Lee Iacocca was a complex individual with the innate ability to intimidate those whose views didn’t align with his own. This trait cost him the corner office at Ford World Headquarters that he had coveted since the day he commenced work with the company. More importantly for consumers, it also prevented Pinto engineers from raising the subject of the fuel system flaws that plagued the early cars, and that would taint the Pinto’s reputation forever. Those issues were distant memories when this 1976 Pinto Runabout rolled off the line. This car presents well following a recent repaint and is in excellent mechanical health. The original owner’s decision to order it with the factory sunroof helps it stand apart from the crowd, but the time is right for it to find a new owner. The seller has listed the Pinto here on eBay in Jonesboro, Georgia. Bidding has reached $2,025 but remains short of the reserve.
Ford pitched the Pinto to the buying public as an affordable commuter option, and Iacocca’s goal of bringing it to the market under $2,000 was admirable and, ultimately, successful. The company sold 352,402 examples during the first model year, and our feature Runabout is 1-of-290,132 Pintos to find a home in 1976. Its original owner ordered this little gem in Light Aqua Metallic, with the car spending its life in California until migrating to its current location a few years ago. The sunny climate did a wonderful job of preserving this classic’s steel. The seller acknowledges surface corrosion on its underside but that this classic is completely rust-free. The California sun had baked the paint, so the seller treated it to a cosmetic refresh. It was worth the effort because the car presents beautifully. The paint shines nicely, with the trim and glass looking excellent. The sports wheels lift the overall appearance and give the car a more sporty feel. However, the ace could be the factory sunroof. The seller describes this as rare, and I admit I struggle to remember ever seeing one of these. I could not confirm the total, but one of our readers may be able to shed light on the subject.
This Pinto’s interior has a few shortcomings, but none appear insurmountable. The dash pad has succumbed to the UV rays, but the seller includes a new replacement for the buyer to install. The driver’s seat has some splits and rips, although a set of slipcovers would hide the problem for those working to a strict budget. Otherwise, a complete seatcover kit in the correct material and color retails for approximately $600. Those would make an enormous difference once installed, but most of the remaining issues will probably respond to a deep clean and some basic TLC. The new owner won’t be swamped with factory options, although it is guaranteed they will welcome the AM radio.
Lifting this Pinto’s hood reveals the 2.8-liter “Cologne” V6 producing 100hp and 144 ft/lbs of torque. Shifting duties fall to a three-speed automatic transmission, with the original owner equipping the car with power steering and power brakes. The Iacocca goal of bringing the Pinto to market weighing under 2,000 lbs proved just beyond reach, but the company didn’t miss by much. However, ongoing development, safety upgrades, and the V6 engine mean this Runabout tips the scales at 2,731 lbs. Performance figures are all you might expect in that case, with the Pinto unlikely to scare many muscle cars. However, it should cruise happily at 70mph, while the mechanical combination will make it an effective and economical daily driver. The seller recently rebuilt the carburetor, confirming the car is in excellent mechanical health. It runs and drives as it should, and the seller encourages in-person inspections before the auction’s end.
I can place my hand on my heart and declare that the Pinto was a car I have never understood. I acknowledge that Ford was feeling the pinch due to a lack of a subcompact for the domestic market, but I’ve always felt that its development was driven as much by the Iacocca ego as the need for a vehicle to combat imports. Ford of Europe had an effective weapon in its Escort range, featuring a proven platform and sound engineering principles. Restyling and reengineering the car for local tastes and conditions would have been straightforward and cost-effective. Still, the Pinto represented the first opportunity for “Lido” to develop a car from a blank sheet of paper. It should have cemented his reputation within Ford, but the bad publicity undermined it. The Pinto is not the most desirable car on the planet, but it fulfilled its stated role perfectly. However, for many, their final trip was to the scrapyard when owners decided they had passed their “use-by” date. This one avoided that fate and is a gem, and it will take little to lift its interior so it is on par with the exterior. Would you consider accepting that challenge, or doesn’t it appeal to your taste?
I get it…I got it enough to have owned three of them, one long-term, one stolen, and one a Winter Car.
The Pinto, IMHO, was the right car…at the wrong time, a time when emissions standards, and then bumper diktats, were racing ahead of technology. As launched, the Pinto was a desirable car for its market – light, sleek, inexpensive. Four-speed gearbox standard, which was a novel thing, as well as the rack-and-pinion steering.
Coke-bottle styling, with the flaring hips, the rounded doors, was all the rage, and the styling reflected it in a way that Cortinas, Fiestas and euro-Escorts did not. New side-impact requirements also discouraged any attempt to make lightweight European city cars into American models.
Rear wheel drive? Detroit, more than just Iacocca, was not sold on the advantages. Neither were Americans, as it turned out – later, Chrysler made a very-costly changeover to 100-percent FWD cars, and later Daimler ownership undid much of that. Rear-drivers are now PRIZED – the Mustang is preferred to Ford’s now-dead sporty attempts at front-driver sporty cars.
So, the Pinto as designed in 1967-70, came out a rear-driver. A nod to European knowledge of cars that size, engines from Ford’s Kent and Cologne plants were used as standards. The Lima 2.3, which was initially a poor copy of the Cologne, was three years in the future.
And just in time, too, as emissions standards proved hard to hit. The last year of the 2.0 four, 1973…IIRC it was rated at 54 net hp. Disgraceful. The Pinto was never intended to have a big honkin’ V6 in there, but it was needed, in the 1970s nadir of strangled catalytic-converted engines.
The bumpers, likewise. The Pinto as designed, was 1970s-slick. I liked it. It was basically a chick car, but I liked the look.
Put those beam bumpers on it, and the appearance is spoiled; the weight distribution is spoiled…IIRC they lowered the rear end a little to get the rear basher in line with the demands of DoT.
This is well-preserved; but we see on the Bay of E, what the market thinks it’s worth. So…it’s an opportunity: Strip off those obscene bumpers. Pull that boat-anchor V6 and put an Eco-Boost four in there.
Dress the outside as a 1971; and drive it like the pocket-rocket it will be with that boosted engine.
And some updated brakes. A donor Ford focus car. 2008 Ford Focus underneath would be actually not difficult. And you’d drop 900 pounds going Front Wheel Drive on that monocoque chassis. It would be quite fast with that fuel injected 2.0. But not so fast anyone is going to destroy it by racing it. Imagine a Pinto still driving around daily in 2040? The Front Wheel Drive would also allow for proper resolve of fuel cell update/replacement. Driveshaft Differential and Live Axle is a lot of weight shaving. Automatic transmission might not seem sporting, but getting 35mpg under normal driving would convince you it’s the better way to go. Makes the conversion less complicated and again, more weight savings. The old transmission and linkage were replaced in that process, part of that 900 pounds.
In 1971 Ford England redesigned the Cortina but we got the Pinto instead.Always liked and owned the wagon version.
Lots of people today don’t “get” the Pinto. But over 3 million of them did, back in the day. We owned 7 of the cars. They weren’t hot rods, but they could be made to run. This one is a beaut. Love that color.
With the fresh paint, it looks good. Still needs interior upgrades, and an underhood rework would help too. And I prefer a manual transmission. That said, it’s a nice Pinto. Probably not the most desirable Pinto model in today’s market (I’d say that would be a wagon, preferable a Squire), but desirable none-the-less. I had forgotten the factory sunroof, surely there weren’t very many so equipped.
I wonder what is the reserve. Even if the paint job is just so-so, it cost many dollars, and I wonder if the seller will at least get his money out of it.
A lot of questionable statements in this article based on opinion rather than facts.
“Bad publicity”? There was a memo circulated among Ford executives comparing the cost of fortifying the Pinto’s fuel tank vs. the cost of the expected legal settlements from accidents due to the current design. That’s not bad publicity, that’s corporate evil. This isn’t something Dateline faked; this is real danger, and Ford executives knew about it long before the first Pinto was built.
Your assessment isnt quite as simple as you suggest. I too am familiar with the infamous internal memo that suggested that the Pinto design could be rectified for about $7.00 per car. Im also familiar with data that proved the Pinto was no more unsafe than any other subcompacts built during this era, in fact figures showed it was safer than many other models. The Pinto was oft criticized for the fuel tank design, but there is more to the story. A little research will show this to be fact not fiction.
As an engineering student, the Pinto was the subject of one of my research papers. The engineering issue was that in an accident severe enough to displace the gas tank forward, the tank could be torn by the differential bolts or shock absorber bolts, causing a leak at best and a rupture at worst. The $7 you reference (the actual memo quotes $11 per car – https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/phpq3mJ7F_FordMemo.pdf) was the cost of shielding to prevent contact with the differential and shock absorber bolts. The problem was real, though perhaps the risk wasn’t quite as great as most people believed. Ford knew about it, and calculated that it would cost less to pay out injury and death claims than to install shielding. Read the memo. It’s quite damning.
You might be possibly confusing the Pinto issue with another vehicle. At issue with the Pinto was the design of the filler neck AKA-the tube on the drivers side of the vehicle, where gasoline would be introduced into the fuel tank. My recollection is that during severe rear end collisions, the fuel neck could possibly dislodge, creating a fuel spill, which obviously, could be a problem. This issue was not discovered until some time after the debut of the Pinto, which was in Fall of 1970, as a 1971 model. Ford chose not to redesign the fuel filler tube, however, they did introduce much beefier bumpers (front & rear for the 1974 models). Much publicity came about following several deaths from fuel fires involving the Pinto, but the issue was largely exaggerated. 27 deaths attributed to fuel fires during the manufacturing run of this vehicle, which was comparable or less than other models of the era- i.e.- Chevy Vega, Datsun B210, Toyota Corona, Carina, Corolla. Ironic that you mention Dateline as a reference. It was later discovered that a writing source called Mother Jones, did articles on the Pinto, deeming it a death trap. Mother Jones, reportedly conducted several staged “collisions” in attempts to replicate exploding Pintos & was unsuccessful, eventually concocting a collision with a manufactured “spark source” so that they could obtain video footage of a ghastly Pinto fire. It’s tragic whenever anyone loses their life in a vehicular collision. Yes people did get killed from accidents involving the Pinto, but it is not completely accurate to place all the blame on the manufacturer, given the results over time that tended to show this vehicle as safe as other subcompacts produced during the 1970’s.
Then, by all means. Don’t buy one.
Dude: 75% of all cars had the same or worse vulnerability in a collision. VW Bug had a gas tank on your knees. It was a bit on Ioccoca because he was dealing with unions literally controlled by Mafia fairy fruits who would sabotage our cars to threaten strikes if blah blah blah wasn’t done. Mafia fruits are what got Lido canned. Still same trouble makers today. Back then unions wanted segregation in manufacturing labor pools, this Italian gang crying about black union workers in their unit and so on. It was same trouble makers who invaded our Capitol. Snap out of it.
Did the Pinto V6 weight any more than a Capri V6 of the same year? Everyone loves Capris but not Pintos. I don’t see how Pintos gained 600lbs just from big bumpers. Anyway, if it was a manual, cool. Lots of room for wide wheels and by retrofitting the early bumpers it might have been a blast of a car.
My understanding is suspension, axle, etc updates to handle the heavier weight and more torque is what added up those pounds. That’s why they went Front Wheel Drive after this era. No rear diff, no heavy live axle, no long metal axle and the braces to contain it’s torque, no losses of power pushing all those extra and heavy parts, no large bell housing, etc etc. Cumulative weight in any design is more important than throwing horsepower at the engineering challenge: Power to Weight ratio AND least amount of friction in the driveline. I suspect the Pinto body is decent aerodynamically, especially from side winds. So with less weight in the entire driveline, I suspect the Pinto as FWD would be fantastic. Very light ditching rear wheel drive components. Probably a much better suspension. 2.0 Ford Focus underneath would actually be an homage to Ford & Lido.
A few years earlier in 1973, a Pinto sunroof would cost $117 (about $800 today). Which was a bargain if you wanted a little extra ventilation since A/C would have cost $362 ($2500).
I don’t recall seeing many sunroofs at all before the 80s. I’m surprised they took so long to take hold in the US market since VW had been doing them for years.
My mom’s 77 had the vinyl top and the sunroof. You could remove it as well.
Early sunroofs both original components and aftermarket that dealers and JC Whitney customers added were heavy and terrible designs that most held moisture all around the metal roof and/or dripped down to the carpet rusting out the floorboards not well treated and not designed for drainage. They weren’t building cars – then or now – for us to hang onto long after they are paid off. That racket continues today.
The way people are throwing money around these days, I’m surprised this is only at $3,500 late into the auction. Like many older folks on here, I have experience with them. Drove many of them. They are pretty slow generally, much less with the Cruise-O-Matic. Then they’re Really slow. They aren’t exciting to drive regardless of transmission, but probably didn’t deserve the contempt they once got. Definite novelty now! I’d be a bit concerned about keeping up with modern traffic in our era where the slowest economy car is faster than some Trans Ams were back in the late ’70s and early ’80s.
The sunroof in 76 was a metal roll back style in 77 the rallye and cruising wagons came out w,gauges ,special st. Wheel. All glass rear hatch and a flip up removable glass sunroof .some wagons had rear louvers and both had stripe kits
I’ve owned 2 Pinto wagons. Both 4 cylinder/4 speeds. Loved them! My Brother in Law bought a ‘77 with V6/auto. Gutless gas hog, (12mpg) and Cologne V6s, especially early ones, were well known for top end failures. Hard pass!
I had two Pintos. A yellow coup , trunk and all. I had the smaller 4 banger and a 4 speed so it got around pretty quickly. Even in Missouri winters you couldn’t get that car stuck, it just went no matter how deep the snow.and i lived in the country on an old blacktop road It served me well and i enjoyed it.It just wore out from all the miles i put on it. The 2nd was Squire wagon with the big 4 but an automatic and it was slow! It also was a good car, i used it to haul my bass gear to gigs so for that it was perfect. Actually it was one of the few cars i sold that i didn’t run the wheels off or wreck. The auto in this car for sale and the bumpers are the only reason i’d not be interested and it’s so far away.
A Pinto with bridal straps.
*bridle
I mix and match ..2300 block ,ranger, mid nineties 2.5 crank .040 bore ..2540 cc ,used 1984 turbo cooupe 5 speed trans.late 50s 9 in.rear 3.73 gear ,ranger front 5 lug rotors …..very fast and scary fun.
In 1977, I sold Fords at Galpin Ford and my demo was a 77 Pinto with factory manual sunroof. It had a special package featuring orange paint, white half vinyl roof, orange and white plaid upholstery and thick orange carpet and I don’t remember if the sunroof was part of the package
I bet That was a nice car ,I had a 1978 the same colors ,rally gauges ,sport wheel ,aluminum wheels,white letter tires.all glass rear hatch ,front and rear spoilers
I am eagerly awaiting a copy of Petersons revised Pinto book. I have thumbed the corners off of my first edition. The owners opinions were not all rosey but most would buy another. I would keep the v6, but would find a manual. Maybe when I finish all my other projects I will finally be able to get a pinto. And use the parts I have been collecting……. One day
I’ve owned at least 7 pintos including my 80 which I bought new, one of them had the 6. What I’ve always wondered is why Ford didn’t offer it with the 4 speed manual, because you could in the mustang II. I owned a 76 mustang coup with that setup.
Funny that almost all the comments are positive from those who owned a Pinto although the press and media have condemned it. Had a couple of friends with Pintos and those little cars were tough as nails. More reliable than Vegas and not as rusty. Btw, subject car looks very nice as presented.
I had a first year model 71 with a 4-speed, a factory steel sunroof and air conditioning. I paid $50 for it in 76. It was aTX car with no rust. The cambelt had broken and it wouldn’t start for a person I worked with. My brother and I got it running and repainted and gave it it to my Mom to drive. She finally traded it in on a Squire wagon with an automatic..
I am am old guy here. I worked overnight at a Ford Dealer for many years cleaning/detailing used cars and prepping new ones prior to the Mechanics inspection before they were delivered. I have cleaned and driven every model that they made from the 71 sedan with the 1600 all the way to the last ones in 1980. I can’t tell you how many of these sold……especially when the Arab oil embargo hit. They were better on gas than the big cars of the day. 76 was the last year of the big chrome bumpers. 77 saw a revised look with aluminum bumpers and front end that was a cross between a Camaro and Vega. The 76 listed here with the manual sunroof was definitely not seen too often.. This one also has the V-6. This engine always required you to adjust the valve lash about every 30 thousand miles or they would become noisy. The 6 was better able to handle power steering and power brakes because they were a drag on the engine. This one doesn’t have A/C which makes it a bit easier to work on. It’s cramped with the 6. Remember, they added the smog pumps in 75 across the board… another pulley to drag. The 6’s would be ok at around 60 or 65. Anything above that and they would get louder because the transmission was only a 3 speed. The grille on the 76 is a one year only deal. Also, in 76, they had the stallion package available. It was a one year only option on the Pinto. Most of the car was matte black with a paint color and horse picture on the each front fender. They looked sharp especially in red….. not too easy to find today. I hope that someone takes this car. It will make them happy. I’m not being a wise guy, but if you have any questions about them, please post them and I will try to answer them for you.
I think Pintos look great with BOTH bumper styles. I’ll take a really nice Pinto with ANY engine and ANY transmission! This one looks FANTASTIC and the interior looks to be very fixable. I’ll take it! These days – if you find an excellent looking/running classic for a reasonable price – you don’t have a lot of options left out there. They’re already 43-52 years old. So I’ll take this one – just the way it is. Good luck. Great article.
I like it! I had a ’74 and if I would have had the wheel and tire setup that this one does, I probably would have kept it longer (I was only 17). The sunroof is really unusual. It would be a conversation piece nowadays for sure. I enjoyed this article and all the comments. The seller must have sold it on Craigslist. The Ebay listing said the sale ended and only lists $100. I wonder what she sold for
Was the Pinto a piece of junk? Of course it was. But, that being said, my first car was a 1974 Runabout with that fantastic full rear window. My old man worked at Ford tractor headquarters in Troy,when it was still in existence. He bought from a guy who’s wife turned in her lease car. Dad bought it for my brother. Then came to me for free!!!
Needless to say, it was in a sad state, but it was mine!! All I had to do, was have a job. Had mixed tires, steel belts and glas belts. Doors so rusted out, you pulled the bottom back and you weren’t locked out any more. Had to shift the automatic from drive, to second, to first; back to second and then to drive for it to move. Electrical system was holy frijoles! But, when you get a car free and you only have to work!!! And it was, the fire bomb year car. But I didn’t car, I had a car!!! Honestly, I miss that piece of junk.
My 72 Pinto Stationwagon was a keeper for sure. I bought it with 81,000 miles. It had the 2.0 L and the 4 speed manual tranny. It came with factory a/c (which my hubby took out cuz it was too cramped for his big hands). I drove it for 17 years and it never broke down away from home. It had the larger radiator and a 6 blade fan. It went through timing belts (which I learned how to change) and the exhaust manifold would crack in the same place, right off the number 3 cylinder. So it burnt the exhaust valve. We had the head off to replace the valve and the piston walls were pristine as were the rings. That was at 134,000. I parked it at 325,000 as that exhaust valve got burnt again.
When I think of the money I spent on my Mercury Sable Wagon. I kick myself, cuz I could have had my Pinto back to factory condition. Those were the days. I sure do miss them.
I had a 1975 Pinto with the same engine they actually produce 96 hp, but run like a 100 horse. I had dual exhaust installed and it would leave some v 8s behind. Wish I had it back.
Title issues with this one. Titled owner is deceased, so if your state also requires a receipt/bill of sale, you’re SOL.