Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: circlecity

Only guessing but if it was racing at a drag strip safety regs. would have required heavy mods. I know what you mean though, a rear end crash would cause a bumper bolt to puncture the fuel tank or some such IIRC.


12 posted on 03/29/2018 11:47:34 AM PDT by V_TWIN (oks like)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: V_TWIN

I remember seeing in Hot Rod magazine a guy who crammed a built 460 Ford into a pinto. Late 70’s, early 80’s. The powertrain probably weighed more than the rest of the car combined.

That car had “zero to emergency room in three seconds” written all over it.


30 posted on 03/29/2018 12:09:32 PM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it. MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: V_TWIN
I know what you mean though, a rear end crash would cause a bumper bolt to puncture the fuel tank or some such IIRC.

If you go back, the record reflects a deep bias against the Pinto on the order of the one that doomed the Corvair. There aren't too many cars, even today, that can withstand a rear-end collision of 30-50mph, but that's what the NHTSA demanded of the 1970s-era Pintos.

From: Ford Pino:

Lee and Ermann noted that NHTSA used a worst case test to justify the recall of the Pinto, rather than the regular 1977 rear impact crash test. A large "bullet car" was used instead of a standard moving barrier. Weights were placed in the nose of the car to help it slide under the Pinto and maximize gas tank contact. The vehicle headlights were turned on to provide a possible ignition source. The fuel tank was completely filled with gasoline rather than partially filled with non-flammable Stoddard fluid as was the normal test procedure. In a later interview the NHTSA engineer was asked why the NHTSA forced a Pinto recall for failing a 35 mph test given that most small cars of the time would not have passed. "Just because your friends get away with shoplifting, doesn't mean you should get away with it too."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ultimately directed Ford to recall the Pinto. Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. The NHTSA investigation found that 27 deaths were found to have occurred between 1970 and mid-1977 in rear-impact crashes that resulted in fire. The NHTSA did not indicate if these impacts would have been survivable absent fire or if the impacts were more severe than even a state of the art (for 1977) fuel system could have withstood. In their analysis of the social factors affecting the NHTSA's actions, Lee and Ermann note that 27 is the same number of deaths attributed to a Pinto transmission problem which contributed to collisions after the affected cars stalled. They also note that the NHTSA had two primary incentives in proving a defect existed in the Pinto's fuel system design. The administration was pressured by safety advocates (Center for Auto Safety) as well as the public respose. It was also being forced into action due to the ways in which both the courts and executive branch were limiting the ability of the NHTSA to address systematic auto safety issues.

...

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., decided in February 1978, is one of two important Pinto cases. A 1972 Pinto driven by Lily Gray stalled in the center lane of a California freeway. The car was struck from behind by a vehicle initially traveling at 50 mph and impacted at an estimated between 30 and 50 mph resulting in a fuel tank fire.

...

On August 10, 1978 three teenage girls of the Urlich family of Osceola, Indiana were killed when the 1973 Pinto they were in was involved in a rear-end collision. The driver had stopped in the road to retrieve the car's gas cap which had been inadvertently left on the top of the car and subsequently fell onto the road. While stopped the Pinto was struck by a Chevrolet van.

...

A former head of the NHTSA, testifying on Ford's behalf, said the Pinto's design was no more or less safe than that of any other car in its class. In 1980 Ford was found not guilty. In 1980 a civil suit was settled for $7500 to each plaintiff.

37 posted on 03/29/2018 12:23:17 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard., -- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: V_TWIN

“Only guessing but if it was racing at a drag strip safety regs. would have required heavy mods.”

Some/many? drag strips have the equivalent of Plain Folks Nights, where anyone can bring their car and race it. I think if you do the 1/4 mile in less than 10 seconds, they then require you to have a more race-modified car plus some driver certifications. IIRC.


78 posted on 03/29/2018 1:39:31 PM PDT by PLMerite ("They say that we were Cold Warriors. Yes, and a bloody good show, too." - Robert Conquest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: V_TWIN
if it was racing at a drag strip safety regs. would have required heavy mods.

Yeah, like a racing seat, a cage, a fuel cell, an explosion proof bellhousing, and a 427.

104 posted on 03/29/2018 8:57:36 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (The Obama is about to hit the fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson