# Talk:Ford Pinto

The description of the Mother Jones article is incorrect in that the current version (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/) does not contain a video or any text refering to the video. I briefly went to archive.org, and found versions promising the video, but again could not see it. It seems to me that, rather than sending readers to the Mother Jones web site to find this important article, it needs to be cited and referenced properly so interested readers can see the one the authors of the secondary citations saw.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert, I'm not sure what you mean by video.  I think you are referring to citation 85 (Lee and Ermann).  In that instance the text is a direct quote from the Lee and Ermann source.  Perhaps we could replace the sentence with a "..."?  Springee (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There was the radio-spot: “Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling.” The acutal strange thing: Even in 1971 this slogan was used, also in 1971 already unusual cases of burning Pintos were reported. This reference suggests that the radio spot was kept and was dropped only years later. If this is true, it would be very dark cynicism...Max schwalbe (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not accept simple deletions. The existence of this slogan can be verified from many different sources. Even in Germany, Die Zeit wrote about it in 1971. i think this should be mentioned / discussed at least.--Max schwalbe (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Another source here. However, it is not mentioned in which year the spot was dropped.--Max schwalbe (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
None of your English sources are reliable.  The second one is just a posting of the original, discredited Mother Jones article.  Nothing from that article should be assumed true.  Even if it is true the material isn't due in the article. Springee (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The alleged discrediting of the Mother Jones article seems to be entirely based on one source, which is referred to repeatedly as if that is sufficient. Is it? This entry reads to me like a company-driven revisionist account by a reputation manager. 158.51.81.23 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

MJ's claims are in conflict with scholarly sources on the subject (not just one).  Not sure what to do about your second concern.  Is there something specific you can point to as an example? Springee (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this reads like a company driven revisionist account.
The facts are in the 1970s, 38 fire related accidents occurred and were reported to the NHTSA (founded 1970). These were reported with enough information they could then investigate. Of those, according to that same report, moderate speed impacts caused fires and in those cases 27 people died. There was no other "scholarly source" that did any actual scientific investigation, searching state accident records for actual car fires and how many involved Pintos, for example. Instead, the "scholarly sources" are equivalent to Mother Jones' article--they are opinions based on hypotheticals without any real research.
We read that even though the numbers of reported fires to the NHTSA drastically increased over a two-year period this was, again hypothetically, because there were more cars on the roads. Really? All the new cars on the roads had better bumpers on them that had to be so good they could survive a 5-mph impact without taking any damage. That alone should have lowered the numbers of fires in all vehicles produced after 1975. Further, half of all the Ford Pintos ever made were made before 1975. Production dropped drastically after that to about 250,000 per year. Here's my hypothetical that the article does not mention: very few fires were initially reported to the newly formed NHTSA and at no point during the 1970s was reporting ever mandatory. When the new system, that theoretically should have made reporting easier, was started, more numbers were reported. However, considering it was all new and looking at, for example, VAERS, where an estimated 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are ever reported today, that would give us hypothetically 3500 actual fires.
There is, unfortunately, no way to know how many people died or were injured from Pinto fires or any other car fires in the 1970s because most of the reporting systems we have are not all that reliable today and were completely unreliable back then or not in existence. Mother Jones, at the time, said there were 500-900, which I as a reader can look at and feel it is fishy because of the wide range--especially without knowing how they determined that number. However, when this Wikipedia article then lambasts that number by saying it was completely wrong based on what all these "experts" came up with years later (instead of just saying these experts disagreed on these grounds and letting the reader decide who to believe)--especially in light of the fact that Nader has won at least one lawsuit where GM admitted to defaming him--that makes the article slanted toward Ford. That it seems to be well known Ford settled at least 117 lawsuits out of court and spent millions of dollars fighting others in small town courts where the prosecutors had little money or staff to compete, I really do not see 500 deaths as a far-fetched number. From all cars, there were about 400,000 deaths in car accidents from 1970-1977: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/
The cost-benefit analysis is real. This article makes it seem like it was not. In fact, any evidence supporting that Ford knew and was responsible is brushed off.
If Ford Pintos prior to 1977 could withstand a 30 mph impact without leaking fuel, then when the NHTSA made that a required standard, why did Ford have to change the Pinto's design?  https://www.motortrend.com/features/ford-pinto/
Unbiased articles do not draw conclusions. They present both sides equally and let the reader draw the conclusions. This article and almost every citation, paints Ford as the wronged party. I mean at one point it uses a quote that says people writing in to the NHTSA to complain about the pinto "guaranteed" that the NHTSA "would be under a microscope." Huh? Man, shame on those people for making the NHTSA do its job, but I don't think that conclusion can be drawn from the evidence presented. 2601:245:C101:96D0:8E0:6ABB:8EE9:8603 (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
This article contains a good picture of what was really happening: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/
The Wiki should include the picture that shows the gas tank was literally on the other side of a bumper that could not survive a 5 mph impact. 2601:245:C101:96D0:8E0:6ABB:8EE9:8603 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, my copy and paste failed: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/21/904660038/the-halo-effect-why-its-so-difficult-to-understand-the-past 2601:245:C101:96D0:8E0:6ABB:8EE9:8603 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

As title, here's a photo, where's the studs? https://www.k-bid.com/auction/50381/item/1053 Greglocock (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed the edit.  I don't think it was a strong source for the detail being claimed. Springee (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
The podcast has an extensive interview with the guy at Ford in charge of whether or not to recall the Pinto.  He talks more than briefly about the studs as one of several important causes.  I would say the interview is a strong source.  He also mentions one lawyer called them "can openers", suggesting others at the time also viewed them as important.  I looked briefly on the web and did not find a better reference, but it seems like an important contribution to fuel leaks so is worth noting. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
There were several Pinto axle models, only earlier Pintos have the "studs".  The podcast says the axle was used in the "Ford of Europe Capri" which was higher performance and had more suspension features.   I believe the axle is like this https://www.classic-ford.org/cfp/download.axd?file=0;82285&filename=2017-02-03%2015.15.24.jpg (via https://www.classic-ford.org/cfp/tm.aspx?m=82225) and https://www.ford-capri.ch/pictures/foto-galerie/technik/hinterachse-capri-I-69-73.pdf (via https://www.ford-capri.ch/technik/technische-daten/autotechnik-capri-I.html) I believe the "studs" are the vertical "ears" with transverse holes which are close to the differential housing.  My guess: in the Capri they are attached to the red "dogbone" links shown in the photo, and are used to resist leaf spring windup in hard acceleration; and the links were simply left off in the lower-performance Pinto. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I think we need something stronger before we put this content in.  Additionally, I would not rely on the characterizations made by a trial attorney as their job is to sway people to their side. Springee (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
In case I was unclear: most things I mentioned above are from an interview with somebody at Ford who was in charge of deciding whether to do a recall, not a trial attorney.  The trial attorney's comment was only about it being "a can opener".  I agree their job is to sway people.  My thinking was it shows a range of people thought the studs/ears were one of the significant causes of fuel leakage (there were several causes). 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I browsed around more and found a transcript of the podcast/show: https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/904660038/the-halo-effect-why-it-s-so-difficult-to-understand-the-past .  A few notes cut and paste: "Denny Gioia was [the] recall coordinator at Ford Motor Company".  Gioia: "[T]he Pinto's rear axle was an off-the-shelf component, which is to say it was used in some other application by the Ford Motor Company. That application was the Ford of Europe Capri. That car was more complicated. It had anchor points called studs on the rear axle to which suspension arms were attached. But when it was used in the Pinto, they didn't need those suspension arms, so they deleted them. But they did not delete the studs to which the suspension arms were attached."  Gioia: "So what happened when the car was hit from behind at the federally mandated speed of 50 kilometers or 31 mph? The fuel tank got pushed and got punctured by these four studs that were protruding." 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
A little bit more info: a student paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20181014022009/http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html, 1999, Christopher Leggett.  Section III.F: "The tank was positioned according to the industry standard at the time (between the rear bumper and the rear axle), but studs protruding from the rear axle would puncture the gas tank."  I do not know what is the source, but the paper is from 1999, while the podcast interview with Gioia is from 2020, so whatever the source it is not the podcast. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Same Ford person from the podcast, less detail, but maybe a better citation:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300210628_Pinto_Fires_and_Personal_Ethics_A_Script_Analysis_of_Missed_Opportunities Gioia, Dennis. (2013). Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_34. In book: Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp.675-689).  The original article may be from 1992, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00870550#citeas Gioia, D.A. Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. J Bus Ethics 11, 379–389 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00870550 -- however I did not find text online for the 1992 paper, so I cannot check whether it is the same.
From the URL above for the 2013 cite: (pg. 380) "During impact, however, several studs protruding from the rear of the axle housing would puncture holes in the tank [...]". 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it appears the 2013 and 1992 are the same: https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/swansea-university/energy-and-low-carbon-technologies/gioia-1992-pinto-fires-and-personal-ethics/10430027 has text of the 1992 paper and it reads the same to me. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Interesting stuff, curious terminology. A stud is a headless bolt, those are clevisses. And yes, they are not a good thing to stick into a fuel tank. Gioia was the subject of the Gladwell article.  I am in some disbelief that Ford would pay for welding on two stampings when they could just as easily be left off for a massive cost save! Greglocock (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Gioia used the word "stud".  It is my guess from looking at photos he means the axle tabs, but I may be wrong.  Or, it could be that "stud" was Ford lingo at the time.  Or, it could be he is not familiar with technical terms -- on one hand, he is an MBA, on the other hand I would think somebody around him would have corrected him if used the wrong term.  I think for this discussion the important thing is there was a sharp feature on the axle which sometimes caused fuel leaks. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
As to "pay for welding on two stampings that could be left off", maybe it was due to early production: re-use existing parts as much as possible, only switch to model-specific parts if it turns out the new model sells well.  A family friend has a Ford Mustang from the first 6 months of production, he says lots of interior trim parts are from some other car they made at the time.  Once Ford saw good sales, they did a mid-year switch to Mustang-specific trim.  The Pinto axle is not visible to most people, so there would be less "brand" reason to switch.  Whatever the reasons, Gioia says they used the axle from a Ford of Europe Capri, and it had suspension mounts not used in the Pinto. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I should have written that Gioia said in the podcast: the axle had four suspension mounts not used in the Pinto and those punctured the tank.  He specifically said there were four studs, they were not used, and they caused the puncture.  In contrast, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) [below] attributes it to bolt heads or a flange, maybe by "flange" they mean the same thing as Gioia when he says "stud" (which I am guessing is the same as the clevis, but I don't know). 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
So you are implying that early cars used European axles? If they were made in the USA for Pinto  it would be a new assembly line and they wouldn't stick brackets on for the hell of it. Or did the European Capri use USA axles, which were then used on early Pintos? Either way a standard time based Is/Is Not analysis would identify lower fire rates if the removal of the brackets was significant. Greglocock (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I do not know the history of the axles.
Gioia says https://www.npr.org/transcripts/904660038 "GIOIA: It was what I call a slap-your-forehead moment because it revealed that the Pinto's rear axle was an off-the-shelf component, which is to say it was used in some other application by the Ford Motor Company. That application was the Ford of Europe Capri. That car was more complicated. It had anchor points called studs on the rear axle to which suspension arms were attached. But when it was used in the Pinto, they didn't need those suspension arms, so they deleted them. But they did not delete the studs to which the suspension arms were attached."
It is also possible the axle was used on several Ford cars and the one Gioia happened to name was the Ford of Europe Capri.  I do not know if they were made in Europe or USA.
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) does not mention "stud" but does mention "flange" as one source of fuel leaks.  My guess is they mean the same thing, but I am just guessing.
I would like to know more, but for the purpose of the Wikipedia page, I think the main thing is the axle had a sharp feature which sometimes caused fuel leaks. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:951E:C80C:ADA9:113C (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I would agree.  I'm also not sure that the Pinto, a car expected to be made in the US and to sell in fairly high volume would use an axle with upper control arm tabs welded on.  Also, the lower control arm mounts would have been incompatible with leaf springs.  Gioia is cited in the article though we should be careful using the source as he is a primary source rather than a secondary one.  Also, a number of the facts in his 1992 paper conflict with other high quality sources.  For example, he says Ford used the cost benefit analysis on the Pinto's design.  He also refers to the car failing routine crash tests.  Per Lee et al (also cited but you might need the Wiki library to read the paper) the early crash tests were done at a time that Ford was trying to understand the science of crash testing. Springee (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The Pinto uses leaf springs, according to https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2020/09/10/pinto-sketch-reduced-1_custom-cd9e25c51ae3f8300ce1107e7b9603fddde0167e.jpg?s=1600&c=85&f=webp (via https://www.npr.org/2020/08/21/904660038/the-halo-effect-why-its-so-difficult-to-understand-the-past ).
So does the Ford of Europe Capri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Capri "The rear suspension employed a live axle supported on leaf springs with short radius rods."  I expect the extra arms (radius rods) are there on the Capri to reduce leaf spring wind-up during hard acceleration.  For more on that effect see https://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/ANTITRAMP.html .
So on this particular detail, Gioia's claim seems consistent with other sources. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:951E:C80C:ADA9:113C (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/119/757.html Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) "According to plaintiffs' expert, the impact of the Galaxie had driven the Pinto's gas tank forward and caused it to be punctured by the flange or one of the bolts on the differential housing so that fuel sprayed from the punctured tank and entered the passenger compartment [...]".  "Finally, the differential housing selected for the Pinto had an exposed flange and a line of exposed bolt heads. These protrusions were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward against the differential upon rear impact."  "A production Pinto crash tested at 21 miles per hour into a fixed barrier caused [...] the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing."  "[C]rash test No. 1616, as Ford conceded, resulted in a puncture of the fuel tank from the exposed bolt heads on the differential housing. Thus, the exhibits showed the defect in the Pinto's gas tank location and design, the hazard created by the protrusions on the differential housing"  This is somewhat different than Gioia's comment, as it allows for damage either by a "flange" or by bolt head; but seems generally in agreement. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I made a second try at the content.  Changes from the first try include (a) edit so I think it shows more clearly how sharp axle features were part of the overall design; (b) cite Grimshaw v. Ford and quote several references to axle features as part of the overall problem; (c) delete the citation's trial attorney "can opener" quote.
I did retain the podcast/Gioia reference, as it more clearly describes the "extra" axle features which damage tanks, that is missing from other sources I saw.  I did change the citation's quoted text to clarify some of the axle history and design issues.  It is a primary source, but paired with Grimshaw v. Ford, I hope that is okay - it is a primary source supporting a secondary source, rather than being the only source (it was the only one in my previous try). ~2025-32474-35 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I see the "undo" comment, but I do not understand it.  Springee, can you explain more?  The current page version does not mention the sharp axle features that punctured the tank, which seems important to me.  The text in my change was "and sharp axle parts which sometimes punctured the tank and caused fuel leaks." plus references. ~2025-32447-39 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Oops, I meant to reply to Springee.  I don't know how to delete my reply-to-self. ~2025-32447-39 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
I see the "undo" comment, but I do not understand it.  Springee, can you explain more?  The current page version does not mention the sharp axle features that punctured the tank, which seems important to me.  The text in my change was "and sharp axle parts which sometimes punctured the tank and caused fuel leaks." plus references. ~2025-32447-39 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
First, I did make a mistake.  You were placing the content in the correct part of the article.  However, there is an issue with sourcing.  I think more detail on the various failure mechanisms is fine (including that the fuel filler tube was thought to be too short thus could be pulled off in a wreck).  However, we should not cite Grimshaw for any claims of fact.  In general court proceedings and legal findings of fact are only reliable in context of the case (consider the note from Schwartz stating that the appeal's court was legally obligated to presume the findings of fact from the first case are true [1]).  It would be good to find a solid source that says the following areas of the design were considered suspect... XYZ.  However, that needs to be a good source.  That can't be the court records (note that in Grimshaw Ford argued that the impact speeds were much higher than 30mph - not sure why the source would say 50kph since the spec was in mph).  Anyway, the recollections as quoted in a podcast are not a good source for facts.  It would be better to find a 3rd party source that provides true technical discussions of the issue (you might search the references already in the article - if you get a user name try the Wiki library for article references [2]).  Springee (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks!  I will look around.
For Grimshaw, they mention a specific test by Ford: "Crash test number 1616".  That should be a good clue for finding another source.  But if I don't find one, it seems to me like it stands on its own, even in the context of a court case, as it is specific and was done by Ford outside of the case.  It says "[C]rash test No. 1616 [punctured] the fuel tank from the exposed bolt heads on the differential housing."  I can drop the other quotes.  I will look around, but if I don't find anything, does that seem reasonable to you, even in the context of a court document?
For the radio show/podcast, the "studs" issue is also mentioned in "Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics", which is still his recollection, but is in a refereed journal publication, so is arguably more reliable.  Unfortunately, it does not provide the Capri axle specifics, the journal just says: "During impact, however, several studs protruding from the rear of the axle housing would puncture holes in the tank [...]".  I will look around more.
Yes, I can also add the fuel filler neck. ~2025-32412-61 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Please ignore my earlier note, I should have looked first.  (But I wanted to say thanks for your explanation.)  The Pinto page refers to a NHTSA document that discusses test 1616, so I am reading that now, it looks like it covers enough detail to replace Grimshaw. ~2025-32412-61 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Bolt heads are not the feature you've identified in the photo- the brackets for the Capri's tramp links. Greglocock (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I agree.  It seems several things were problems, and it varies depending on the crash or test.
Gioia is specific it is the axle suspension mounts he calls "studs".  Grimshaw v. Ford discusses several accidents and tests, and says different things for each - in one case, "bolt" not even "bolts".  Crash test 1616 is not public (as far as I can find) but is cited; https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/ODIPinto.pdf (pg. 7) "[In] (Crash Test No. 1616), the fuel tank was punctured by contact with the differential housing and/or its bolts, or with some other underbody structure."  Which could be anything: axle, suspension parts, frame, body, exhaust, and so on.
Sometimes the fuel filler was ripped out.  Sometimes the tank was also punctured, sometimes not.
Also, as you note, the terminology is vague.  Gioia says "studs", another source says "flange".  My guess is they are the same (clevis) but maybe not.  I wish there were pictures from back in the day "here is a flange: ...".  I guess 50-ish years ago it was a lot harder to deal with pictures. ~2025-32313-90 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It seems to me the most-specific descriptions are (a) bolts, (b) Gioia's description of the anti-tramp brackets (what he calls "studs"), which is pretty specific.
From a historical perspective, I think "studs" are interesting as a danger that was introduced accidentally, whereas the bolts and other sharp things were there to actually do something needed for the Pinto.
For the Pinto page, it seems like key points are (a) fuel leaks were caused by both tank punctures and fuel filler damage; and (b) several sharp features contributed to punctures. ~2025-32313-90 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)