As someone who actually worked on Pintos and drove them, I think you're overstating how awful they were. First, in the early 1970's all economy cars rusted out. Second, with the 4 speed option, Pintos were actually kind of fun to drive. They handled a lot better than many of the large street liners of the time. Third, you are very much correct that the Pinto pretty much mounted the gas tank in the rear bumper and moreover didn't firewall the gas tank from the passenger compartment. But the larger gas tank gave the Pinto more range when people were standing in line for gas. Moreover none of he economy cars at the time were likely to protect the occupants much during a crash. Economy car buyers made the conscious choice between safety and fuel economy. If you were into safety, you could buy the Galaxy 500 for only around $3700.00 as I recall and a couple thousand more for a Lincoln, which was built like a tank. Despite what people lead you to believe today; no one who bought a VW, a Vega, a VW microbus, Pinto or a Datsun B210, thought they were buying a "safe" car. Think about it, people still buy motorcycles everyday. People still actively choose against safety even today. And fourth... the car was only supposed to last 5 years and 60,000 miles. That's when it rusted out and the timing belt broke. There was absolutely no intention for it to ever have a second owner in it's design. It was a disposable car, just like the Maverick, Vega and later on the Granada. For the most part it did as advertised. And to be honest, the competition, for example the Chevy Vega wasn't going to improve your life much and the rice burners at that time rusted out just about as fast as the Pinto as did the VW Rabbit. Lastly, if you somehow thought you were going to drive this car 200,000 miles, your life was going to be hell, but that was true of most cars at the time. All of the horror stories about the Pinto are true to one extent or another, but what people forget is that they usually started when people tried to push their cars past 60k miles. What really went wrong with the Pinto was the economic downturn of the late 1970's when people couldn't afford to replace their cars on a 5 year schedule. Caught in an insane inflationary cycle, often with low or limited incomes, people chose to hang onto their cars longer and they wound up stuck with the time bomb that was actually intended for the second owner. Also keep in mind, that car companies were actively discouraging used car ownership at the time. Buy new, buy cheap and throw your car away as you would any disposable lighter or razor. I suspect that a few Pintos actually reached 100,000 miles, but none without heroic effort, substantial investment and tales of woe that are still being retold. Likely those are the basis for most of the legends of unreliability we recount today. If you dumped your Pinto when you were supposed to, you likely had a reasonably good ownership experience. I'm not defending Ford. Economy cars of that era were overall marginal, but they were what consumers wanted at the time. People wanted new and they wanted cheap and they wanted fuel economy and they were willing to make sacrifices and they got what they deserved. There were very good reasons why the Pinto was such a good selling car, which somehow history has forgotten.
As someone who actually worked on Pintos and drove them, I think you're overstating how awful they were.
First, in the early 1970's all economy cars rusted out.
Second, with the 4 speed option, Pintos were actually kind of fun to drive. They handled a lot better than many of the large street liners of the time.
Third, you are very much correct that the Pinto pretty much mounted the gas tank in the rear bumper and moreover didn't firewall the gas tank from the passenger compartment. But the larger gas tank gave the Pinto more range when people were standing in line for gas. Moreover none of he economy cars at the time were likely to protect the occupants much during a crash. Economy car buyers made the conscious choice between safety and fuel economy. If you were into safety, you could buy the Galaxy 500 for only around $3700.00 as I recall and a couple thousand more for a Lincoln, which was built like a tank. Despite what people lead you to believe today; no one who bought a VW, a Vega, a VW microbus, Pinto or a Datsun B210, thought they were buying a "safe" car. Think about it, people still buy motorcycles everyday. People still actively choose against safety even today.
And fourth... the car was only supposed to last 5 years and 60,000 miles. That's when it rusted out and the timing belt broke. There was absolutely no intention for it to ever have a second owner in it's design. It was a disposable car, just like the Maverick, Vega and later on the Granada. For the most part it did as advertised. And to be honest, the competition, for example the Chevy Vega wasn't going to improve your life much and the rice burners at that time rusted out just about as fast as the Pinto as did the VW Rabbit.
Lastly, if you somehow thought you were going to drive this car 200,000 miles, your life was going to be hell, but that was true of most cars at the time. All of the horror stories about the Pinto are true to one extent or another, but what people forget is that they usually started when people tried to push their cars past 60k miles.
What really went wrong with the Pinto was the economic downturn of the late 1970's when people couldn't afford to replace their cars on a 5 year schedule. Caught in an insane inflationary cycle, often with low or limited incomes, people chose to hang onto their cars longer and they wound up stuck with the time bomb that was actually intended for the second owner. Also keep in mind, that car companies were actively discouraging used car ownership at the time. Buy new, buy cheap and throw your car away as you would any disposable lighter or razor. I suspect that a few Pintos actually reached 100,000 miles, but none without heroic effort, substantial investment and tales of woe that are still being retold. Likely those are the basis for most of the legends of unreliability we recount today. If you dumped your Pinto when you were supposed to, you likely had a reasonably good ownership experience.
I'm not defending Ford. Economy cars of that era were overall marginal, but they were what consumers wanted at the time. People wanted new and they wanted cheap and they wanted fuel economy and they were willing to make sacrifices and they got what they deserved. There were very good reasons why the Pinto was such a good selling car, which somehow history has forgotten.