In 1979, almost a decade into Pinto production, you most likely either liked them or you didn’t, sort of like today 40 years after production stopped. Some of us like them and some think of nothing but fireball references and never the twain shall meet, as no Pinto owner probably said, ever. This 1979 Ford Pinto can be found here on eBay in historic Albuquerque, New Mexico. There is no reserve and the current bid price is just $1,000.
This particular Pinto looks a little rugged with a few dings and missing trim pieces and some dents and other issues, but a person can’t get a perfect car for $1,000 anymore, which some of us hate to admit. I have gotten some unbelievably nice cars for well under $1,000, but that was 30+ years ago. The Pinto finally received square headlights in 1979, trying to modernize the look. These are the only four photos in the listing, unfortunately. The more technologically-advanced that we get as a society, it seems like we get fewer and fewer bytes of information in a lot of our online car ads.
The seller says that this car has had the same owner for over 20 years but we don’t know if they were that person who owned it that long or not. The NADA value isn’t much higher than the current bid price, but it all depends on if more than one person really wants it or not, as always. 1979 Pintos received newly-designed tail lights and you can see that at least one of these needs to be replaced. An actual crack in the rear bumper is never a good thing, especially for those all-Pintos-are-fireballs-waiting-to-happen folks.
There are no engine photos, unfortunately. That’s unusual for eBay, and it’s something that I will never understand. eBay allows a couple of dozen photos but sellers typically only take and/or load a few. Why?! It is what it is I guess, and the engine is listed as being a 2.3L inline-four and they say that it runs and drives great. It has a 4-speed which is also great, but having just one interior photo isn’t great. But hey, it’s better than none! Have any of you owned a 1979 or 1980 Pinto?
Ford Racing! No further coment.
My first car was a 1980 Pinto, bright orange (much brighter than this one). I was the envy of all of my high school friends.
Supposedly, the 2.3L engine had been rebuilt and bored, with 302 pistons used. That’s what I believed, and I’ve never checked to see if that’s even possible. You’ll ruin my childhood if you tell me it’s not.
It lasted only 2-3 months before I got sideways showing off on gravel (the car would indeed go go) and hit a tree.
I know, I know..strange, but I have always had an affection for the Pinto and Bobcat.
A friend bought a new, but left over Bobcat wagon that I grew to envy.
Plain thing, clean lines, but a blast to drive and a ton of cargo capacity. It surely had its shortcomings but when I see one like this, I have to show restraint. It’s like rescuing a sad puppy that no one else wants.
For those who read “Hemming’s Classic Car” magazine, there’s an article by a period Ford product engineer regarding the Pinto. (It’s in the “I Was There” section, March 2020 issue.) He had purchased a new ’71 model and while there are probably no surprises it’s interesting hearing it from someone who was on the inside.
Yes, and he also stated the fix for the tank rupture problem was a $.50 plastic cover over a bolt on the diff that was the culprit. Ford was too cheap to fix the problem!😡
“Same owner 20 years – 1979 Ford Pinto” – somehow that’s very disturbing…
I bought a new 79 Pinto wagon when I lived in Tucson. It had the 4 cylinder and manual transmission. It was fun to drive, got good gas mileage for the time, lower 20’s. Pulled up beside a snowbird Cadillac at a stop light one night. Rev-ed the engine and got the jump on him. Didn’t last long though before he passed me and left me in the dust. LOL
My best friends older sister had a 1980 Pinto. Purchased brand new at the end of the model year. It was being supplanted by the new Escort, so it was super cheap. 2.3 four speed, bright white. NO OPTIONS…no PS/PB, not even a radio. It did have a heater. We would take it on death missions, trying to kill it. Slam shifting, dropping the clutch at max rpm, off roading ! It would not die. A few years later, a friend of ours bought it and it just kept on running until he had enough money for a new Celica. Swear by those motors, still have one in a 90 Mustang.
Yeah, never understood those type ppl even at a young age. I guess it’s b/c even though my parents weren’t “poor” they taught my siblings & I the meaning of what it meant to appreciate something – because there are other people out there who don’t have anything, so don’t take for granted what you have. Especially if it’s just out of pure stupidity. I had a friend who did the same thing you’re speaking of with a Toyota Celica that was only two years old because his parents were upgrading him to the Toyota Supra. Hearing stories like the one you told, and remembering back to the friend who had the Celica that he just destroyed for no reason when it was still practically new, reminds me of a lady (who walked with a bad limp due to a hip problem) that lived down the street from my elderly aunt a decade or so ago. Someone gave her a VERY USED old Mitsubishi; and you would’ve thought she was given a Cadillac to drive to work after she had walked to work for many years not being able to afford a car.
I guess that’s why stories like what your friend did, and the guy that I know what the Celica did, make me wanna throw up. Rather than engage in the nonsense, I would have liked the story better had you found someone who couldn’t afford a car, and gave it to them. That would have been cool. Let me guess your friend grew up to walk around the local mall emptying trash cans & wastepaper baskets? Ha ha ha ha ha (I don’t expect you to answer yes to that)
I remember my mon breaking down once in A pinto at a farm in Castle Rock Maine and staying the night due to a Saint Bernard dog that disliked these Ford cars 🤔. To this day Pintos and Bobcats give me the chills. Anyone else have this issue with them ? 😏
https://youtu.be/45vzCiU01O4
How long before someone chimes in with the very tired, old, over-used (and exaggerated) line about the rear end collision BS? Happens every time a Pinto is featured. C’mon, I know you’re out there you unoriginal, “clever and witty” commentators.
It went unmentioned, until you did.
Is it permissible to mention the opposite?
My friend’s sister had a Pinto and she would stop on the side of a highway to pick up her friend that lived right there.
One time, an unattentive driver rear-ended her really bad – she was hospitalized and the car was totaled – but the gas tank was intact.
Only saying this once but one of the 3 girls who died in Indiana in one of these was a friend of our family. Unoriginal? Yes. But remembering the funeral? Haunts me to this day.
Seriously? First, People die in car accidents everyday. It’s tragic, it’s sad. And I wasn’t talking about comments of true events that took place.
I’m talking about the stupid@ss people who chime in with something like “better hope a grocery cart doesn’t tap the rear bumper or it’ll explode” comments.
YOU of all people should be more disgusted by those lame attempts at humor than you would ever be by my comment calling them unoriginal.
I’m sure there were plenty of fires due to the Falcons and early Mustangs that used the gas tank for a trunk floor- no one ever mentions that. Its always the old Pinto thing
It’s a $500.00 car.
Sold for $1,250.
Briefly owned a 1977 Pinto . Engine blew on the German autobahn on a trip from my post to visit a soldier in my company that had been hospitalized. Seller let me trade the Ford for a 1980 Bobcat that tended to stall on left turns but was otherwise great transportation. Dated my first wife in that Mercury so many pleasant memories of my Bobcat . Both cars had automatic transmissions which was very convenient.
Some information on that infamous gas tank issue. From http://www.autosafety.org:
“Based upon the tests performed for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and by the tremendous publicity generated over the problem, Ford agreed to recall all 1971 through 1976 Ford Pintos and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for modifications to the fuel tank. The modifications included a longer fuel filler neck and a better clamp to keep it securely in the fuel tank, a better gas cap in some models, and placement of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and the differential to protect the tank from the nuts and bolts on the differential and another along the right corner of the tank to protect it from the right rear shock absorber. Recall notices were mailed in September, 1978 and parts were to be at all dealers by September 15, 1978. However, between June 9, 1978, and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated 2.2 million vehicles, six people died in Pinto fires after a rear impact.”
But more disturbing:
“On June 9, 1978, Ford Motor Company agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for fuel tank design defects which made the vehicles susceptible to fire in the of a moderate-speed rear end collision. The action was the result of investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigations (Case Recall C7-38), sparked by a petition from Center for Auto Safety, publicity generated by national publication expose of the hazard (Mother Jones News Magazine, “Pinto Madness” by Mark Dowie, Sept/Oct, 1977) and publicity over the largest punitive damages awarded by a California jury to a young man who had been severely injured in a Pinto fuel tank fire (Grimshaw v Ford).”
“In April, 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. The Center’s petition was based upon reports from attorneys of three deaths and 4 serious injuries in such accidents. This petition languished in the NHTSA offices until 1977.”
“In 1977, Mark Dowie of Mother Jones Magazine using documents in the Center files, published an article reporting the dangers of the fuel tank design, and cited internal Ford Motor Company documents that proved that Ford knew of the weakness in the fuel tank before the vehicle was placed on the market but that a cost/benefit study was done which suggested that it would be “cheaper” for Ford to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires in the first place. Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but that cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto.”
“Closely following the publication of the Mother Jones article, a jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded Richard Grimshaw $125 million in punitive damages for injuries he sustained while a passenger in a 1971 Pinto which was struck by another car at an impact speed of 28MPH and burst into flames. Although the award was eventually reduced to $3.5 million by the trial judge, the jury’s reason for the figure of $125 million was that Ford Motor Company had marketed the Pinto with full knowledge that injuries such as Grimshaw’s were inevitable in the Pinto and therefore the punitive damages should be more than Ford had made in profit on the Pinto since its introduction, which was $124 million. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348 Cal.App. 4 Dist., 1981.”
Lots of blame to go around, the government sat on it and Ford denied it.
“With the publication of the Mother Jones article and the Grimshaw case publicity, the Center for Auto Safety resubmitted its petition for a defects investigation into the Pinto and ODI Case Recall C7-38 was opened. ODI had crash tests done of 1971-76 Pintos, sedan, hatchback (“Runabout”) and station wagon models, and the results showed significant fuel tank ruptures and leakage, in one case after an impact of 30.31 MPH the entire contents of the fuel tank leaked out of the 1976 Pinto in less than one minute. (Investigative Report, Phrase I, C7-38, 1971-76 Ford Pinto and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat, May, 1978.)”
On the affected earlier models, it might still be wise to look for an open recall on this issue.
Whatever one thinks about the gas tank issue, in the realm of safety there is plenty about this car which is inferior to any modern car. As is every other car of similar vintage. That’s a risk we all take when we drive our old cars. Or for that matter, there are risks when we drive any car. Or for that matter, when you walk up the stairs to your house or get in your shower.
I hope the buyer has some fun with this Pinto.
I had 2 Fairmonts that started on fire too. Apparently when the carburator leaks fuel, and it located above the exhaust manifold, things will burn lol.
One fire took 2 fire trucks! What a day that was.
I still like Fairmonts. If I ever get another one with the inline 6, I will just make sure the carburator is in good shape. But I do now know the risk of owning one…just like a Pinto has risks.