Stud farm: how could the Pinto have been improved?

Jack Brisco

Banned
My folks had a Fairmont. Decent basic transportation, at least until the moved up to the Sierra foothills. Going up the Sonora Grade I always wanted to get out and run ahead.

Indeed. The four especially had little grunt. Owned three Fairmonts altogether. The 1979, then bought a new 1983 Futura when returning from overseas. Also bought a used 78 or 79 for the wife. Good cars. Very easy to change oil, didn't even need to put up on a ramp. Interestingly, the 83's 200 cubic inch six made two fewer horsepower than the four.

In general, very reliable cars. But having carburetors, sometimes they stalled out on the first start in the morning. Traded 83 on a Chevy S-10 Blazer in 86. Fuel-injected engine started when you turned the key.
 
Not being familiar with the Pinto, nor all that geeky about cars... This thread seems to point to "place in car crusher, sell resulting cube as novelty coffee table" as the best solution.
:openedeyewink:

It wouldn't have taken much, a few dollars per car, to make them as 'good' as the AMC Gremlin, that besides the goofy looks and average fuel mileage, was a solid compact car in the '70s
 
a few dollars per cars
:eek: In an industry where a few cents for a swaybar was "too much"?:eek: Have you just wiped out the unit profit? Or pushed the price higher than anybody would be willing to pay? (Or have I asked for too much at a price point Ford would ever actually achieve?:oops:)

OTOH, if a (slightly) more expensive (& better looking, better built) *Pinto also sells better for being better looking & better built...
 

Driftless

Donor
I'll get my corporate rant in.... Some hotshot yahoo makes career bonus points for shaving costs in the short run, at the expense of long-term operations for the company - let alone the egregious risk to consumers. Those yahoo's climb the corporate ladder or job-jump to another company on the phantom savings they can tout; while leaving their erstwhile compatriots to answer for their sins. No accountability for the real sinners....
 
I'll get my corporate rant in.... Some hotshot yahoo makes career bonus points for shaving costs in the short run, at the expense of long-term operations for the company - let alone the egregious risk to consumers. Those yahoo's climb the corporate ladder or job-jump to another company on the phantom savings they can tout; while leaving their erstwhile compatriots to answer for their sins. No accountability for the real sinners....
All true, yet not on-topic... The thread has (already) degenerated into complaining about Ford execs (auto corp execs in general, even) being greedy, amoral dicks. (Geez, even getting lower marks than Mafiosi.:eek: Somebody call John Gotti. Or Sal Lucania. Or even Sammy Gravano.:openedeyewink: {Leave off [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D._Pistone']Joe Pistone[/url]...})

Can I ask for more focus on a better Pinto, & less on executive amorality?;)
 

Driftless

Donor
Back on point...

I think you have three options for a safer & successful alternate Pinto: add a sub-frame behind the (OTL) axle, move the axle back (ala Renault le Car) allowing for different gas tank configuration ahead of the rear axle, or go with front-wheel drive. FWD wasn't part of Ford's lineup in that era, but it was successfully done by other car makers across the world.

*edit* As I remember, the ride on those Pintos was rough - short wheel base and and an economy suspension, so moving the axle back might not be a bad thing.

** 2nd edit** Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" probably torpedoed any idea of a rear-engine option, even IF Ford would have considered it on the drawing board.
 
Last edited:
Back on point...
You're hardly the only offender.:)
I think you have three options for a safer & successful alternate Pinto: add a sub-frame behind the (OTL) axle, move the axle back (ala Renault le Car) allowing for different gas tank configuration ahead of the rear axle, or go with front-wheel drive. FWD wasn't part of Ford's lineup in that era, but it was successfully done by other car makers across the world.
My guess is the subframe is most likely. FWD is the one I like best, but IMO the least probable...

Question is, can we sell the idea of FWD to FoMoCo management at the time? Or are they dead set against it?
As I remember, the ride on those Pintos was rough - short wheel base and and an economy suspension, so moving the axle back might not be a bad thing.

Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" probably torpedoed any idea of a rear-engine option, even IF Ford would have considered it on the drawing board.
Any compact car's going to suffer the ride issue... I agree, rear-engined is probably a non-starter.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It wouldn't have taken much, a few dollars per car, to make them as 'good' as the AMC Gremlin, that besides the goofy looks and average fuel mileage, was a solid compact car in the '70s
A FEW DOLLARS?!

A you MAD?????

GM (or Ford, VW, Fiat, et al) would kill a man to save $0.01 a car.
 
Back on point...

I think you have three options for a safer & successful alternate Pinto: add a sub-frame behind the (OTL) axle, move the axle back (ala Renault le Car) allowing for different gas tank configuration ahead of the rear axle, or go with front-wheel drive. FWD wasn't part of Ford's lineup in that era, but it was successfully done by other car makers across the world.

*edit* As I remember, the ride on those Pintos was rough - short wheel base and and an economy suspension, so moving the axle back might not be a bad thing.

** 2nd edit** Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" probably torpedoed any idea of a rear-engine option, even IF Ford would have considered it on the drawing board.
At the time the Pinto came out Lee Iacocca had words with the president of the company he wanted to bring over the Ford Fiesta which if I remember right it was front wheel drive and it was a lot better in almost every way. The pinto four-cylinder engine, was built for the pinto. And it was used until they discontinued the Ranger pickup truck I never heard a bad thing about that the engine
 
Last edited:
At the time the Pinto came out Lee Iacocca had words with the president of the company he wanted to bring over the Ford Fiesta which if I remember right it was front wheel drive and it was a lot better in almost every way. The pinto four-cylinder engine, was built for the pinto. And it was used until they discontinued the Ranger pickup truck I never heard a bad thing about that the engine
A quick look at WP suggests the Fiesta was about 5yr too late... And it looks like the North American execs weren't exactly friendly to FWD (tho Europe accepted it pretty well). Not to mention the Fiesta, with only a 957cc straight 4 to start, was (& would be, when it came over) pretty small...

Recall, the competition for the first Pinto was Vega/Monza & Gremlin, not so much 310s & Corollas, not until after the '73 oil shock. Unless you can get Ford management to see farther over the horizon & realize the Japanese are a bigger threat than anybody in Detroit acknowledged OTL...& that will take more than a little doing.

If you could get something akin to Escort in '70-1, with the 2.3 (yes, I want the big four, so I can steal bits off the Scorpio & Ranger)... This might enable a successful subcompact in '73-4, & something like the Omni GLH a bit later (& here's where the Scorpio turbo, 4wd, & Ranger dual plug come in), as the *Mustang II (under another name, natch).
 
Top