak/type?
@teofthe That's right. And to put Toyota's problems in perspective, between 2000 and 2010, Toyota recalled 10 million cars, including the latest recalls. During the same period, Ford and GM recalled 40 million cars EACH. I think what we can learn from all this is that ALL of the automakers could stand to clean up their act in the design department.
@teofthe Simply because they say they are doesn't mean they will. It could cost BILLIONS to retool to fix the problems they have. What's a few settled lawsuits at a few million a pop?
@teofthe Exactly, the exploding gas tank was just the Pinto's problem. What about ALL the 1970-85 Ford cars that would go in reverse... even AFTER you turned off the car and put it in park. One woman was killed when her 77 Thunderbird ran her over... in her own driveway. Or the 1985-99 Aerostars, Rangers, and Tauruses that caught on fire, from NO provocation? Park your Ford, wake up to go to work... and find a burnt shell in it's place. I'll take a Toyota, anyday... just the older RWD Toyotas.
Do some real research. Discover that the Pinto (and Crown Vic) had LOWER than average fire-involved accident rates than their contemporaries of the same size and fittings.
@teofthe At least the Pinto had to be hit from behind to explode. In Europe the Ford Escort just burst into flames on frontal impact and it did it in the test centre but if you think the Escort and the Pinto are bad the Focus gets even worst then that, the worst thing is you don't have to crash it. The European spec Ford Focus only needs to fail a PAS hose or miss a recall on the TDCi cooling fan module to burst into flames. You should read about Ford UK's fire-risk recalls they are a joke.
In 1972, I witnessed a rear-end collision involving a Ford Pinto in Laurel Canyon / Los Angeles. The Pinto struck from behind by another vehicle at an intersection and immediately burst into flames. The driver jumped out and was uninjured. At that time, I was unaware of other similar incidents and thought nothing of it. It wasn't until years later that I realized I could have been a witness and testified on behalf of anyone who had a case against Ford Motor Company
Rockstarcrane , If you can remember, what type of vehicle struck it and at what speed was the impact? How much collision damage did both vehicles suffer? Also do you happen to have any pics?
I just reviewed my pics from the crash that I wrote about and the Pinto had major damage. With little structure in the rear it followed like a pop can.
the pinto had no rear bumper, the fuel tank in the back, and shoddy 70s american technology. what did you think was going to happen. this was just stupidity on ford's part. volkswagen builds extremely reliable cars. count the number of pintos to the number of beetles on the road today.
well the beetle was in mass production from 1945 to 2005 with over 25 MILLION examples made. I think its a given that its going to have a higher survival rate than something that was in production for only 10 years. Plenty of '70s US cars had fuel tanks at the back, with the gas cap behind the license plate.
Yes, volkswagens were reliable. right up until they caught fire. (design flaw with the main fuel line running over the top of the hot exhaust manifolds)
how many air cooled VWs have you ever started in the winter? and how many of them actually produced any heat? and are you honestly calling VW reliable? i suppose you've never dealt with many electrical gremlins or vacuum system faults
well doing a cost benefit scheme to measure out how many deaths would be caused and how much theyd have to pay out vs fixing the problem is a pretty damn thoughtless attitude in my books, they measured out a persons life, its not really surprising this car got such a bad rep
Only one year out of the 10 that the Pinto was produced did this happen and only one car actually burned, Unfortunately some kids died in the fire but it only happened once. What about cars like the Pontiac Fiero that just caught fire for something to do? They didn't even have to get hit. How many recalls do all car producers have? It just happens, and now it gets taken care of. People die every day in auto accidents. Its a fact of life. I have a 77 pinto and I'm not worried.
I believe your info is incorrect, according to most accounts at least 27 died and hundreds more injured. By most estimates those numbers are very low. In the 70s reporting by police & fire were not computerized so exact numbers will never be known.
Its true may cars were unsafe back then but the difference here is Ford knew (They knew!) of fire problem and chose to save money ($11) over human suffering. How can anyone in there right mind defend that.
Exactly. Ford said it was easier to pay out any claims that would arise than recall the vehicals. How would some of ya'll feel if airliners did a cost analysis of the possibility of 10 of their airplanes falling out of the sky over the next decade and instead of fixing them decided to just set about 30 mil aside to the families of the victims? Hope you don't plan on flying.
because it was a whole board, the blame kept on shifting from one board member to the next, I dont think it classed as murder, all the cases that were brought against them were civil cases as far as i can tell, all that was gained from those was money
What a piece of junk. Ford thought it would be more economical to deal with the lawsuits of people getting hurt/killed rather than correct the problem. :-/ Look it up
meh, i can drive that, com pared to most mordern cars today... i mean, that pinto got hit with a big metal car...i wana see someone with a station wagon run over a honda fit/toyota yaris. notice how the station wagon is relativly unharmed?
The way i see it, most (if not all) car companies of the day could have cared less about safety. The Pinto just had the misfortune of being the car called out about it.
Huh??? How about the families who had the "misfortune" of having kids, babies, women, and husbands burned alive in a car with a flawed gas tank design!
Ford was "called out" because they were the only vehicle with that exploding problem on the road.
I'm not saying the car isn't unsafe, but compared to comperable cars from the same era, about par. According to the NHTSA, there were 27 fatalities contributed to fires from rear colisions on ford pintos, considering they made over 2 million pintos, thats not horrible for the standards of the day.
But then, as today, it is all about profit. Thats what a corporation does.
A lot of people have talked sh*t about Pintos and most of them didn´t know that many other cars of that era and even some contemporary cars have that problem regarding the position of the gas tank. I´m wondering why you bash Pintos when there are many others untouched. I´m aware that Pinto was safer than many other subcompacts from the 70s my grandparents had a 75 stationwagon with the 2.8 engine and was tough as a rock.
As a young firefighter I was on the first tuck at the scene of a Pinto rear-ended be a van that had burst into fames, killing to three girls in 1978.
Our County charged Ford with negligent homicide, but in the end a small town prosecutor was no match for Fords high dollar legal team. PS, In my 33 years in the fire service I only recall one other fire resulting from a rear-end collision
@confire59 The irony was if Ford bothered to put in the fuel bladder (essentially a rubber case for the gas tank) the Pinto would have been one of the safer cars on the road but that would have taken extra time and money (it would have cost about $10 more per car) so Ford said screw it and went without it.
Another example of lousy fuel tank placement was the Suzuki Sidekick and Vitara. The fuel tank was practically inches from the rear bumper. Their solution? Install a metal shield over the back of the tank.
To take a non-obvious one, Lanes description of the Grimshaw case is incorrect (or at least poorly worded, depending on what he means by backfired): comparative evidence in that case showing that the Pinto was safer than other subcompacts and no more likely to explode was excluded over Fords objection. (In the famous case against Ford brought by state prosecutors over the Pinto, Ford was allowed to introduce that evidence, and an Indiana jury acquitted Ford.)
This problem was not limited to Pinto...Ford cars of 1965-1970 all had problems because the fuel tank was parrt of the trunk floor--same piece of sheet metal--and the filler hose passed from the rear panel through the trunk and was rubber!!! Mustangs, Fairlanes, LTD all had it..and let's not forget the station wagons whose tanks were in the left rear fender...hazards in sideswiping there..there was a TV special about this back then...
Well this proves that larger cars are better in an accident. I wouldnt like to be mowed down by an LTD (I assume that's an LTD bashing into that Pinto) in a smart car, or a geo metro or some other homosexual car.
I know that if I ever get into an accident in my '74 Ford LTD, I'll probabally be alright (depending on what kind of accident, of course)
oh and please don't insult my intelligence by going on about"how we in the USA don't give a damm about the rest of the world/your shitty little country!" Ford have factory's in Europe and the UK making damm fine cars! odd that eh? we can turn out safe car's you your country CANT!(even though there owned by the same company!)
GM? wtf? we are talking about ford's crap US cars..nothing about Vauxhall's crap cars(in my opinion the last great Vauxhall was the "droop snoot" Firenza)
this car was a death trap and Ford KNEW it! papers found by lawyers acting for people that where killed by exploding pintos prove that Ford KNEW of this problem and refused to fix it , a it would have added $15 to the cost of every one made by them!(the letter from Ford's lawyers to Ford said"it is much better to fight people's family's who have been killed in a pinto then fix the problem, as we can keep the case's going for YEARS before you have to pay out"
OK try the British government own reports of this car when Ford brought it out and tried to export it into the UK(little known fact all cars being imported in to the UK have to under go a full safety inspection)this car failed it before they even ran it into a the 15 ton block of conceret!engineers looked at the back axle and realized just how unsafe it was and refused to drive it!
strange how Ford never did import this pos into the UK eh?
you're right. gasoline is just highly flammable. i used to play with it and other flammable liquids when i was little. its also gets grease off your hands.
i have seen cars burning in real life, no explosions though. one time i saw a van with all the tires burning.......
I worked in a Ford bodyshop during the Pinto hayday,I saw many pinto that were rearended. I never saw one catch fire. And I saw hundreds of them wrecked, when I lived in California
The Pinto was was prone to explosions and many were hurt or killed but the video was a fake...charges were set in the impact video for effect...how dare they do this. I have a wagon that did not have this problem. Ford was wrong...but do not fake an explosion
when i presented this video, someone else said the same - do you mind either providing a link to a webpage that confirms this, or point out certain things in the video that confirm this? (as i'm not an expert in neither incendiaries nor cars, i don't know what to even look for)
Lee Iacocca, that criminal in necktie, should have been jailed for life and reduced to rags for what he had done.
The Pinto was a planned deathtrap. In a shunt, its rear-end would crumple like an accordion jamming the doors shut, while the differential protruding bolts would pierce the (unprotected) fuel tank bursting the whole car into flames.
And all this because this git thought that "safety doesn't sell" and refused to add a $11 plastic shroud to the fuel tank!
Back in the 70's, it didn't. Ford execs were no less at fault, but people knew what they were getting into and bought them anyway. Even seatbelts were laughed at in the 50's and 60's.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. The story of the plastic shroud and Lee Iacocca's criminal nonchalance is proven by the facts of the time, along with the quote "safety doesn't sell".
The Pinto had a weak rear-end with a vestigial bumper and an unprotected fuel tank.
The bolts of the differential were pinpointed to be the cause of tank puncture by a technical survey, not by barstool banter.
The 1991 film "Class Action" with Gene Hackman is clearly blueprinted on the Pinto story.
Compared to the competing Chevy Vega, it only ignited at speeds 2 mph less, 25 and 27 respectively. They knew people would die, but it actually was basically average for its time, considering its size.
When Iacocca tried to implement seat belts, padded dashes, and other safety things in the 50's, at a cost of $49, people rejected the idea. So he learned people didn't care about safety.
He wanted the car to be less than 2000 bucks, whatever the case. Buyer beware I guess.
You have a good point. But Iacocca knew that this flaw was going to cause horrible deaths by fire as a matter of fact, not statistic or speculation.
He criminally declined to put a $11 plastic shroud between the tank and the differential, because money came first and to hell with human life and road safety. He should have been kicked out of the company and chucked in the clink for at least a decade.
Exemplary sentences and stiff regulations make business more responsible.
the guys responsible for the ford pinto sure were typical spoiled rich kids, money to spend on whatever they spend first, before safety or anything else that's good for everyone else....
see that fuel comes out of its back :(
Mieabby 2 weeks ago
i used to drive a pinto, then i took an arrow in rear and it exploded
breezythakid93 3 weeks ago
Ford Pinto: The only car that would ever actually explode without planning and a setup, and the one that convinced Hollywood that all other cars will do that, too.
Imatrollyay 4 weeks ago
@Imatrollyay So fake. I drove a pinto when I was in high school and it didn't explode.
FAAAAAAAAAKE! FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!
sk8tafrnk 4 weeks ago
Anybody have some old Pintos they want to get rid of? They make GREAT demolition derby cars!!!!
Pookatube 1 month ago
If everyone drove pintos the roads would be safer. Just imagine how careful people would drive if they knew that if they get into any modestly damaging crash it would mean terrifying end trapped burning alive in their piece of shit car.
HawaiianPrint0taku 1 month ago
Great
ofermisk 1 month ago
tvtropes sent me here.
TheFrontlineChaos 2 months ago
hey it does blow up
DevilsProphecy 2 months ago
NOOOOO DONT HIT IT!!!!! man.... I love those little cars...
scooterdude1945 3 months ago
Looks like what Toyota is doing now days.
tomperanteau 3 months ago
Finding a Pinto and smashing into it helps take out the anxiety of forgetting your lighter.
MaestroTJS 4 months ago
*headdesk*
BoboTalkClown 4 months ago
Thanks so much for uploading this. This was a hard lesson to learn about the value of a human life. (I know we haven't learned it yet.)
Busada 5 months ago
holy shit!!!!
TheMostAwesomeMan242 5 months ago
someone farted
Pikazilla 6 months ago
that was a capitalist invented car?
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 6 months ago
The cost to repair them all exceeded the cost of paying the families of those killed in the Pinto crashes. So the company accepted the less expensive route and decided to pay claims rather than fix their cars.
matt605 7 months ago
In case of accident, all Ford Pintos have an automatic fire starter so you can be sure you'll have a raging inferno no matter what the circumstances.
This feature is brought to you by Aperture Science.
commander672 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how many jews fit into a car? 2 in front, 2 in back, and 11 in the ash tray.
suicidesnowman14 7 months ago
From Time Magazine's Top 50 Worst Cars of All Time:
"The car tended to erupt in flame in rear-end collisions. The Pinto is at the end of one of autodom's most notorious paper trails, the Ford Pinto memo , which ruthlessly calculates the cost of reinforcing the rear end ($121 million) versus the potential payout to victims ($50 million). Conclusion? Let 'em burn."
LMAO.
VhUgGz 7 months ago
Comment removed
Mclarenboy100 8 months ago
The exploding pinto is a myth, guys.
gameragodzilla 8 months ago
@gameragodzilla it just happened! and there are thousands of pintos that are in the junkyard because of this exact thing
102Help 8 months ago
@102Help It bursts into flames, not explodes. For the most part, exploding cars are a very rare phenomenon.
Un1234l 7 months ago
This car has more FAIL then the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars LOL
mookixox 8 months ago
My dad said the exploding pinto gas tanks was a myth
LIGHTRONIX 9 months ago
And in Brazil, "Pinto" is slang for "Tiny Penis."
Xunkun 9 months ago
1) Ford Pintos exploded about as much as any other car it's size during the years of it's release
2) People who drive cars know that it's unsafe. the fact that we worry about minor explosions is ridiculous when compared to the 50,000+ people that die every year in car accidents. Saying we ought to ban cars that kill people, means... well.... banning all cars!
3) government should not save us from ourselves, nor our own buying decisions. only we can make our choices.
PianoForteAndrew 10 months ago
@PianoForteAndrew The design of the Pinto had the gas tank at the rear, which resulted in the car exploding into flames if it was ever rear ended. So no they did not explode as much as any other car, it was much more frequent for Pinto's.
The issue people had with it was that Ford calculated that it would be cheaper for them to settle deaths in court rather than recall all the cars. The cost of human life is not something a company should be negligent about.
hd92122 10 months ago
@hd92122
and the cost of one's own life is not something one should be negligent about. I'll have to concede to you on this, because it turns out the Ford Pinto was not subject to the same type of consumer reporting we have today, so Ford indeed was in the wrong. If it was though, as cars are today, subject to all the minute criticisms that are a click away, it would be the individual's fault for buying and using, not the companies fault for making it.
Nevertheless, my first three points stand.
PianoForteAndrew 8 months ago
@PianoForteAndrew Actually your points don't stand because Ford realized after the huge fault in their cars but did not release the information about it or did anything to fix the problem or recall the cars because they felt it would be cheaper to settle each death or injury in court.
Your first point is incorrect because they exploded much more frequently than other cars due to the design and people did not know it was unsafe becase Ford disclosed that information. Your 3rd point I agree with
hd92122 8 months ago
They don't make 'em like they used to... and thank god for that.
TheJetaway 10 months ago
Reminds me of Top Secret!!!!
RandallFlaggNY 10 months ago
They should have named it the "Ford Michael Bay".
Walkspace657 11 months ago
@arielrodrigo: S.Korean pretending from Argentina. These guys are who wrote a lot of complaints against Toyota without reason... People who is being paid by hyundai or VANK (S.Korean organization to damage Japan's and China's reputation)... although we don't mind about Asia, we should try to think about these guys.
Por supuesto, este payaso no tiene amigos y probablemente le esté pagando hyundai (el único fabricante que apareció para hablar mierda de Toyota en noviembre 2009)... coincidencia?
DtorBillAgain 11 months ago
Reality is Toyota is the winner , they killed more people on pourpose because they knew the endless list of problems and waited till one police officer and his family died , then the world realise that japanese toyota are totally shitty crap . Be number one in sales is not for TOYOTA, being number one in recalls YES !!!!!!
arielrodrigo1 11 months ago
How the hell did Ford greenlight the sales of this thing?
SingularlyDatarific 1 year ago
and how did that pass regulation?
rejectofsoul24 1 year ago
@rejectofsoul24 Sadly back then there was no fuel systems standard. This didn't come until after the pinto problems. Like most safety rules, they're reactionary & only come around after the disaster happened, including injuries & deaths
beatlespersun 11 months ago
In portuguese "pinto" means dick... hehe
MrGamayer 1 year ago
@MrGamayer Jorge Pinto is a dick ??? lololol Dick van Cock is a very good football coach hahahhaha
Pumpernickel006900 1 year ago
@MrGamayer So, we eat dick beans (Pinto Beans)?
macroevolve 9 months ago
tv tropes
THISNAMEOWNS 1 year ago
drivng a ford pinto keeps the tailgaters away.
SteelCity1981 1 year ago
anybody remember the 20/20 tv show reporting the pinto exploding after getting rearended it scared the hell out of me when i was a kid!!!!
zappahart 1 year ago
'Pinto leaves you with a warm feeling" <--their moto...no kidding there!
TheIncrediblSuperSam 1 year ago
if I recall correctly this comes from a news report, they wanted to show to car exploding but only had enough money budgeted to do one take, the solution rig the car with explosives. Long story short they got sued.
imajaekuhhuh 1 year ago
Teste de cacete do Pinto!!!
Minimoogman 1 year ago
The Pinto can be regarded as a very horrile car in every way.
Tough the truth need to be say: those days there where a lot of (bigger!) cars that would do as bad or even worse in a simular crash...
FrightfulAccountant 1 year ago
Michael Bay's debut film.
TinTower 1 year ago
look up robot chicken michael bay you'll get a laugh
oafaloaf 1 year ago
@oafaloaf Seen it. Baysplosions!
TinTower 1 year ago
so... maybe it was safer to run the lights than risk being rear ended?
Treblaine 1 year ago
Ironic Really; Although Ford was eventually cleared of any wrong doing and it was proven that Pintos were no more likely to have gas tank explosions than other small cars of the day, the vilification of the company is what people remember nearly 40 years later.
It's a shame Toyota didn't learn from this PR disaster.
NixonNow72 1 year ago
@NixonNow72 > it was proven that Pintos were no more likely to have gas tank explosions than other small cars of the day
This is correct. Pintos are NO MORE LIKELY to catch fire than their contemporaries. NHTSA figures on deaths by fire in Pintos: 28 confirmed. NOT "hundreds". These are figures from the feds. Mustangs, Crown-Vics/Marquis etc all have burned to death many times more people than Pintos.
The car was a target. The "horrific" crash tests were rigged, also confirmed.
palevictory 1 year ago
@palevictory please do your research. the problem is that the fuel filler tube didn`t go far enough into the gas tank and often came out let alone a rear end collision.the exhaust is mounted right over the exhaust so when the filler tube came out in a rearend collision gas sloshed all over the hot exhaust setting fire to the car.the fix for all this costed ford $5 a cheap and simple fix that they eventually addressed in the later pinto models.
gokartbuyer 1 year ago
@gokartbuyer please do your research.
I DID my research. I've owned Pintos. I've done the work. I also KNOW how many of them actually caught fire and killed people. Like I said, more people burned to death in Crown Vics than ever did in Pintos.
The Pinto simply was NOT than prone to fire. The vast majority of crash tests resulted in NO fire. The ones that did required the Pinto's tank be over-filled and the car hitting it be fitted with incendaries to set the fuel on fire.
palevictory 1 year ago
@gokartbuyer (Continued) What's more, the fuel spilled was NOT set fire by any hot exhaust, it was ignited by sparks from failed electrical wiring. Let's not forget that to pull that filler tube out of the tank, you had to crush half the car from behind. Like I said, I DID my homework here and I know what went on with those tests. They were rigged, not unlike the tests that Dateline did with that GM pickup that was claimed to be a "fire hazard". Neither vehicle actually was.
palevictory 1 year ago
@gokartbuyer
You are correct about the filler tube, broke away from the gas tank itself rather than from the side of the car. However, the exhaust exited on the right side of the car, the filler tube was on the left. As this was during the gas crisis of the 1970's, having an added locking gas cap worsened the issue.
That said, owned two modified Pinto's, great sleeper car on winding roads.
rampking1 1 year ago
Comment removed
palevictory 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because of the bumper design (there really are no bumpers) if a Pinto was rear ended, the gas tank would rupture and usually burst into flames.
atomikrobot300099 1 year ago
KABOOM!!!! LOL
mitch9521 1 year ago
gas tacks in the back so it blows up
kcooos 1 year ago
Is the pinto's bumper made of flint?
evildeaddrew 1 year ago
this must be what Hollywood bases their cars off
CabooseTKr 1 year ago
I was a mechanic during the 70's and the problem with the Pinto was the gas tank sat off to one side and when rear ended it would tear open on the differential spilling it's contents. The recall call cure for this was believe it or not a plastic cover that went over the differential to keep the tank from ripping open when rear ended. No car is perfect. 64-72 Chevy trucks and Ford Mustangs had the gas tanks INSIDE the passenger compartments. Stupid idea!
steverayrapp 1 year ago
I have a 76 pinto I drive everyday.I am not afraid,but my asbestos suit does get kinda hot in the summer when my A/C is on the fritz.LOL
doglips1958 1 year ago
Yeah... Pintos had a weird thing with the gas tank, where, whenever you got rear-ended it would burst into flames or explode.. I believe this is why they stopped making them awhile back.
hellogoodbye753 1 year ago
@hellogoodbye753 There is a Bolt (or a few) whose rather large size and threaded end face the Gas tank, the act of rearing ending forced the bolt to puncture the gas tank. technically to solve the problem, all they needed to do was sheer the bolt down, or put a covering on it.
Shatteredworld 1 year ago
@Shatteredworld That would be a very proactive way, I agree. But it amazes me how none of the engineers would actually find this flaw earlier on in the making of the Pintos BEFORE the accidents started to occur.
hellogoodbye753 1 year ago
You had a good two seconds to get out...what more do you want?
ThePretzelHead 1 year ago
Say what you will about toyota recalls, at least they're doing something about it. that's more than we can say for Ford. not to mention the recent disaster they caused.
teofthe 1 year ago
@teofthe i agree 100%
tingrin87 1 year ago
@teofthe amen
cforcalvin 1 year ago
@teofthe Considering it's a 1970-80's model car it probably preformed well for it's time.
59summerset 1 year ago
@59summerset No, it didn't. Let me guess, you were born in the 90's.
ardvarkkkkk 1 year ago
@ardvarkkkkk Look up "1980 Chevrolet Citation Crash Test" looks a lot better then that car. Also made in the 80's. Let me guess, you don't think before you speak/type?
59summerset 1 year ago
@teofthe That's right. And to put Toyota's problems in perspective, between 2000 and 2010, Toyota recalled 10 million cars, including the latest recalls. During the same period, Ford and GM recalled 40 million cars EACH. I think what we can learn from all this is that ALL of the automakers could stand to clean up their act in the design department.
galoon 1 year ago
@teofthe i will say something..its ironic how there were more poeple killed in a [quality] toyota then a cheap , thro away pinto ...
390merc65 1 year ago
@teofthe Simply because they say they are doesn't mean they will. It could cost BILLIONS to retool to fix the problems they have. What's a few settled lawsuits at a few million a pop?
GaiaOnline777 1 year ago
@teofthe
Ford actually did recall the Pinto but did nothing to fix it.
boogioogigoof 1 year ago
@teofthe Exactly, the exploding gas tank was just the Pinto's problem. What about ALL the 1970-85 Ford cars that would go in reverse... even AFTER you turned off the car and put it in park. One woman was killed when her 77 Thunderbird ran her over... in her own driveway. Or the 1985-99 Aerostars, Rangers, and Tauruses that caught on fire, from NO provocation? Park your Ford, wake up to go to work... and find a burnt shell in it's place. I'll take a Toyota, anyday... just the older RWD Toyotas.
boofdfast 1 year ago
@teofthe
Do some real research. Discover that the Pinto (and Crown Vic) had LOWER than average fire-involved accident rates than their contemporaries of the same size and fittings.
webpa 6 months ago
@teofthe At least the Pinto had to be hit from behind to explode. In Europe the Ford Escort just burst into flames on frontal impact and it did it in the test centre but if you think the Escort and the Pinto are bad the Focus gets even worst then that, the worst thing is you don't have to crash it. The European spec Ford Focus only needs to fail a PAS hose or miss a recall on the TDCi cooling fan module to burst into flames. You should read about Ford UK's fire-risk recalls they are a joke.
1ns4ne1d10t 5 months ago
@1ns4ne1d10t ... how many cooked VW bugs have I seen over the years?
It's rubber fuel line running right over the Bosch distibutor of a very hot air cooled engine.
Owned two Pinto's, issue was that the fuel pipe broke off from the fuel tank itself, not from the side of the car.
Situation made worse by people installing locking gas cap to prevent thieves syphoning off fuel during the 70's gas crisis.
rampking1 3 months ago
In 1972, I witnessed a rear-end collision involving a Ford Pinto in Laurel Canyon / Los Angeles. The Pinto struck from behind by another vehicle at an intersection and immediately burst into flames. The driver jumped out and was uninjured. At that time, I was unaware of other similar incidents and thought nothing of it. It wasn't until years later that I realized I could have been a witness and testified on behalf of anyone who had a case against Ford Motor Company
ROCKSTARCRANE 1 year ago
Rockstarcrane , If you can remember, what type of vehicle struck it and at what speed was the impact? How much collision damage did both vehicles suffer? Also do you happen to have any pics?
I just reviewed my pics from the crash that I wrote about and the Pinto had major damage. With little structure in the rear it followed like a pop can.
confire59 1 year ago
come on, how many volkswagen bugs and microbuses caught fire for no readily apparent reason over the years?
I think this car achieved notoriety more for the Ford company's callous attitude rather than any dynamic failings
mrspivvy 2 years ago
the pinto had no rear bumper, the fuel tank in the back, and shoddy 70s american technology. what did you think was going to happen. this was just stupidity on ford's part. volkswagen builds extremely reliable cars. count the number of pintos to the number of beetles on the road today.
hteverow 2 years ago
well the beetle was in mass production from 1945 to 2005 with over 25 MILLION examples made. I think its a given that its going to have a higher survival rate than something that was in production for only 10 years. Plenty of '70s US cars had fuel tanks at the back, with the gas cap behind the license plate.
Yes, volkswagens were reliable. right up until they caught fire. (design flaw with the main fuel line running over the top of the hot exhaust manifolds)
mrspivvy 2 years ago
and I wonder why the beetle was in production so much longer... duh
kevinman4404 2 years ago
how many air cooled VWs have you ever started in the winter? and how many of them actually produced any heat? and are you honestly calling VW reliable? i suppose you've never dealt with many electrical gremlins or vacuum system faults
Usernam3Unavailabe 2 years ago 2
first time i saw this car was on top gears list of worst cars of all time. lol.
teofthe 1 year ago
well doing a cost benefit scheme to measure out how many deaths would be caused and how much theyd have to pay out vs fixing the problem is a pretty damn thoughtless attitude in my books, they measured out a persons life, its not really surprising this car got such a bad rep
cheesenibbler123 2 years ago
I'm doing a study on this case, very impressive how Ford evaluated human lives...
inflames334 2 years ago
Now let's try it in a '72 Corolla or Civic
KDoyle4 2 years ago
give it a fuel cell and a roll cage and youll be ok, i hope
halffliffe 2 years ago
OHH FUCK YEAH that Pinto is bitchen!!
dkorda 2 years ago
I was in a pinto and was rear ended and it did explode with me in it. I spent 21 days in the burn unit with 3rd degree burns. nuff said
GENESISLOVER1 2 years ago 2
A little fire never hurt anybody.
Silvertrine 2 years ago
tell that to the jews
t0rdluvr 2 years ago 4
wow! The BBQ that seats four! EPIC FAIL!
crazyfooInc 2 years ago 7
Pinto Slogan: "Hit me and we will blow up together"
Kenster1025 2 years ago 3
The gas tank was about as thick has a beer can.
Bryan90260 2 years ago
correction: made FROM a beer can
JuicedJetta 2 years ago 2
Only one year out of the 10 that the Pinto was produced did this happen and only one car actually burned, Unfortunately some kids died in the fire but it only happened once. What about cars like the Pontiac Fiero that just caught fire for something to do? They didn't even have to get hit. How many recalls do all car producers have? It just happens, and now it gets taken care of. People die every day in auto accidents. Its a fact of life. I have a 77 pinto and I'm not worried.
BigDestructor 2 years ago
I believe your info is incorrect, according to most accounts at least 27 died and hundreds more injured. By most estimates those numbers are very low. In the 70s reporting by police & fire were not computerized so exact numbers will never be known.
Its true may cars were unsafe back then but the difference here is Ford knew (They knew!) of fire problem and chose to save money ($11) over human suffering. How can anyone in there right mind defend that.
confire59 2 years ago 3
Exactly. Ford said it was easier to pay out any claims that would arise than recall the vehicals. How would some of ya'll feel if airliners did a cost analysis of the possibility of 10 of their airplanes falling out of the sky over the next decade and instead of fixing them decided to just set about 30 mil aside to the families of the victims? Hope you don't plan on flying.
Eddyisgreat 2 years ago 2
There is another name for this: Homicide, or at least second degree murder.
plateshutoverlock 2 years ago
Technically manslaughter unless you could prove intent. Negligence would be arguable.
mostbadass1 2 years ago
And how come the execs did not go to prison?
plateshutoverlock 2 years ago
because it was a whole board, the blame kept on shifting from one board member to the next, I dont think it classed as murder, all the cases that were brought against them were civil cases as far as i can tell, all that was gained from those was money
cheesenibbler123 2 years ago
because they didnt do anything "ilegal"
juanpahr 2 years ago
all you need to do is reenforse the gas tank
nixx835 2 years ago
What a piece of junk. Ford thought it would be more economical to deal with the lawsuits of people getting hurt/killed rather than correct the problem. :-/ Look it up
Genners111 2 years ago
meh, i can drive that, com pared to most mordern cars today... i mean, that pinto got hit with a big metal car...i wana see someone with a station wagon run over a honda fit/toyota yaris. notice how the station wagon is relativly unharmed?
codythehaker 2 years ago
Its unharmed because the Pinto is a pile of crap with no support in the rear. And the point is Pinto's explode, a Yaris doesnt have that problem.
stevejoe11 2 years ago
The way i see it, most (if not all) car companies of the day could have cared less about safety. The Pinto just had the misfortune of being the car called out about it.
ryfin2000 2 years ago
Huh??? How about the families who had the "misfortune" of having kids, babies, women, and husbands burned alive in a car with a flawed gas tank design!
Ford was "called out" because they were the only vehicle with that exploding problem on the road.
jeffhanson1 2 years ago
I'm not saying the car isn't unsafe, but compared to comperable cars from the same era, about par. According to the NHTSA, there were 27 fatalities contributed to fires from rear colisions on ford pintos, considering they made over 2 million pintos, thats not horrible for the standards of the day.
But then, as today, it is all about profit. Thats what a corporation does.
ryfin2000 2 years ago
where's the fire?
echomedia 2 years ago
BOOM
charvel67 2 years ago
A lot of people have talked sh*t about Pintos and most of them didn´t know that many other cars of that era and even some contemporary cars have that problem regarding the position of the gas tank. I´m wondering why you bash Pintos when there are many others untouched. I´m aware that Pinto was safer than many other subcompacts from the 70s my grandparents had a 75 stationwagon with the 2.8 engine and was tough as a rock.
luisinhoens90 2 years ago
Also the station wagon versions of the Pinto were designed with the gas tank further up and did not explode like the hatchback.
gears2boomshield 2 years ago
Comment removed
jk57a1 2 years ago
the chevy (1973 to around 1980) trucks had gas tanks on the side of the truck which spelled basically disaster with a side collision
jepperscc96 2 years ago
As a young firefighter I was on the first tuck at the scene of a Pinto rear-ended be a van that had burst into fames, killing to three girls in 1978.
Our County charged Ford with negligent homicide, but in the end a small town prosecutor was no match for Fords high dollar legal team. PS, In my 33 years in the fire service I only recall one other fire resulting from a rear-end collision
confire59 2 years ago 6
@confire59 you must be from Elkhart co,........I remember that......on 33 by midway drive -in?
jeepers2655 1 year ago
@jeepers2655 Yes you are correct. That was in August 10, 1978 between Goshen and Dunlap. Are you from the area?
confire59 1 year ago
@confire59 The irony was if Ford bothered to put in the fuel bladder (essentially a rubber case for the gas tank) the Pinto would have been one of the safer cars on the road but that would have taken extra time and money (it would have cost about $10 more per car) so Ford said screw it and went without it.
majordbag2 1 year ago
Another example of lousy fuel tank placement was the Suzuki Sidekick and Vitara. The fuel tank was practically inches from the rear bumper. Their solution? Install a metal shield over the back of the tank.
deepthoughtsofdeath 2 years ago
To take a non-obvious one, Lanes description of the Grimshaw case is incorrect (or at least poorly worded, depending on what he means by backfired): comparative evidence in that case showing that the Pinto was safer than other subcompacts and no more likely to explode was excluded over Fords objection. (In the famous case against Ford brought by state prosecutors over the Pinto, Ford was allowed to introduce that evidence, and an Indiana jury acquitted Ford.)
carmine440 2 years ago
that car that hit it was a full size car goin probably 50. and it didnt blow up the gas leaked out and caught fire. any compact car would do that.
TraytenTarr 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAH So it is true!!
rednecksinspace 2 years ago
This problem was not limited to Pinto...Ford cars of 1965-1970 all had problems because the fuel tank was parrt of the trunk floor--same piece of sheet metal--and the filler hose passed from the rear panel through the trunk and was rubber!!! Mustangs, Fairlanes, LTD all had it..and let's not forget the station wagons whose tanks were in the left rear fender...hazards in sideswiping there..there was a TV special about this back then...
luxaurum 2 years ago
The one where CBS got caught putting a rocket igniter in the tank to make sure it caught fire?
supressorgrid 2 years ago
no that was for the chevy sidesaddel gas tanks
FantomLightning 2 years ago
Let's try it with a '72 Corolla now
KDoyle4 2 years ago
no, try 1974 volvo!!! since 1974, volvo has been using fuel tank ahead the rear axle where's many modern cars are
josephtan1818 2 years ago
Didn't Ford fix this problem by redesignning the gas tank?
SteelCity1981 2 years ago 2
Well this proves that larger cars are better in an accident. I wouldnt like to be mowed down by an LTD (I assume that's an LTD bashing into that Pinto) in a smart car, or a geo metro or some other homosexual car.
I know that if I ever get into an accident in my '74 Ford LTD, I'll probabally be alright (depending on what kind of accident, of course)
wilkes85 2 years ago
I know why it exploded it was because it's a ford thats why
hoytguy44 2 years ago
oh and please don't insult my intelligence by going on about"how we in the USA don't give a damm about the rest of the world/your shitty little country!" Ford have factory's in Europe and the UK making damm fine cars! odd that eh? we can turn out safe car's you your country CANT!(even though there owned by the same company!)
grahamkeithtodd 2 years ago
stereotyping es no bueno
stephensamperi 2 years ago
Very true, ford has made some great cars and still dose. The Mondeo is stiff competition for BMW's now.
CRF250RGUY 2 years ago
Well the last generation GM minivans were designed by Vauxhall, and look at how dangerous they are!
clarkbell 2 years ago
GM? wtf? we are talking about ford's crap US cars..nothing about Vauxhall's crap cars(in my opinion the last great Vauxhall was the "droop snoot" Firenza)
grahamkeithtodd 2 years ago
this car was a death trap and Ford KNEW it! papers found by lawyers acting for people that where killed by exploding pintos prove that Ford KNEW of this problem and refused to fix it , a it would have added $15 to the cost of every one made by them!(the letter from Ford's lawyers to Ford said"it is much better to fight people's family's who have been killed in a pinto then fix the problem, as we can keep the case's going for YEARS before you have to pay out"
grahamkeithtodd 2 years ago
please back up your rant with sources.
t0rdluvr 2 years ago
OK try the British government own reports of this car when Ford brought it out and tried to export it into the UK(little known fact all cars being imported in to the UK have to under go a full safety inspection)this car failed it before they even ran it into a the 15 ton block of conceret!engineers looked at the back axle and realized just how unsafe it was and refused to drive it!
strange how Ford never did import this pos into the UK eh?
one idiot did and his car was refused a MOT
grahamkeithtodd 2 years ago
if only a few cars have a really bad problem, the reputation still spreads. i think thats what happened to the pinto.
and im sure many cars would explode if rear ended at 70 mph, especially with a full tank.
cars explode from fender-benders in movies :D
stephensamperi 2 years ago
but that's hollywood (i think you knew that, though)
and cars really don't EXPLODE, they might catch fire though (i'm not a science geek, but i don't think gasoline is explosive, just highly flammable)
(although i think gasoline CAN explode if it's kept in a pressurized container and heated)
t0rdluvr 2 years ago
you're right. gasoline is just highly flammable. i used to play with it and other flammable liquids when i was little. its also gets grease off your hands.
i have seen cars burning in real life, no explosions though. one time i saw a van with all the tires burning.......
stephensamperi 2 years ago
hahah like in "TOP SECRET!"
Tr2u1ck 2 years ago
no stephensamperi old son.. the damm car design was flawed from the start!
Ford knew of the dangers due to the crap design but refused to act to fix them!
grahamkeithtodd 2 years ago
I worked in a Ford bodyshop during the Pinto hayday,I saw many pinto that were rearended. I never saw one catch fire. And I saw hundreds of them wrecked, when I lived in California
pinkpiggydoodle 2 years ago
the whole "exploding pinto" story was way overblown.
somewhatlongdong 2 years ago
Now that was scary..imagine if you had your child back there
Prizm2356 2 years ago
that is just too bad... really. Too bad. :( I think i just died a little inside. thanks
jessesnyder15 2 years ago
really tells you what was going on in the heads of the engineers from Ford at the time
bikercc 2 years ago
gavi chap got that info from a website haha
405spreez32 2 years ago
The Pinto was was prone to explosions and many were hurt or killed but the video was a fake...charges were set in the impact video for effect...how dare they do this. I have a wagon that did not have this problem. Ford was wrong...but do not fake an explosion
briandtw 3 years ago
when i presented this video, someone else said the same - do you mind either providing a link to a webpage that confirms this, or point out certain things in the video that confirm this? (as i'm not an expert in neither incendiaries nor cars, i don't know what to even look for)
tingrin87 3 years ago
You don't know how to do a google search "pinto, explosions?"
Wow.
magog1138 3 years ago
They could be confusing this pinto video with the 60 minutes faked explosion of a cheverolet side saddle pick up truck that caused a scandal.
Lumotaku 2 years ago
Well, at least the heater works.
spudmustang 3 years ago
Lee Iacocca, that criminal in necktie, should have been jailed for life and reduced to rags for what he had done.
The Pinto was a planned deathtrap. In a shunt, its rear-end would crumple like an accordion jamming the doors shut, while the differential protruding bolts would pierce the (unprotected) fuel tank bursting the whole car into flames.
And all this because this git thought that "safety doesn't sell" and refused to add a $11 plastic shroud to the fuel tank!
Scumbag!
Gavichap 3 years ago
Back in the 70's, it didn't. Ford execs were no less at fault, but people knew what they were getting into and bought them anyway. Even seatbelts were laughed at in the 50's and 60's.
DestinysJester 2 years ago
Sorry, but I beg to differ. The story of the plastic shroud and Lee Iacocca's criminal nonchalance is proven by the facts of the time, along with the quote "safety doesn't sell".
The Pinto had a weak rear-end with a vestigial bumper and an unprotected fuel tank.
The bolts of the differential were pinpointed to be the cause of tank puncture by a technical survey, not by barstool banter.
The 1991 film "Class Action" with Gene Hackman is clearly blueprinted on the Pinto story.
Gavichap 2 years ago
Compared to the competing Chevy Vega, it only ignited at speeds 2 mph less, 25 and 27 respectively. They knew people would die, but it actually was basically average for its time, considering its size.
When Iacocca tried to implement seat belts, padded dashes, and other safety things in the 50's, at a cost of $49, people rejected the idea. So he learned people didn't care about safety.
He wanted the car to be less than 2000 bucks, whatever the case. Buyer beware I guess.
DestinysJester 2 years ago
You have a good point. But Iacocca knew that this flaw was going to cause horrible deaths by fire as a matter of fact, not statistic or speculation.
He criminally declined to put a $11 plastic shroud between the tank and the differential, because money came first and to hell with human life and road safety. He should have been kicked out of the company and chucked in the clink for at least a decade.
Exemplary sentences and stiff regulations make business more responsible.
Gavichap 2 years ago 5
the guys responsible for the ford pinto sure were typical spoiled rich kids, money to spend on whatever they spend first, before safety or anything else that's good for everyone else....
supertrix101 2 years ago
Pinto doing what it does best.
Cab0cl0 3 years ago
That looked like a 1971 Chevy Caprice that creamed that Pinto. That poor Pinto didn't have a chance against that heavyweight!
Rockord79 3 years ago
the Ford Pinto, nothing but a death trap
gopconservative78 3 years ago
Ford decided it was cheaper to pay the lawsuits from people hurt or killed than to recall the vehicle. they put a value on human life.
Biomajor2006 3 years ago 8