Misunderstood cars: The Ford Pinto

[mahatmakanejeeves]

I never owned a Pinto. I've ridden {not "written." Sheesh.) in at least one. I suspect they weren't much better or worse than a lot of cars from that era.

Full disclosure: I own shares of Ford.

Misunderstood cars: The Ford Pinto

Kurt Ernst on Oct 17th, 2017

A popular car for the decade, it was produced by the Ford Motor Company, the subcompact Pinto is today best known for its propensity to combust in rear-end collisions. Despite its horrific portrayal in Pinto Madness, published by Mother Jones magazine in its September/October 1977 issue, later fatality rate data revealed the Pinto to be on par with other subcompacts of the day and certainly not the threat it was purported to be in both print and broadcast media.

Looking for a subcompact to counter the market onslaught from Japanese and European automakers, Ford Motor Company began work on the model that would become the Pinto in 1967. By December 1968, the basic design concept was approved by Ford Product Planning, but there was a catch: Lee Iacocca wanted the Pinto to be in dealer showrooms by the 1971 model year, condensing the typical 43-month development cycle into just 25 months. Furthermore, Iacocca insisted that the new model weigh no more than 2,000 pounds and cost no more than $2,000, standards that were considered by engineers to be set in stone.
....

About the same time, Mark Dowie’s article – which would go on to earn a Pulitzer Prize – was published in Mother Jones magazine. In the piece, Dowie referred to the Pinto as a “firetrap” and a “lethal car,” citing 500 to 900 fatal Pinto fires, erroneously attributing an NHTSA calculated social cost fatality to Ford and incorrectly attributing industry-wide rollover fatality data to Pinto rear-end collisions. The actual number of rear-impact, fire-related fatalities that could be attributed to the Pinto at the time of the article, per NHTSA data, was 27 – still too many, but far fewer than the numbers cited in Pinto Madness.
....

For years, no one sought to verify if any of the sensationalistic data on Pinto crashes was true, but in November 1990, Gary T. Schwartz, a professor at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, presented a paper at the Pfizer Distinguished Visitors Series sponsored by the Rutgers School of Law. Entitled The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, Schwartz patiently dispels, over 56 annotated pages, the idea that the Pinto was any more dangerous than the subcompacts it competed against at the time.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I had a Pinto. It was a piece of crap, but just about anything in those years was...

Back then, driving schools got Darts because they lasted forever and were good on gas My '75 Dart was incredibly bad-- much worse in every way than the '73's were. Those were the days of rebadging cheap Chevys as Cadillacs and vast numbers of "safety" rules that added weight, cost, and unreliability while adding little to safety.

Thinking back to the 70's, it was no secret why the Japanese took over the business.

[doc03]

3. I agree about the 70s everyone made junk and they were rust buckets in less than 3 years. What

about the Corvair? Was it actually worse than the VW that also had a rear engine? Did anyone ever do a study on that?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. The issues with the Corvair's swing axle rear suspension were addressed in a redesign

that showed up in the 1963 (?) model year.

Head for Wikipedia....

Sorry, 1965. For 1964, a transverse leaf spring was added to reduce the jacking tendency:

First generation (1960–1964)

For 1964 significant engineering changes occurred, while the model lineup and styling remained relatively unchanged. The engine displacement was increased from 145 to 164 cu in (2.4 to 2.7 L) by an increase in stroke. The base engine power increased from 80 to 95 hp (60 to 71 kW; 81 to 96 PS), and the high performance engine increased from 95 to 110 hp (71 to 82 kW; 96 to 112 PS). The Spyder engine rating remained at 150 hp (112 kW; 152 PS) despite the displacement increase of the engine. 1964 saw an improvement in the car's swing axle rear suspension with the addition of a transverse leaf spring along with softer rear coil springs designed to diminish rear roll stiffness and foster more neutral handling. Spring rates could now be softer at both ends of the car compared to previous models. The heavy duty suspension was no longer optional, although all models now had a front anti-roll bar as standard. Brakes were improved with finned rear drums. The remaining pickup, the Rampside, was discontinued at the end of the model year.

Second generation (1965–1969)

The Corvair second generation arrived for model year 1965, noted for its lack of a "B" pillar and a new fully independent suspension replacing the original swing axle rear suspension. The Corvair used coil springs at each wheel.

Early Triumph Spitfires had a swing axle in the back, but the weight was biased toward the front, as that's where the engine was. I recall hearing about a fatal Spitfire rollover at NAS Patuxent River in the early 70s. A guy took the curve too fast, and the rear suspension jacked up.

Here's what that was all about:

Handling issues

The first-generation Corvair featured a rear engine + swing axle design similar to that of the Renault Dauphine and Volkswagen Beetle – a design which eliminates universal joints at the wheels and keeps the rear wheels perpendicular to the half-shafts. The design can allow rear tires to undergo large camber angle changes during fast cornering due to side g-forces causing "rebound" camber and decreasing the tread contact with the road surface, leading to a loss of rear wheel grip and oversteer—a dynamically unstable condition where a driver can lose control and spin. The problem is most severe with rear-engine swing axle combinations because of the greater inertial mass over the rear wheels and the higher center of gravity during rebound camber conditions. The additional high weight of a station wagon body also exacerbates the tendency. Oversteer is exacerbated by deceleration during cornering due to increased side g-force and lightened load on rear tires (lift-off oversteer). Understeer is common in front-engine cars, due to more weight, and inertia, on the front tires. Both conditions are dangerous when a car is driven at its cornering limits. Design options to ameliorate swing axle handling:



1960–63 swing axle suspension

....
For the 1965 model year, the Corvair received a fully independent rear suspension closely resembling that of the contemporary Corvette. The redesigned suspension reduced the rear roll center to half its previous height, using fully articulated half-axles that offered constant camber on the rear tires in all driving situations. This virtually eliminated the handling problems of the first-generation models.

Legal fallout

Consumer protection activist Ralph Nader addressed the handling issues of the first-generation (1960–1963) Corvair in his 1965 book: Unsafe at Any Speed. GM had over 100 lawsuits pending in connection with crashes involving the Corvair, which subsequently became the initial material for Nader's investigations. The book highlighted crashes related to the Corvair's suspension and identified the Chevrolet suspension engineer who had fought management's decision to remove—for cost reasons—the front anti-sway bar installed on later models. Nader said during subsequent Congressional hearings, the Corvair is "the leading candidate for the un-safest-car title". Subsequently, Corvair sales fell from 220,000 in 1965 to 109,880 in 1966. By 1968 production fell to 14,800. Public response to the book played a role in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966.

A 1972 safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960–1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporary competitors in extreme situations.[24] The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a press release in 1972 describing the findings of NHTSA testing from the previous year. NHTSA had conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars—a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, and Renault Dauphine—along with a second-generation Corvair (with its completely redesigned, independent rear suspension). The 143-page report reviewed NHTSA's extreme-condition handling tests, national crash-involvement data for the cars in the test as well as General Motors' internal documentation regarding the Corvair's handling. NHTSA went on to contract an independent advisory panel of engineers to review the tests. This review panel concluded that "the 1960–63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests {...} the handling and stability performance of the 1960–63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic." Former GM executive John DeLorean asserted in his book On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors that Nader's criticisms were valid.

Journalist David E. Davis, in a 2009 article in Automobile Magazine, noted that despite Nader's claim that swing-axle rear suspension were dangerous, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, Tatra, and Volkswagen all used similar swing-axle concepts during that era. (The handling of other rear-engine swing-axle cars, particularly the Volkswagen Type I and II, has been criticized as well.) Some contend that Nader's lack of an automotive engineering degree or a driver's license at the time he wrote Unsafe at Any Speed disqualifies him as a critic of automotive safety. In response to Nader's book, Mechanix Illustrated reviewer Tom McCahill tried to get a 1963 Corvair to flip, at one point sliding sideways into a street curb, but could not turn over the vehicle.

The later ones seemed fine. I wouldn't mind owning one.

Full disclosure: I have never owned or driven one.

[doc03]

5. I had a 61 Corvair and I lost control of it on a turn due to the swing axle.

Last edited Mon Oct 23, 2017, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I went off the road into someone's yard did a couple 360s and come to rest about 6" from a huge tree.
I was thinking more on the lines of a front collision with the Corvair. I loved driving the Corvair though
back in those days most cars didn't have power steering so it was great to drive, great in snow too.
A friend had a 1968 or 9 Corvair later after they had corrected the axle problem it handled great.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. When I was at Pax River, I had a roommate who had owned two of them.

He loved them. He was an engineer, so he could keep up with changes to their handling.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. I drove a few Corvairs, and they could flip, but install a sway bar and that solved the problem...

mostly, anyway. You can flip any car if you try hard enough, but Fiats, Beetles and other rear-engine cars were designed to not have the rear wheels fold under because they had decent suspensions. Stabilizer bars were well understood at the time.

Why GM saved a few bucks on the suspension we'll never know, but we do know that Nader made a bundle raging about the problem but saying little about the solution.

[murielm99]

2. I had a Pinto.

We were rear-ended in it and did not combust. Our insurance fixed the car, and I went on my merry way.

It was a piece of crap. I was happy to replace it when I could.

[marigold20]

7. We bought a brand new 71 Pinto hatchback

It shimmied above 65 mph - I do not recall it fondly. After an accident (front end!) we bought a Datsun F-10 because it had front wheel drive. It was an even worse car! Finally we bought an 83 Honda Civic sedan. We drove that car until it went to the salvage yard and then bought another Civic.

[natheo]

9. great car

Had a ’73 Pinto. It's a nice DD. This car was dependable and very easy to work on.

[Mopar151]

10. The early 2.0 "Cologne" engine

and the 1.6 "Kent" engine were anvils - would absorb massive punishment without a whimper, if manintaned at all. 2 of Cosworth's most popular engines - the YBM and the BDA - were based on them. The rest of the car could be broken, (and I did!)but it was still far superior to a Vega, except for the electrical system.
Chevettes were dreadful - suspension parts, brakes like a riding lawnmower, a gas tank issue worse than a Pinto (I was a dealer mechanic then, did many of those recalls) drivetrain like an old Opel, only cheaper.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Watch it -- I had an Opel.

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2018, 10:36 AM - Edit history (2)

It was a 1968 Rallye Kadett.

This isn't mine. The paint on mine was much better than the paint on this one. Mine also had plain old OEM wheels.

Curbside Classic: 1968 Opel Kadett Rallye 1900 – The European GTO Which Up-Ended The Old World Order
BY PAUL NIEDERMEYER – JUNE 10, 2016



(first posted 8/22/2012) There are two very good reasons why we’re having the third Kadett CC, when other cars have had none. First: this isn’t just any Kadett, but a Rallye 1900. And believe it or not, the Rallye 1900 was a very significant car historically; in fact I would call it a true revolutionary, for turning the automotive establishment on its head. Second: I admit to having had an obsession with finding a Kadett in Eugene. The first Kadett CC was found in Austria, the second in the Midwest. But I never gave up hope, and suddenly this appeared in my neighborhood. The fact that it was a Rallye 1900 sealed the deal: its story of how it upset the automotive order of things (thanks undoubtedly to Bob Lutz) must be told.
....

I don't recall anything like that last scene.

I paid $300 for it. It had a 1.9-liter inline four, and a transverse leaf spring front suspension. Basically an oxcart, but it was fun to drive. I managed to steer it into a tree on the outside of a curve. I wish I hadn't done that. The wheels had the same bolt pattern as those of the BMW 02-series.

Another one:

Rallye ‘Round: 1968 Opel Kadett Rallye 1900

I can't remember if I had the fog lights on mine. I think I did, but it's been about 45 years.

[Mopar151]

12. The later Kadetts with the 1.9 were'nt too shabby

Other than they would rust out yesterday....