Ford Pinto Engine Identification? Quick Answer

Ford has produced dozens of 4 cylinder engines over the years. We have specialized in just two of them. Because there are specific displacements that work well in the inline-4 engine layout, Ford has made several very different engines in each of these few popular displacements. That’s caused a lot of confusion in the aftermarket: your 2.0-litre Ford isn’t necessarily the same as your neighbor’s 2.0-litre Ford. Additionally, inconsistent naming policies (coupled with the public’s obstinate refusal to accept certain “official” engine names) can make ordering engine parts very difficult.

So how can you tell one engine from another? How do you identify what you have when you have nothing to compare it to? For the purposes of this article, we will only focus on the two engines that we specialize in: the 1.6 liter OHV (pushrod) ‘Kent’ engine and the 2.0 liter SOHC ‘Pinto’ engine “. This information comes from many sources including Dave Bean, Ford Racing, Des Hammill, Peter & Valerie Wallage, Wikipedia and the experience of hundreds of racers and engine builders (far too many to list individually).

1600

1600cc is a very popular displacement for 4 cylinder engines and Ford have built at least 5 fully independent 1600cc inline 4 petrol engines. Chronologically, the Kent is the oldest (1967-82). This is the only 1600cc Ford engine with pushrod operated valves.* The next in line is actually a “Pinto” OHC displacement engine (confusing because in 1971-73 the 1600cc engine was in the Pinto of the Kent -1600 cc engine was). The third is the CVH, known as the “Escort” in the US (confusing because the US market Escort that used this engine was unrelated to the older European Escort, which was fitted with a Kent or a Pinto engine was available, see why we’re tearing our hair out?) The fourth is a Mazda-designed DOHC engine that was used in the 1991-94 Mercury Capri (confusing because the unrelated 1970’s Ford Capri either was available with a Kent or a Pinto engine). Next is the 1992 DOHC Zeta/Zetec (partly confusing because production overlapped with the Mazda/Mercury Capri DOHC). The Zetec morphed into the Duratec in the 1990s (confusing because the Duratec name was also borne by a Zetec engine, even a Kent engine!). Finally, there’s the EcoBoost 1.6, the only 1600cc petrol engine to come directly from Ford with a turbocharger. Be glad we don’t count diesel engines!

In keeping with Ford tradition, the Kent engine is named after the engine plant where it was manufactured: the Ford engine plant in Kent, England. Kent family engines have a chain driven camshaft running in the block and a rocker arm valve gear located on top of the cylinder head (OHV stands for Over-Head Valve). The valve train is driven by the camshaft via push rods. The simple identifier? If you see a timing belt driving a single overhead camshaft, it’s not Kent!

The first 1600 cc Kent engine is sometimes referred to as the “Cortina” because it was first used in the 1967 Ford Cortina. It’s also called the ‘Crossflow’ (or X-Flow) because it was the first member of the Kent family to feature a cross-flow cylinder head (earlier Kent engines had the intake just above the exhaust). For 1971 Ford beefed up certain parts to cope with the increased power output, resulting in the “upgraded” version that current FF1600 racers know and love. Major upgrades included stronger main bearing caps, deeper-domed pistons and a flat-bottomed cylinder head – meaning certain parts are not interchangeable between the Cortina and the upgraded. The easy way to tell these two versions apart is by the engine block casting number. Ford engine block part numbers always have 6015 in the middle, so we can ignore that part. The last two digits were used to indicate displacement (“BA” means 1600cc, “AA” means 1300cc), so let’s just focus on the first digits. The Cortina will have an engine block number starting with 2737M or 681M. The upgrade will have a casting number starting with 711M.

Three other similar blocks to look out for are the 831C “Motorsport” block, the 771M “Fiesta” and the 691M “Transition”. The 831C was specially manufactured by Ford Racing in the early 1980s to meet demand from Formula Ford racers (current Ford Motorsport block uses the original casting number 711M but ends in ’16K’ instead of ‘BA’) . The 771M block was slightly redesigned for transverse mounting in the 1978-82 front-wheel drive Fiesta, with a domed cylinder head for emissions and fuel economy (partly confusing because the Fiesta continued production for another 35+ years after replacing the “Fiesta” engine …and partly because the Fiesta chassis was never intended to use a Kent engine from the start). The 691M was an odd transitional engine for 1970 with later square main covers but an earlier domed cylinder head. In fact, it comes very close to the 771M Fiesta in that regard.

Kent engines were made in displacements from 1 liter to 1600cc, but Ford never offered a Kent engine larger than 1600cc. (Racing engine manufacturers bored and stroked Kent engines up to 1800cc displacement with decent reliability; larger displacement Kent engines also ran, but not for long.) A belt-driven DOHC (dual over-head camshaft) version was produced only for Lotus in the 1960s with a 1500 cc short deck Kent engine block. Cosworth put their own belt driven DOHC heads on many different Kent engines including the “upgraded” 1600 cc block. A few more fun little things: The “uprated” engine was only imported into the USA for Formula Ford use. It was never OEM in a Ford street car built for the US market. The 1971-73 Ford Pintos and 1971 Mercury Capris equipped with a 1600 cc Kent engine received the “Cortina” engine, although the “uprated” version was available.

* Ford do Brasil produced another fully independent 1.6L OHV pushrod engine called CHT from 1984 to 1997. Although it also has a chain-driven cam that rides in the block and actuates overhead valves via pushrods, the CHT was actually a revised Renault engine design (think Renault Fuego) and shared no parts with other Ford engines. This engine was exclusive to the Brazilian market and was never produced outside of Brazil, although it was used by both Ford do Brasil and VW do Brasil. Ford and VW share a Renault engine… in Brazil?

2.0L

2000cc is another very logical displacement for 4 cylinder engines. To date, Ford has offered at least 6 distinctly different 2-litre inline-fours. Unfortunately they are ALL overhead cam (OHC) motors, three of them are single overhead cam (SOHC) motors and all are belt driven. So much for quick and easy identification. We need to turn off the 2.0 liter SOHC engines one at a time.

The 2.0 liter engine, which we specialize in, is the earliest in the list. It’s often referred to as the “Pinto” because it was used in a few million Ford Pintos. But it really doesn’t make much sense to call it a Pinto engine, and not just because Ford doesn’t want it. Not only was the Pinto (car) designed exclusively for the North American market, but this engine was already being used in many European and ‘rest of the world’ cars before the Pinto was even announced. What’s more, it wasn’t even the only engine (let alone the most common engine) used in the Pinto! Despite this, “pinto” has become the common name for it, widely used even in much of Europe. Ford now wants us to call this engine “EAO” (perhaps stands for European And Others?). But because it was their first overhead-cam engine, Ford officially called it OHC for years — a name they now wish to refer to a later, unrelated 2.0-liter SOHC engine. To make matters worse, this later 2.0 is essentially an under-drilled version of a 2.3 liter engine originally fitted to the 1974-80 PINTO. But this other version 2.0 was never actually used in the Pinto, only the 2.3 version. Still confused?

This later 2.3-liter engine (and its little 2.0-liter sibling) came from the engine plant in Lima, Ohio, so on this one we’re going back to the Ford tradition and calling them “Lima” engines. However, we can’t quite do that with what we’ll call the Pinto engine, partly because it was made in engine plants around the world, and partly because the Cologne engine plant where it originated is better is known for V4 and V6 engines. So for the next few paragraphs we’re going to leave this round to Ford and call it EAO. The good news is that the 2.3-liter and 2.0-liter Lima engines were exclusive to the Americas (North and South continents). That said, if you’re reading this in England or Germany (hello, how are you?) you’ll probably never come across a Lima. Chances are even better you’ll never see a 2.0L Lima without crossing the ocean.

In the US, the original EAO engine was only used in the 1971-1974 Ford Pinto/Mercury Bobcat and Mercury Capri and only in 2.0 liter form. The EAO engine continued in various cars and vans around the world through 1992, but North America never saw it again after 1974. In 1974 Ford introduced the 2.3L Lima engine to America, where it completely replaced the EAO engine in 1975. Beginning in 1983, Ford offered the 2.0 L displacement Lima engine (the result of a smaller bore) exclusively in the Ford Ranger pickup and the Argentina-only Ford Taunus (not to be confused with the “rest of the world” Ford Taunus) or the unrelated American Ford Taurus). The Ranger was available with the 2.0L Lima engine (alongside the original 2.3L Lima) through 1988, hence the Lima is often referred to as the “Ranger” engine. It might be even more accurate to call it a “Mustang” engine because the Mustang is the only Ford car to offer the 2.3-liter Lima engine for each year of the Lima’s 20-year run.

The most reliable identifier between EAO and Lima is the cylinder block deck height, measured from the oil pan to the cylinder head. The EAO is 207 mm (8.146 in) high, but the Lima measures 212 mm (8.368 in). The EAO also has 10 valve cover bolts (two of them on the front cam tower, pointing inward instead of vertically), while the Lima only has 8. The distributor on the EAO engine sits slightly forward of the #1 intake port, while the Lima distributor sits almost directly below the #1 intake port. Bore spacing is also different, as is bore, stroke, rod length, main journal diameter and piston compression height. But you can’t measure that quickly from the outside

The other other 2.0L SOHC engine is the 1997-2004 “CVH” engine. The CVH was used in many cars from 1980 onwards, but the 2.0 liter version was only ever produced for the US Ford Escort/Focus and Mercury Tracer. If the original valve cover is intact, this engine is easily identified by the raised lettering “Split Port Induction”. Easier identifying features are the aluminum cylinder head (the original EAO head was cast iron), the awful noise it makes, and the valve seats that have almost certainly fallen off. Also, the distributor sticks out horizontally from the flywheel end of the cylinder head, instead of vertically out the side of the block like on the EAO, so that’s it.

As with the Kent engine, Cosworth offered a belt-driven, twin-cam version of the 2.0-litre EAO engine. All other 2.0 liter DOHC engines (Zetec, Duratec and the Sierra “I4″ from 1989-2006) have nothing to do with the EAO.

Internal identification

If you already have the engine open (or just have a bare block and some parts in front of you), here are some dimensions of the engines in question.

Internal Engine Dimensions Engine Bore (Standard) Stroke Bore Spacing Main Journal Diameter (Standard)* Connecting Rod Length Deck Height 1600 Kent 3.188″ / 81mm 3.056″ / 77.6mm 3.78″ / 96mm 2.1253″ / 54mm 4.928″ / 125.2mm 8.2272″ / 209mm 2.0L EAO 3.575″ / 90.84mm 3.029″ / 77mm 4.016″ / 102mm 2.244″ / 57mm 4.982″ / 126.5mm 8.146″ / 207mm 2.0L Lima 3.520″ / 89.4″ / 3.129mm .073mm 61mm 5.205″ / 132.2mm 8.368” / 212.5mm

* The Kent engine was designed primarily for SAE units (inches), so cranks are undersized in .010 inch increments. The 2.0 liter engines are both metric, so undersize is ground in 0.25mm increments.

Ford subcompact (1971–1980)

motor vehicle

The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car manufactured and marketed by Ford Motor Company in North America from the 1971 through 1980 model years. The Pinto was the first compact car produced by Ford in North America.

The Pinto was marketed in three body styles during its production: a two-door fastback sedan with a trunk, a three-door hatchback, and a two-door station wagon. Mercury offered revised versions of the Pinto as the Mercury Bobcat from 1975 to 1980 (1974–1980 in Canada [4]). Over three million Pintos were produced during its ten-year production run, surpassing the total of its domestic rivals, the Chevrolet Vega and the AMC Gremlin. The Pinto and Mercury Bobcat were manufactured at Edison Assembly in Edison, New Jersey, St. Thomas Assembly in Southwold, Ontario, and San Jose Assembly in Milpitas, California.

Since the 1970s, the Pinto’s safety reputation has caused controversy. The fuel tank design attracted both media and government attention after several fatal fires related to tank ruptures in rear-end collisions. Subsequent analysis of the Pinto’s overall safety found it to be on par with other small cars of the 1970s. The safety issues surrounding the Pinto and Ford’s subsequent response have been widely cited as a case study in business ethics and tort reform.

background [edit]

First generation small American cars, left to right: AMC Gremlin, Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Vega

American automakers had initially countered imports like the Volkswagen Beetle with compact cars like the Ford Falcon, Ford Maverick, Chevrolet Corvair and Plymouth Valiant, although these cars featured six-cylinder engines and spanned a larger vehicle class. As the popularity of the smaller Japanese imports Toyota Corolla and Datsun 510 increased in the 1960s, Ford North America responded by introducing Ford of Europe’s Cortina as a captive import. American automakers introduced their own small cars, led by the AMC Gremlin, launched six months before the Pinto, and the Chevrolet Vega, launched a day before the Pinto.

Named after the pony,[7] the Pinto was introduced on September 11, 1970. It was an all new platform but used a powertrain from the European Escort. Ford chairman Henry Ford II himself bought a runabout (hatchback) in 1971 to use as one of his personal cars.

Product development[ edit ]

Ford Pinto design proposal, 1970

Initial planning for the Pinto began in the summer of 1967, was recommended by the Ford Product Planning Committee in December 1968, and approved by the Ford Board of Directors in January 1969. Ford President Lee Iacocca wanted a 1971 model that weighed less than 2,000 lb (907 kg) and would cost less than $2,000 ($14,779 in 2021 dollars[10]). Pinto product development was completed from conception to delivery in 25 months, while the automotive industry average was 43 months, the shortest production planning period in automotive history at the time. Some development processes, normally performed sequentially, were performed in parallel. Machine tools overlapped with product development, freezing the basic design. Decisions that threatened the schedule were discouraged; [11] [12] [13] The attitude of Ford management was to develop the Pinto as quickly as possible. Iacocca ordered a rush project to build the car and the Pinto became known internally as “Lee’s car”. The body of the Pinto was designed by Robert Eidschun.[1]

Offered with an inline-four engine and bucket seats, the Pinto’s mechanical design was conventional, with unibody construction, a longitudinally-mounted engine at the front driving the rear wheels through either a manual or automatic transmission and a powered rear axle. Suspension was by unequal length wishbones with front coil springs; The driven rear axle was suspended on leaf springs. The rack and pinion steering had optional power assistance, as did the brakes.[16]

Production history[ edit ]

On September 11, 1970, Ford introduced the Pinto under the slogan The Little Carefree Car.

After the structural design of alternative body styles encountered obstacles,[19] Ford offered the Pinto exclusively as a two-door sedan, with entry-level models priced at $1,850 that undercut GM’s Chevrolet Vega and aimed squarely at imported models, including new ones Competitors like the Mazda 1200 in 1971, Subaru DL in 1972 and Honda Civic in 1973.[20]

The Pinto had sold over 100,000 units by January 1971, and 352,402 for the entire 1971 production run; 1974 saw the most Pintos produced in a single model year, with 544,209 units.

Calendar year 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 pieces 352,402 480,405 484,512 544,209 223,763 290,132 225,097 188,899 199,518 total production

1971–1972 Ford Pinto sedan with closed trunk

shows tailgate view 1973 Pinto Runabout, shows tailgate view

The Ford Pinto went on sale on September 11, 1970 in one body style, a fastback sedan with a closed trunk. A hatchback became available on February 20, 1971 and debuted at the Chicago Auto Show. In 1971, the Pinto brochure came out with a paper cutout Pinto that you could fold into a 3D model.[2] Marketed as the Runabout, the hatchback went on sale five days later, priced at US$2,062 (US$13,797 in 2021[10]).[19] The hatch itself featured exposed chrome tailgate hinges and five decorative chrome strips, spring-loaded scissor struts to open the hatch, a rear window about the same size as the sedan’s, and a folding seat – a feature that doubles as an option was on the limousine. The hatchback was the same as the sedan in all other dimensions and offered 38.1 cubic feet (1.08 m3) of cargo space with the seat folded. By 1972 Ford was redesigning the hatch itself, increasing the glass portion of the hatch to nearly the entire size of the hatch itself, eventually to be complemented for 1977–1980 with an optional all-glass liftgate.

On October 30, 1970, less than two months after introduction, 26,000 Pintos were recalled to address a possible problem with the accelerator pedal being depressed to more than halfway once. On March 29, 1971, Ford recalled all 220,000 Pintos manufactured before March 19, 1971 to address an issue with fuel vapors in the engine air filter that could potentially be ignited by a backfire through the carburetor.

On February 24, 1972, the Pinto station wagon debuted with an overall length of 4,390 mm (172.7 in) and a cargo volume of 1.71 m3 (60.5 cu ft).[19] The first two-door Ford station wagon since the 1965 Falcon, the Pinto wagon featured opening rear quarter windows. In addition to the front disc brakes, the 2.0-liter engine was standard equipment. A Pinto Squire wagon featured faux-wood quarter paneling similar to that of the full-size Country Squire.

Also in February 1972, the Sprint Decor Group was made available for the Pinto for one model year only. The Sprint Decor Group included a white exterior color with blue accent paint and red pinstripes, a blacked-out grille, color-coded wheels with light-colored trim rings and hubcaps, white sidewall tires, and color-coded dual sport mirrors. The interior featured red, white, and blue cloth and vinyl bucket seats, full carpeting, and a deluxe steering wheel. The Sprint Decor Group was offered on the Maverick and Mustang at the same time.

More appearance options were offered for the 1973 model year. There was a new Sport Accent Group offered in white exterior color with a choice of two-tone Orange or Avocado accent color, matching vinyl roof and a luxury interior with wood-colored trim. There was also a new Luxury Decor Group with light-colored exterior trim, black bumper rubbing strips and a luxurious interior with wood-colored trim. New slotted forged aluminum wheels were offered.

In 1974, to meet federal regulations, 5 mile bumpers were added to both the front and rear. Unlike most 1970s cars, the addition of larger bumpers to the Pinto did not require major body modifications. While the underpowered Kent engine was dropped, the optional OHC engine was expanded to 2.3L; In various forms, this engine powered a variety of Ford vehicles for 23 years. In 1974, Mercury began selling a facelifted version of the Pinto called the Bobcat as a Canada-only model. 544,209 units sold; 1974 became the most popular model year for the Pinto.[21] Steel-belted tires, an anti-theft alarm system and metallic luminous paint were optional.[33]

To better compete with the AMC Gremlin, Ford introduced the 2.8 L V6 in 1975. While the V6 is far less powerful than the Gremlin’s standard 232 cu in (3.8 L) I6, it gave the Pinto a feature not available in the Chevrolet Vega. Sales of the Mercury Bobcat have been extended to Lincoln-Mercury dealerships in the United States. It was sold as hatchback and station wagon.

As a minor styling update for 1976, the Pinto received the eggcrate grille and chrome headlamp bezels recycled only in Canada from the 1974 Mercury Bobcat. Two new option packages were offered for one model year only. One was the sporty new Stallion appearance package with blackout trim and black two-tone accent color, offered in red, yellow, silver and white body colors. This option pack was shared with the Mustang II and the Maverick. The other new option package was the Runabout Squire with wood grain vinyl body sides like the Squire wagon. The interior received the optional Luxury Decor Group, which included new low-back vinyl or checkered cloth bucket seats and matching door trim.

For the 1977 model year, the Pinto received its first major styling updates with sloping urethane headlamp nacelles, parking lamps and grille. The taillights have been revised except for the wagons. Runabouts offered an optional all-glass liftgate for the first time. Pinto wagons received a new option package. Dubbed the Pinto Cruising Wagon, it was the sedan delivery version of the Pinto, styled to resemble a small conversion wagon, complete with round ‘bubble’ windows on the side panels and a choice of optional vinyl graphics.

Ford offered new sporty appearance packages that were similar to those on the Chevrolet Vega and AMC Gremlin, but were purely cosmetic upgrades that contributed nothing to vehicle performance.

In 1978, the Pinto was no longer the smallest Ford sold in the US when the company introduced the Fiesta. Almost two feet shorter than the Pinto, the German-designed Fiesta was the first front-wheel drive car sold by Ford in the United States.

1974 Ford Pinto station wagon

1976 Ford Pinto runabout

1977-1978 Ford Pinto Runabout

1977-1978 Ford Pinto Runabout with optional all-glass hatch

1977-1978 Ford Pinto Cruising Wagon

1979-1980 Ford Pinto sedan

1979-1980 Ford Pinto Runabout

For the 1979 model year, the Pinto saw its last significant styling update. The Pinto shed its original Maverick-like styling and took on the look of the modern Fairmont, with rectangular headlights, vertical inboard parking lights, and a taller, sloping rear grille. Except for the wagons, the tail lights have been revised. The interior was updated with a new rectangular instrument cluster and a modified dashboard for cars without the optional sports instrumentation. The variety of sports appearance packages has been revised, some with new graphics.

In 1980, production of the Pinto ended to make way for the front-wheel drive Ford Escort. For 1980, the V6 engine was discontinued, leaving the 2.3-litre as the sole engine.

Powertrain[edit]

With the exception of 1980, the Pinto was available with two engines. In the first five years of production, only four-cylinder in-line engines were offered. Ford changed the performance specifications almost every year.[41][page needed]

In 1974 the 2.3 liter (140 cu in) OHC I4 engine was introduced. This engine was updated and modified several times, allowing it to remain in production until 1997. A turbocharged version of this engine later powered the performance-based Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, Mustang SVO and European-built Merkur XR4Ti, among other Ford vehicles. [41][page needed]

The first Pinto deliveries in the early years used the performance tuned English 1,600 cc (98 cu in) and German 2,000 cc (120 cu in) engines (see below). The 2,000 cc engine used a twin-barrel carburetor that was only one bore larger than the Maverick’s. With the light weight (not much more than 910 kg) and the SOHC engine, it accelerated from 0 to 60 mph in 10.8 seconds. With the advent of emissions control requirements, Ford switched from European-sourced to domestic-sourced engines, using new or modified designs. New safety laws affected bumpers and other parts, increasing the car’s weight and reducing performance. Revised SAE standards in 1972 dropped the Pinto’s 1.6 L (98 cu in) engine to 54 hp (40 kW) – and the 2.0 L (120 cu in) to 86 hp (64 kW).

Engine Name Years Available Displacement HP† Torque† Inline Four Ford Kent I4 1971–1973 1.6 L (98 cu in) 75 hp (56 kW; 76 hp) (1971)

54 PS (40 kW; 55 PS) (1972–1973) 96 lb⋅ft (130 N⋅m) (1971) Ford EAO I4 1971–1974 122 cu in (2.0 L) 100 PS (75 kW; 101 PS) ( 1971)

86 PS (64 kW; 87 PS) (1972–1974) Ford LL23 I4 1974–1980 140 cu in (2.3 L) 90 PS (67 kW; 91 PS) (1974)

83 hp (62 kW; 84 hp) (1975)

92 hp (69 kW; 93 hp) (1976)

89 hp (66 kW; 90 hp) (1977)

88 hp (66 kW; 89 hp) (1978–1980) 110 lb⋅ft (150 N⋅m) (1975)

164 N⋅m (121 lb⋅ft) (1976)

120 lb⋅ft (160 N⋅m) (1977)

160 N⋅m (118 lb⋅ft) (1978–1979)

161 N⋅m (119 lb⋅ft) (1980) V6 engine Ford Cologne V6 1975–1979 2.8 L (170 cu in) 97 hp (72 kW; 98 hp) (1975)

103 hp (77 kW; 104 hp) (1976)

93 hp (69 kW; 94 hp) (1977)

90 hp (67 kW; 91 hp) (1978)

102 hp (76 kW; 103 hp) (1979) 139 lb⋅ft (188 N⋅m) (1975)

202 N⋅m (149 lb⋅ft) (1976)

190 N⋅m (140 lb⋅ft) (1977)

143 lb⋅ft (194 N⋅m) (1978)

187 N⋅m (138 lb⋅ft) (1979) †Horsepower and torque figures are net horsepower after the 1971 model year.

Mercury Bobcat (1974–1980) [ edit ]

Lincoln-Mercury dealers marketed a facelifted variant of the Pinto as the Mercury Bobcat beginning with the 1974 model year in Canada, produced in all of the same body styles. It was styled with a unique egg crate grille and chrome headlight bezels. The rear featured modified double-width taillights for sedan and runabout models.

In 1975, the Bobcat was introduced to the US market, initially sold in upgraded trim levels as the Runabout hatchback and Villager wagon. Less trimmed versions were offered in subsequent model years. The Bobcat was never offered as a two-door closed trunk sedan for the US market. All Bobcats were redesigned with a domed hood and a taller vertical bar grille designed to look like older Mercury models. Throughout all model years, Bobcats offered various appearance options similar to the Pintos.

For 1979, the Bobcat received an extensive restyling shared with the Pinto, featuring a sloped rear fascia with rectangular headlights and vertical inboard parking lights, but distinguished by a large vertical bar grille. Except for the wagons, the tail lights have been revised. The base instrument cluster received a new rectangular design with a modified dashboard.

Production of the Bobcat ended in 1980 to make way for its replacement, the Mercury Lynx. A total of 224,026 Bobcats were produced from 1975 to 1980.[45]

1977 Mercury Bobcat wagon

1977 Mercury Bobcat village wagon

1975-1978 Mercury Bobcat Runabout

1979-1980 Mercury Bobcat Runabout

reception and criticism

Upon release, the Pinto was met with both positive and negative reviews. Road & Track found fault with the suspension and standard drum brakes, calling the latter a “serious deficiency” but praising the proven 1.6 L Kent engine, carried over from European Fords. Super Stock Magazine found the fit and finish “superb” and was overall impressed with the car.[16] Car and driver found that when fitted with the larger 2.0-litre engine and front disc brakes, the Pinto was a nimble and powerful commuter with good visibility and sports car feel. A Car and Driver review of the 1974 Pinto with automatic transmission was not so favorable, noting a significant decrease in mileage and acceleration.

The subsequent Pinto controversy has resulted in a negative legacy associated with the car and Ford’s handling of the controversies. In 2004, Forbes included the Pinto among its fourteen worst cars of all time, noting that its problems helped create an opening in the US market to small cars made in Japan. Time magazine included the Pinto in its list of the fifty worst cars of all time. Time, Popular Mechanics and NBC News have included the car in lists of major recalls.[50][51][52]

Fuel system fires, recalls and litigation[edit]

The safety of the Pinto’s fuel system design led to critical incidents and subsequently led to a recall, lawsuits, criminal prosecution and public controversy. The events surrounding the controversy have been described as “landmark narratives”.[53] The Ford Pinto has been cited and discussed in numerous case studies on business ethics[54][55] and tort reform[56][57].

The placement of the car’s fuel tank was a result of both the conservative industry practices of the time and the uncertain regulatory environment during the car’s development and early sales periods. Ford was accused of knowing the car had unsafe fuel tank placement and then forgoing design changes based on an internal cost-benefit analysis. Two landmark legal cases, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and Indiana v. Ford Motor Co., resulted from fatal accidents involving Pintos.[58]

Academic works published in the decades following the Pinto’s release have examined the cases and offered summaries of the general understanding of the Pinto and the controversy surrounding the car’s safety performance and fire risk. These works reviewed misconceptions regarding the actual number of fatalities related to fuel system design-related fires, “wild and unsupported claims made in Pinto Madness and elsewhere,” [59] the facts of those associated Legal cases, Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company and State of Indiana vs. Ford Motor Company, the applicable safety standards at the time of draft and the nature of the NHTSA investigations and subsequent vehicle recalls.[60] One described the Grimshaw case as “mythical” because of several significant factual misunderstandings and their impact on public understanding.[61]

Fuel system design[ edit ]

The design of the Pinto fuel system was complicated by the uncertain regulatory environment during development. The first federal standard for automotive fuel system safety, passed in 1967 and known as Section 301 in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, initially considered only frontal impacts. In January 1969, 18 months into the Pinto’s development cycle, the NHTSA proposed expanding the standard to cover rear-end collisions. The proposed standard was based on a 20 mph moving barrier rear impact test. Ford publicly stated that it supports the standard. In August 1970, the month the Pinto went into production, NHTSA changed the proposal to a stricter 20-mile fixed barrier standard that automakers were to meet in 18 months. The Fixed Barrier Standard was seen by the automotive industry as a significant increase in testing severity. At the same time, NHTSA announced a long-term goal to set a 30 mph standard for hard barriers. Due to the confusion surrounding the various proposed standards and the expectation that NHTSA would not choose the more stringent 30-mile fixed barrier standard, Ford elected to make the 20-mile moveable barrier standard voluntary for all by 1973 cars to meet. [65] Ford and other automakers opposed the stricter fuel system safety standard and filed objections during the required comment periods of the proposed regulations.[66]

The Pinto’s design positioned its fuel tank between the solid powered rear axle and the rear bumper, which was a common practice in US small cars at the time. The Pinto’s susceptibility to fuel leaks and fire in a rear-end collision was compounded by reduced rear “crush” room, a lack of structural reinforcement in the rear, and a “essentially decorative” rear bumper (although similar to other manufacturers). 68]

As part of a response to the NHTSA’s proposed regulations, crash tests conducted on modified Ford Mavericks in 1970 showed vulnerability at fairly low crash speeds. Design changes were made, but post-launch testing showed similar results.[69] These tests were conducted to develop crash test standards rather than specifically examining fuel system integrity. Although Ford engineers were not satisfied with the car’s performance, no reports of the time indicate particular concern. The Pinto was tested by competitor American Motors (AMC), where engineers specialized in fuel system performance in addition to crash testing due to potentially fatal fires that can occur in severe collisions.

Ford also tested several different vehicle modifications that could improve rear impact crash performance.[72] However, the engineer’s professional caution and dislike of “unproven” solutions, along with a belief that crash test results were inconclusive, led to the use of a conventional fuel tank design and placement. Using an over the axle tank was considered safer by some but not all at Ford. This placement was not a viable option for the hatchback and station wagon body styles.[75]

Beginning in 1973, reports of Ford Pintos being consumed by fire following low-speed rear-end collisions were received by Ford’s recall coordinator office.[76] Based on standard procedures used to evaluate field reports, Ford’s internal recall evaluation group double-checked the field data and found no actionable problem.[77]

Cost-benefit analysis, the Pinto memo [ edit ]

In 1973, Ford’s Environmental and Safety Engineering Division developed a cost-benefit analysis entitled Fatalities Associated with Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires for submission to NHTSA in support of Ford’s objection to proposed stricter fuel system regulation. The document has become known as the Grush/Saunby report, named after its authors,[79] and the “Pinto Memo”.[80] Cost-benefit analysis has been an industry and NHTSA-accepted tool for evaluating safety design decisions.[81] The analysis compared the cost of repairs to the societal cost of injuries and deaths associated with rollover fires for all automobiles sold in the United States from all manufacturers. Severe burn injury and fatality figures were based on figures calculated by NHTSA in 1972.[82] In the memo, Ford estimated the cost of fuel system modifications to reduce the risk of fire in rollover events at $11 per car across 12.5 million cars and light trucks (all manufacturers), totaling $137 million. It was estimated that the design changes would save 180 burn deaths and 180 serious injuries per year, representing a $49.5 million benefit to society.

In August 1977, after receiving a copy of the Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. plaintiffs’ pre-trial memo, Mark Dowie emphasized the emotional aspects of the Grush/ Saunby Report and implied that Ford callously traded lives for profit.[85] Mother Jones’ article also incorrectly claimed that somewhere between 500 and 900 people had been killed in fires attributed to the Pinto’s unique design features.

Public understanding of cost-benefit analysis has contributed to the mythology of the Ford Pinto case. Time Magazine said the memo was one of the auto industry’s “most notorious paper trails.”[49] A common misconception is that the document takes into account Ford’s liability costs rather than the general costs to society and is applied to the annual sales of all passenger cars and not just Ford vehicles. The general misunderstanding of the document as presented by Mother Jones gave it an operational importance it never had.[87][88]

NHTSA investigation [ edit ]

In April 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to recall Ford Pintos to correct fuel system design deficiencies after attorneys reported three deaths and four serious injuries in rear-end collisions at moderate speeds. 89][90] NHTSA determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a deficiency investigation.[89][91] In August 1977, Dowie’s article “Pinto Madness” was published, which made a series of allegations against Ford, the Pinto, and NHTSA. These included Ford knowing the Pinto was a “firetrap” and saying that Ford did not make any design changes because the company’s cost-benefit analysis document showed paying millions in damages in lawsuits was less expensive than the design changes. The day after the article was published, consumer advocate Ralph Nader and the author of the Mother Jones article held a press conference in Washington DC about the alleged dangers of the Pinto design.[93] On the same day, Nader and the Center for Auto Safety resubmitted their petition to NHTSA.[94]

Former UCLA law professor Gary T. Schwartz said in a Rutgers Law Review article that NHTSA’s investigation of the Pinto was in response to consumer complaints, noting that the Mother Jones article contained a clipped “coupon coupon,” which readers could send to NHTSA.[95] ] Lee and Ermann note that Mother Jones’ labeling of the Pinto as a “firetrap” and allegations that NHTSA was giving in to industry pressure, as well as public interest sparked by sensationalist news reports, “needed a second Pinto investigation.” coerced and guaranteed that NHTSA would be under the microscope for the duration.”[96]

On August 11, 1977, the day after Nader and Mother Jones’ press conference, the NHTSA opened an investigation.[97] On May 8, 1978, NHTSA notified Ford of its determination that the Pinto fuel system was defective.[98] The NHTSA concluded:

1971–1976 Ford Pintos experienced moderate speed rear-end collisions resulting in fuel tank damage, fuel leaks and fires resulting in fatalities and nonfatal burns… The design and structural features of the fuel tank The 1975–1976 Mercury Bobcat, the making it identical to contemporary Pinto vehicles also exposes it to similar consequences in rear-end collisions.

NHTSA scheduled a public hearing for June 1978, and NHTSA negotiated with Ford for the recall.[101]

Lee und Ermann stellten fest, dass die NHTSA einen Worst-Case-Test verwendete, um den Rückruf des Pinto zu rechtfertigen, und nicht den regulären Heckaufprall-Crashtest von 1977. Anstelle einer standardmäßigen beweglichen Barriere wurde ein großes “Bullet Car” verwendet. An der Nase des Autos wurden Gewichte angebracht, damit es unter den Pinto gleitet und den Kontakt mit dem Gastank maximiert. Die Scheinwerfer des Fahrzeugs wurden eingeschaltet, um eine mögliche Zündquelle zu erkennen. Der Kraftstofftank war vollständig mit Benzin gefüllt und nicht teilweise mit nicht brennbarer Stoddard-Flüssigkeit, wie es das normale Testverfahren war. In einem späteren Interview wurde der NHTSA-Ingenieur gefragt, warum die NHTSA einen Pinto-Rückruf erzwang, weil er einen 35-Meilen-Test nicht bestanden hatte, da die meisten Kleinwagen der Zeit nicht bestanden hätten. „Nur weil deine Freunde mit Ladendiebstahl davonkommen, heißt das nicht, dass du auch damit durchkommen solltest.“[102][103]

Die National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) wies Ford schließlich an, den Pinto zurückzurufen. Zunächst sah die NHTSA keine ausreichenden Beweise vor, um einen Rückruf wegen Brandvorfällen zu fordern. Die NHTSA-Untersuchung ergab, dass zwischen 1970 und Mitte 1977 27 Todesfälle bei Heckaufprallunfällen aufgetreten sind, die zu einem Brand führten. Die NHTSA gab nicht an, ob diese Auswirkungen ohne Feuer überstanden worden wären oder ob die Auswirkungen schwerwiegender waren, als selbst ein Kraftstoffsystem nach dem Stand der Technik (für 1977) hätte standhalten können. In ihrer Analyse der sozialen Faktoren, die die Aktionen der NHTSA beeinflussen, stellen Lee und Ermann fest, dass 27 die gleiche Anzahl von Todesfällen sind, die einem Pinto-Übertragungsproblem zugeschrieben werden, das zu Kollisionen beigetragen hat, nachdem die betroffenen Autos ins Stocken geraten waren. Sie stellen auch fest, dass die NHTSA zwei Hauptanreize hatte, um zu beweisen, dass ein Defekt im Kraftstoffsystemdesign des Pinto vorhanden war. Die Verwaltung wurde sowohl von Sicherheitsbefürwortern (Center for Auto Safety) als auch von der Öffentlichkeit unter Druck gesetzt. Es wurde auch zum Handeln gezwungen, weil sowohl die Gerichte als auch die Exekutive die Fähigkeit der NHTSA einschränkten, systematische Fragen der Autosicherheit anzugehen.[106]

Rückruf [ bearbeiten ]

Obwohl Ford mit der formellen Rückrufanhörung hätte fortfahren können, stimmte das Unternehmen aus Angst vor zusätzlichem Schaden für den öffentlichen Ruf des Unternehmens einem “freiwilligen Rückrufprogramm” zu. Am 9. Juni 1978, Tage bevor die NHTSA Ford einen formellen Rückrufbefehl erteilen sollte, rief Ford 1,5 Millionen Ford Pintos und Mercury Bobcats zurück, die damals größte Rückrufaktion in der Automobilgeschichte.[108] Der Rückruf umfasste Limousinen und Fließhecklimousinen, aber nicht den Kombi.[109] Ford war mit der Feststellung eines Defekts durch die NHTSA nicht einverstanden und sagte, der Rückruf sei dazu da, “die Besorgnis der Öffentlichkeit zu beenden, die sich aus der Kritik an den Kraftstoffsystemen in diesen Fahrzeugen ergeben hat”. der Reifenpanne, verlängerte das Einfüllrohr und verbesserte die Abdichtung des Tankeinfüllstutzens im Falle einer Kollision.[111]

Legal cases [ edit ]

Etwa 117 Klagen wurden gegen Ford im Zusammenhang mit Auffahrunfällen im Pinto erhoben.[112] Die beiden wichtigsten Fälle waren Grimshaw gegen Ford Motor Company und State of Indiana gegen Ford Motor Company.[113]

Grimshaw gegen Ford Motor Co. [Bearbeiten]

Grimshaw gegen Ford Motor Co., entschieden im Februar 1978, ist einer von zwei wichtigen Pinto-Fällen.[59] Ein Pinto von 1972, gefahren von Lily Gray, blieb auf der Mittelspur einer kalifornischen Autobahn stehen. Das Auto wurde von hinten von einem Fahrzeug angefahren, das anfänglich mit 80 km/h fuhr, und mit einer geschätzten Geschwindigkeit zwischen 30 und 50 km/h aufgeschlagen, was zu einem Brand im Kraftstofftank führte. Grey starb zum Zeitpunkt des Aufpralls. Richard Grimshaw, der dreizehnjährige Passagier, wurde schwer verbrannt.[115][116] Die Anwaltskammer des Klägers arbeitete mit Mother Jones und dem Center for Auto Safety zusammen, um vernichtende Informationen über Ford vor dem Prozess zu veröffentlichen.[83][117] Die Jury vergab Schadensersatz in Höhe von insgesamt 127,8 Millionen US-Dollar; 125 Millionen US-Dollar Strafschadenersatz und 2.841.000 US-Dollar Schadensersatz für Passagier Richard Grimshaw und 665.000 US-Dollar Schadensersatz für die Familie der verstorbenen Fahrerin Lily Gray. Der Preis der Jury soll der bisher höchste in US-amerikanischen Produkthaftungs- und Personenschadensfällen gewesen sein.[118] The jury award was the largest against an automaker at the time.[119] The judge reduced the jury’s punitive damages award to $3.5 million, which he later said was “still larger than any other punitive damage award in the state by a factor of about five.”[120] Ford subsequently decided to settle related cases out of court.[121]

Reaction to the Grimshaw case was mixed. According to the Los Angeles Times in 2010, the award “signaled to the auto industry that it would be harshly sanctioned for ignoring known defects.”[122] The case has been held up as an example of the disconnection between the use of corporate risk analysis and the tendency of juries to be offended by such analyses.[123] The case is also cited as an example of irrational punitive damage awards.[124] While supporting the finding of liability, Schwartz notes that the punitive damage award is hard to justify.[125][126]

Indiana v. Ford Motor Co. [ edit ]

On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls of the Ulrich 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.[127] Ford sent the Ulrichs a recall notice for the Pinto in 1979. A grand jury indicted Ford on three counts of reckless homicide. Indiana v. Ford was a landmark in product liability law as the first time a corporation faced criminal charges for a defective product, and the first time a corporation was charged with homicide.[128] If convicted, Ford faced a maximum fine of $30,000 under Indiana’s 1978 reckless homicide statute.[129] Ford’s legal defense was vastly more ambitious than the effort mounted in the Grimshaw case.[130] The effort was led by James F. Neal with a staff of 80 and a budget of about $1 million; the Elkhart County Prosecuting Attorney had a budget of about $20,000 and volunteer law professors and law students.[131] 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.[132] In 1980 Ford was found not guilty.[129] In 1980 a civil suit was settled for $7,500 to each plaintiff.[133]

According to Automotive News in 2003, the indictment was a low point in Ford’s reputation.[134] Some saw the suit as a landmark for taking a corporation to task for their actions while others saw the case as frivolous.[135][136] In 2002, Malcolm Wheeler, a lawyer working with the Ford defense team, noted that the case was a poor application of criminal law.[137] The case also impacted how Ford handled future product liability cases both legally and in the press.[138]

Retrospective safety analysis [ edit ]

A Rutgers Law Review article by former UCLA law professor Gary T. Schwartz (see Section 7.3 NHTSA Investigation above), examined the fatality rates of the Pinto and several other small cars of the time period. He noted that fires, and rear-end fires, in particular, are a very small portion of overall auto fatalities. At the time only 1% of automobile crashes would result in fire and only 4% of fatal accidents involved fire, and only 15% of fatal fire crashes are the result of rear-end collisions.[139] When considering the overall safety of the Pinto, subcompact cars as a class have a generally higher fatality risk. Pintos represented 1.9% of all cars on the road in the 1975–76 period. During that time, the car represented 1.9% of all “fatal accidents accompanied by some fire”. This implies the Pinto was average for all cars and slightly above average for its class.[140] When all types of fatalities are considered, the Pinto was approximately even with the AMC Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega, and Datsun 510. It was significantly better than the Datsun 1200/210, Toyota Corolla, and VW Beetle.[139] The safety record of the car in terms of fire was average or slightly below average for compacts, and all cars respectively. This was considered respectable for a subcompact car. Only when considering the narrow subset of rear-impact, fire fatalities for the car were somewhat worse than the average for subcompact cars. While acknowledging this is an important legal point, Schwartz rejected the portrayal of the car as a firetrap.[141]

See also[edit]

Notes [edit]

Ford Motor Company uses the following VIN formats and codes.

American Ford [ edit | edit source ]

American VIN format [edit| edit source ]

Ford does not directly encode the platform name in the VIN, although there is a lot of other information there. Instead, the company uses a serial number to identify a vehicle type. Ford VIN format is as follows:

American restraint types [ edit | edit source ]

The restraint type is indicated as digit four of the American Ford VIN for passenger cars.

VIN. G Description P Passive belts (manual) B Active belts C Driver airbag and active belts L Driver and front passenger airbags (first generation) and active belts F Driver and front passenger airbags (second generation) and active belts K H Driver and front passenger front and side airbags and active seat belts D Front and side airbags and active seat belts for driver and front passenger All positions

American GVWR Codes [ edit | edit source ]

Value mass in pound a to 3,000 b 3,000 C 4.001 – 5,000 D 5.001 – 6,000 E 6.001 – 7,000 F 7.001 – 8,000 g 8,001 – 8,501 – 9,000 K 10,000 k 10.001 – 14,000 m 16,000 m 16.001 – 19.500 N 8,501 – 9,000 P 7,001 – 8,000 R 6,001 – 7,000 S 9,001 – 10,000 T up to 3,000 U 3,001 – 4,000 V 8,001 – 8,500 W 10,001 – 14,000 Y 4,001 – 5.00 Z

American Models [ edit | edit source ]

The model type is specified in positions five to seven of the American Ford VIN. The first digit indicates the series or brand, the next the series, the last the vehicle type. Type often indicates engine size, driven wheels, body style, and similar factors.

American engine codes [ edit | edit source ]

Ford encodes the engine type in digit 8 of the VIN. The following table shows the different engines coded there:

Engine codes for passenger cars [ edit | edit source ]

Light truck engine codes [ edit | edit source ]

Engine codes for commercial vehicles [ edit | edit source ]

American Ford Factories [ edit | edit source ]

See list of Ford factories

European Ford [ edit | edit source ]

European VIN format [edit| edit source ]

European body types [ edit | edit source ]

Body type ID (position 4) Description 3 Van High Roof 5 Estate High Roof A 3-door B 5-door C 2-door coupe and 3-door hatchback (Ford Fiesta ST Mk. 7+?) D 5-door hatchback ( Focus RS Mk 3+?) E 3-door hatchback F 4-door sedan G 5-door MPV J 5-door SAV (Sports Activity Vehicle) K 5-door LMV (Luxury MPV) L 2-door convertible N 5-door station wagon /Wagon/Clipper P 5-door Hatchback S 5-door Estate T 2-door Sedan U 5-door Van V 2-door Van W 3-door Van

European model series [ edit | edit source ]

Line ID (position 7) Description B Ford Britain C Ford Britain branch

Ford Lusitana S.A.R.L. Azambuja, Portugal E Subsidiary of Ford Germany G Ford Germany L Ford Brazil P Portugal S Japan W Ford Spain Z USA

European factories [ edit | edit source ]

See list of Ford factories

European models [ edit | edit source ]

Ford Australia [ edit | edit source ]

Australian VIN format [ edit | edit source ]

Ford Australia has used the same basic VIN system for Australian assembled vehicles since the early 1960s. When Australia moved to mandatory 17-digit VINs in 1989, Ford VINs became 17-digit VINs by adding 6FPAAA before the original numbering system. With the exception of some L-Series (Louisville) trucks equipped with other brand engines, the engine numbers match the VIN with the 6FPAAA omitted.

Item Example Description 1 6 World Manufacturer ID 2 F 3 P 4 A Fixed Padding (always AAA) 5 A 6 A 7 J Platform Origin 8 G Manufacturing Location 9 W Model Code 10 A 11 1 Year 12 G Month 13 8 Consecutive Number 14 0 15 7 16 0 17 1

Origin of the Australian platform [ edit | edit source ]

The platform code indicates the origin of the underlying platform on which the vehicle is built, even if the body was designed locally.

VIN Code Origin A North America C Europe or UK J Australia U Japan (Mazda)

Australian manufacturing site [ edit | edit source ]

See also list of Ford factories

VIN Code Location G Broadmeadows (main line) H Brisbane K Sydney L Broadmeadows (branch line)

Ford WMIs [ edit | edit source ]

WMI Country Description Vehicle Types AFA South Africa MPB Thailand MNBLS4D107W200832 Thailand AutoAlliance Thailand NM0 Turkey PE1 Philippines Ford Motor Company Philippines SFA United Kingdom Ford Motor Company Ltd TW2 Portugal Ford Lutisania sarl UNI Ireland Henry Ford and Son Ltd VS6 Spain Ford Espana sa WF0 Germany Ford Werke A.G. WF1 XLC Netherlands Ford Nederland nv Y4F Belarus Ford Union 1F1 USA Ford Motor Company Ford MPV – Sedan 1F6 Detroit Chassis LLC Ford Basic (stripped) Chassis 1F7 MSX International Detroit, MI Ford Passenger Car 1FA Ford Motor Company Ford Passenger Car 1FB Ford Bus 1FC Ford Basic Chassis (Lined) 1FD Ford Incomplete Vehicle 1FM Ford MPV 1FT Ford Truck (Complete Vehicle) 1L1 Lincoln Passenger Car – Sedan 1LJ Lincoln Incomplete Vehicle 1LN Lincoln Passenger Car 1ME Mercury Passenger Car 1MH Mercury Incomplete Vehicle 1YV AutoAlliance International Mazda 6 1ZV Ford Mustang 2005-2014 2FA Canada Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd r 2FD Ford incomplete vehicle 2FM Ford MPV 2FT Ford truck (complete vehicle) 2ME Mercury car 2MH Mercury incomplete vehicle 2MR Mercury MPV 3FA Mexico Ford Motor Company (Mexico) Ford car 3FD Ford incomplete vehicle 3FT Ford truck ( Complete Vehicle) 3MA Mercury Passenger Car 3FN Blue Diamond Trucks S. De R. L. De C. V. Ford Truck (Completed Vehicle eug) 3FR Ford incomplete vehicle 4F2 USA Ford Motor Company Mazda MPV 4F4 Mazda truck (complete vehicle) 4M2 Mercury MPV 5L1 Lincoln MPV – sedan 5LM Lincoln MPV 5LT Lincoln truck (complete vehicle) 6FP Australia Ford Australia 8AF Argentina Ford Argentina 9BF Brazil Ford Brazil 8XD Venezuela Ford Motor Venezuela

Ford month codes [edit | edit source ]

month 1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

2028

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

2009

2013

2017

2021

2025

2029

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

2026

2030

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

2003

2007

2011

2015

2019

2023

2027

2031

January B J L C February R U Y K March A M S D April G P T E May C B J L June K R U Y July D A M S August E G P T September L C B J October Y K R U November S D A M December T E G P

↑ http://www.cortina-mk1.com/identify.php Australian assembled MK1 Cortina VIN decoding ↑ http://members.pcug.org.au/~jcarroll/capri/vincode.htm Australian assembled VIN decoding capri

While the aftermarket has done an excellent job of developing high-performance engine blocks for Ford’s line of V8 engines, sometimes you’re not looking for an aftermarket engine block. Whether it’s a proper restoration or an inexpensive rebuild, sometimes an original FoMoCo engine block is what you’re looking for. Whether you’re searching the internet or the junkyard, the following Ford engine block casting numbers should help you figure out what you’re looking at.

numbering convention

Ford’s part numbering convention generally follows the format of a four-digit casting code followed by a four-digit base part number, which is “6015” for an engine block, followed by the revision version. As it is quite obvious that you are looking at an engine block, the important digits are the first four and the last one, two or even three digits in some cases. The numbers are cast in different places on the block itself depending on which block family you’re referring to, but should be fairly recognizable and usually easy to read.

The basic breakdown of the modern numbering convention (1959 and newer) is that the first digit is a letter and represents the decade the part was designed. A = 1940s, B = 1950s, C = 1960s, D = 1970s, E = 1980s, F = 1990s. The second digit is a digit and represents the year within that decade (e.g. C2 = 1962; E7 = 1987).

The third digit is usually another letter, but in rare cases can be a digit, and identifies the vehicle for which the part is designed. (e.g. S = Thunderbird; T = Truck).

The fourth digit is the engineering department that the part came from, so most fourth digits, with a few exceptions, are “E” for “Engine”.

engine families

This article covers a number of Ford V8 engine families. They are:

Y-Block Small-Block: The Y-Block was manufactured in the USA from 1954 to 1964 and was the small-block replacement for the Flathead V8 and this is where this article begins. Common factory displacements ranged from 239 cubic inches to 312 cubic inches.

FE Medium Block: Derived from the name “Ford-Edsel”, the FE is larger than a small block but smaller than a big block, earning it the nickname “medium block”. Designed to replace the Y-block in the 1958 Ford line, it lasted through 1978 and came in displacements ranging from 332 cu in to 428 cu in from the factory.

M-E-L Big-Block: The Ford MEL Big-Block was also introduced in 1958 to replace the heavier Y-Block applications. The MEL, which stood for “Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln,” had displacements from 383 cubic inches to 462 cubic inches and lasted through the 1968 model year.

Super Duty Big-Block: The Ford Super Duty Big-Block engine was a truck-specific big-block introduced in 1958 alongside the FE and MEL and lasted through 1982. It came in 401 cubic-inch, 477 cubic-inch, and 534 cubic-inch variants and is much rarer in the power range.

Big Block Ford: More correctly referred to as the Ford 385 engine, after the factory 3.85 inch crankshaft stroke, this is the engine that someone is referring to when referring to a Big Block Ford or BBF. It was introduced in 1968 and sold until 1997. The BBF was primarily available in two sizes, the 429 cubic inch and 460 cubic inch versions, with a rare small bore 370 cube version in 1978.

Cleveland Small-Block: Introduced in 1969, the Ford 335 small-block family was known as the “Cleveland” engine because it was built at the Cleveland Engine Plant. Available in 351 cubic inch and 400 cubic inch variants, they were known for their large port and valve sizes and remained in production through 1982.

Windsor Small-Block: The Ford Windsor Small-Block is the ubiquitous “small-block Ford” engine, with the most common variants being the 302 and 351 Windsor, the family ranged from 221 cubic inches to 351 cubic inches. With its debut in the 1962 model year, its reign lasted into the following century – the last Windsor engine rolled off the assembly line for the Ford Explorer in 2001.

Boss 302 Cleveland/Windsor Small Block Hybrid: The Boss 302 engine was a 351 Cleveland cylinder head bolted onto a Windsor short block, creating the first “Clevor” hybrid. Boss 302 cylinder heads have slightly modified coolant passages to make sure everything fits together perfectly.

427 – 1968, 427 FE medium block, 2-hole net

471 – 1955-1964, 272/292/312 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

603 – 1960-1962, 352, FE medium block, 2-hole net

891 – 1958-1973, 401 Super Duty Big Block 2 Hole Net Truck

EAD – 1952-1954, 317 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, Lincoln

EAL – 1954, 279 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-Hole Net, Lincoln, Truck

EAM – 1954, 317 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-Hole Net, Lincoln, Truck

EBJ – 1955, 341 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, Lincoln

EBU – 1954-1955, 239 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

EBV – 1945-1955, 239 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

EBV-E – 1945-1955, 239 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

EBV-F – 1945-1955, 239 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

EBV-J– 1945-1955, 239 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

EBY – 1954-1964, 256/272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

EBY-F – 1954-1964, 256/272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

EBZ – 1954-1964, 256/272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

ECG – 1955-1964, 256/272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole mesh

ECG-A – 1955-1957, 272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole mesh

ECG-B – 1955-1958, 272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole mesh

ECG-C – 1956-1958, 272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole mesh

ECH – 1955, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECJ – 1955, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECK – 1955-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECK-B – 1955-1958, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECL – 1955, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECS – 1956-1963, 302 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECT – 1956-1964, 332 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECT-A – 1956-1963, 332 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECU – 1956-1957, 368/378 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-Hole Net, Lincoln

ECZ – 1955-1964, 292/312 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECZ-A – 1950-1960, 312 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

ECZ-C – 1955-1960, 312 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

EDB – 1955-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

EDB-E – 1960-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

EDC – 1958-1967, 332/352 FE center block, 2 hole net

EDC-B – 1958-1959, 352 FE medium block, 2 hole net

EDC- B – 1960, 352 FE medium block, 2 hole net, HP

EDC-C – 1958-1959, 352 FE medium block, 2 hole net

EDC-C – 1960, 352 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net, HP

EDG – 1958-1960, 383/410/430 Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln (MEL) big-block, 2-hole net

EDL – 1958-1976, 401/477 Super Duty Big-Block, 2-hole net

EDL – 1958-1973, 401 Super Duty Big Block, 2-hole net

EDM – 1958-1973, 401 Super Duty Big Block, 2-hole net

EDV – 1955-1959, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

EET – 1956-1963, 332 FE medium block, 2 hole net

EPY-F – 1955-1958, 272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

KBY – 1954-1958, 272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

475-1433 – 1958-1976, 401/477/534 Super Duty Big Block Truck

5750174 – 1956-1963, 332 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net

5750218 – 1956-1963, 332 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net

5750281 – 1956-1964 332 FE Medium Block 2 Hole Net Truck

5750462 – 1956-1957 332 FE Medium Block 2 Hole Net Truck

5750492 – 1956-1963 332 FE Medium Block 2 Hole Net Truck

5750603 – 1958-1962, 332/352 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net

5751091 – 1959-1960, 383/430 Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln (MEL) Big-Block, 2-hole net

74DY-AB – 1974-1976, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

75ZY-AA – 1968-1977, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

77AY – 1975-1976, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-Bolt Net

B5AE – 1956-1958, 272 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

B6TE-A – 1956-1963, 332 FE medium block, 2 hole net, truck

B7AE – 1955-1964, 292/312 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

B7ME-A – 1955-1960, 312 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

B9AE – 1959-1962, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

B9AE-B – 1960-1962, 352/390 FE center block, 2 hole net

B9AE-F – 1959-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

B9ME-D – 1959-1960, 430, Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln (MEL) big-block, 2-hole net

B9ME601 – 1959-1960, 430, Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln (MEL) big block, 2 hole net

C0OE-C – 1969-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C0TE – 1960-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

C0TE-8 – 1960-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-Hole Net, Truck

C1AE – 1961-1964, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C1AE-A – 1961-1963, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C1AE-C – 1961-1963, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C1AE-G – 1961-1963, 352/361/390 FE center block, 2 hole net

C1AE-K – 1961-1969 330/360/361/391 FE Medium Block 2 Hole Net Truck

C1AE-R – 1961, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

C1AE-V – 1961, 390 FE Medium block, 2 hole net, oil pressure relief

C1TE – 1961-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

C2AE-B – 1962-1963, 406 FE center block, cross-bolted nets

C2AE-BC – 1962, 390 FE Medium block, 2 bolt net, oil pressure relief

C2AE-BD – 1962-1963, 406 FE center block, cross-bolted nets

C2AE-BE – 1962, 390 FE medium block, 2 bolt net, oil pressure relief

C2AE-BR – 1962, 390 FE Medium block, 2 hole net, oil pressure relief

C2AE-BS – 1962, 390 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net, Oil Pressure Relief

C2AE-C – 1962-1964, 292 Y-Block Small-Block, 2-hole net

C2AE-D 1962-1963, 406 FE medium-block, cross-bolted nets

C2AE-J – 1962, 406 FE Medium block, 2 hole net, oil pressure relief

C2AE-K – 1962, 406 FE medium block, 2 hole net, oil pressure relief

C2AE-V – 1962, 406 FE medium block, 2 hole net, oil pressure relief

C2OE – 1962, 221 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 2 freeze plugs, 5-hole bell housing

C2OE-G – 1962, 221 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 2 freeze plugs, 5-hole bell housing

C2SE – 1962-1963, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net,

C3AE – 1963, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C3SE-A – 1963, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C3AE-AB – 1963, 427 FE center block, crossbolt, top oiler

C3AE-AY – 1963, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C3AE-D – 1963, 406 FE medium block, 2-bolt net, oil pressure relief

C3AE-KY – 1963, 390 FE medium block, 2-hole net, police

C3AE-M – 1963, 427 FE medium block, cross bolt, top oiler

C3AE-N – 1963, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, hi-po, manual, 5-hole bell housing

C3AE-D – 1963, 406 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net, Hi-Po

C3AE-Z – 1963, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted mains, top oiler

C3ME-B – 1963, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net, police

C3OE – 1963, 221 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing, 2 freeze plugs

C3OE – 1963, 260 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing, 2 freeze plugs

C3OE – 1963, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing, 2 freeze plugs

C3OE-A – 1963, 221 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C3OE-B – 1963, 260 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing, 2 freeze plugs

C3OE-B – 1963, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing, hi-po

C3OE-C – 1963, 260 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C4AE – 1964, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C4AE – 1964, 427 FE Medium Block, Cross Bolt, Top Oiler

C4AE-A – 1964, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted mains, top oiler

C4AE-D – 1964, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C4AE-F – 1964, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net, police

C4DE – 1964, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C4OE – 1964, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C4OE-B – 1964, 260 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C4OE-B – 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing, hi-po

C4OE-C – 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing, hi-po

C4OE-D – 1964, 260 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C4OE-E – 1964, 260 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 5-hole bell housing

C4OE-F – 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-Hole Net, Hi-Po, Manual, 5-Hole Bellhousing

C5AE – 1965-1967, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 6-hole bell housing

C5AE-A – 1965, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C5AE-A – 1965, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted main lines, side oiler

C5AE-A – 1965-1968, 289 Windsor small-block, 2-hole net, 6-hole bell housing

C5AE-B – 1965, 390 FE medium block, 2-hole net, police

C5AE-D – 1965, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted mains, side oilers

C5AE-E – 1965, 427 FE Medium block, cross-bolted main lines, side oilers

C5AE-E – 1965-1968, 289 Windsor Small-Block, Hi-Po, 2-hole net, 6-hole bell housing

C5AE-H – 1965, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted mains, side oilers

C5JE-D – 1965, 427 FE Medium Block, Cross Fitting, Side Oiler, Industrial

C5OE-A – 1965-1967, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-bolt net, 6-bolt bell housing

C5OE-C – 1965-1967, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-bolt net, 6-bolt bell housing

C6AE – 1966-1967, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 6-hole bell housing

C6AE-A – 1966-1967, 427 FE media block, cross fitting, side oiler

C6AE-A – 1966-1967, 428 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C6AE-B – 1966, 428 FE medium block, 2-hole net, police

C6AE-B – 1966-1967, 427 FE media block, cross fitting, side oiler

C6AE-C – 1966, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 6-hole bell housing

C6AE – 1966-1967, 427 FE media block, crossbolt, side oiler

C6AE-D – 1966-1967, 427 FE medium block, cross bolt, side oiler

C6AE-F – 1966, 428 FE medium block, 2-hole net, police

C6AE-N – 1966, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, 6-hole bell housing

C6JE-B – 1966, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted mains, side oilers, marine

C6ME – 1966, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C6ME – 1966-1970, 428 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C6ME-A – 1966, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C6ME-A – 1966-1970, 428 FE medium block, 2-hole net, police

C7AE-A – 1967, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted main lines, side oiler

C7JE-A – 1967, 427 FE Medium Block, Cross-Bolted Main Lines, Side Oilers, Marine

C7JE-E – 1967, 427 FE Medium-Block, Cross Bolt, Side Oiler, Industrial

C7ME – 1964-1970, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C7ME – 1967-1970, 428 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C7ME-A – 1967, 428 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net, Cobra Jet, Police

C7ME-A – 1967-1970, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C7ME-A – 1967-1970, 428 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C7ME-C – 1967, 428 FE medium block, 2 hole net, Cobra Jet, Police

C8AE – 1968, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C8AE-A – 1968, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C8AE-A – 1968, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted main lines, side oiler

C8AE-B – 1968, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C8AE-B – 1968, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted main lines, side oiler

C8AE-C – 1968, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C8AE-E – 1968, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C8AE-G – 1968, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted main lines, side oiler, service

C8AE-H – 1968, 427 FE medium block, cross-bolted mains, side oilers

C8AM-B – 1968, 289 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, service

C8AZ-G – 1968-1972, 427 FE Fluid Block, Cross Bolted Main Line, Side Oiler, Service, High Nickel Plated

C8FE – 1968-1970, Boss 302 Cleveland/Windsor Small Block Hybrid, 4-hole net, high nickel

C8ME – 1968-1970, 428 FE medium block, 2 bolt net, Cobra Jet, Super Cobra Jet

C8ME – 1968-1970, 361/390/391/428 FE center block, 2 hole net

C8ME-A – 1968, 389/391, FE medium block, 2 hole net, truck

C8ME-A – 1968-1970, 428 FE medium block, 2 bolt net, Cobra Jet, Super Cobra Jet

C8ME-A – 1968, 360, FE center block, 2 hole net

C8ME-A – 1968, 390, FE center block, 2 hole net

C8OE – 1968-1970 302 Windsor Small-Block 2-Hole Net Truck

C8OE-A – 1968-1969, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C8OE-B – 1968-1976, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C8SZ – 1968, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

C8SZ-B – 1968, 429 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

C8TE – A 1968-1976, 360, FE Center Block, 2 Hole Net, Truck

C8TE-B – 1968-1979 302 Windsor Small-Block 2-bolt net truck

C8VE – 1968-1978, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

C8VE-E – 1968-1978, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

C8VE-F – 1968-1978, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

C8VY-A – 1968-1976, 460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

C8VY-E – 1975-1978 460 Big Block Ford 2-bolt net truck

C9OE – 1968-1969 302 Windsor Small-Block 2-Hole Net Truck

C9OE-B – 1969-1970, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C9AE – 1969-1974, 390 FE medium block, 2-hole net

C9AE-E – 1969-1970, 429 Big-Block Ford, 4-bolt net, Boss

C9DE-C – 1969-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C9OE – 1969-1976, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, high nickel

C9OE-A – 1969-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C9OE-B – 1969-1984, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C9OE-C – 1969-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

C9TE-B – 1969, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net, truck

C9VE-A – 1969-1970, 429 Big-Block Ford, 2-bolt net, Cobra Jet

C9VE-A – 1969-1973, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

C9VE-B – 1969-1978, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

C9ZE – 1969-1970, Boss 302 Cleveland/Windsor Small Block Hybrid, 4-hole net, high nickel

CA8A-B – 1968-1977, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0AE-A – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0AE-B – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net

C0AE-C – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net

D0AE-D – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net

D0AE-E – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0AE-F – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net

D0AE-G – 1970-1972, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0AE-H – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net

D0AE-J – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0AE-L – 1970-1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0AZ-D – 1970-1975, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0OE-3A2 – 1980-1984, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0OE-E8A – 1980, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0OE-B – 1970-1971, 429 Big-Block Ford, 4-hole net, Cobra Jet, Super Cobra Jet, Police

D0OZ-C – 1970-1974, 1980-1984, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D0SZ-A – 1970-1973, 429 Big-Block Ford, 2-bolt net

D0SZ-D – 1970-1973, 429 Big Block Ford, 2 bolt net

D0VE – 1970-1978, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

D0VE-A – 1970-1972, 429 Big-Block Ford, 4-hole net, Cobra Jet, Super Cobra Jet, Police

D0VE-A – 1970-1973, 429 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

D0VE-A – 1970-1974, 429/460 Big-Block Ford, 2-bolt net

D0VE-B – 1970-1974 460 Big Block Ford 2 Bolt Net

D0ZE-A – 1970, Boss 302 Cleveland/Windsor Small Block Hybrid, 4 Hole Net, High Nickel

D0ZE-B – 1970, Boss 302 Cleveland/Windsor Small Block Hybrid, 4 Hole Net, High Nickel

D1AE – 1971-1978, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net, high nickel

D1AE-A – 1971-1982, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1AE-A – 1975-1982, 351M Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1AE-A1C – 1971-1977, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1AE-A2C – 1971-1977, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1AE-AB – 1971-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1AE-AC – 1971-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1AE-C – 1975-1982, 351M Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1AE-DA – 1971-1984, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1DE-A – 1971-1974, 460 Big-Block Ford, 2-hole net

D1M7-AA – 1971-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1MZ-AA – 1971-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1OE-AA – 1971-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1TE-AA – 1971-1977 302 Windsor Small Block 2 Hole Net Truck

D1TE-E – 1971-1974 302 Windsor Small Block 2 Hole Net Truck

D1VE – 1971-1978, 429/460 big-block Ford, 2-bolt web

D1VE-A – 1971-1973, 429 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

D1VE-A2B – 1971-1978, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

D1VE-AA – 1971-1978, 429/460 Big Block Ford, 2-hole net

D1VZ – 1971-1972, 429 Big-Block Ford, 2-Bolt Net

D1ZE-A – 1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net

D1ZE-AZ – 1971-1978, 429/460 big-block Ford, 2-hole net

D1ZE-B – 1971, Boss 302 Cleveland/Windsor Small Block Hybrid, 4-hole net, service

D1ZE-B – 1971, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net, boss

D1ZM-A – 1971-1972, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1ZM-AA – 1971-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1ZM-DA – 1971-1976, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D1ZZ-A – 1971-1974, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-Hole Net, High Output, Cobra Jet, Boss

D2AE-B4A – 1972-1974, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D2AE-BA – 1972-1974, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D2AE-BA1 – 1972-1978, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D2AE-CA – 1972-1974, 1971-1974, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-Hole Net, High Output, Cobra Jet, Boss

D2AE-DA – 1972-1974, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D2AE-EA – 1972-1974, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D2OE-AB – 1972-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D2TE – 1972-1978, 330 FE medium block, 2 bolt net, truck

D2YZ – 1972-1978, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D3AE-B – 1973, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D3AE-BA – 1973, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D3DE-A – 1973-1974, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D3HE-BA – 1973-1976, 401 Super Duty Big Block, 2-bolt net, truck

D3TE – 1973-1978, 360/361/390/391 FE medium block, 2 bolt net, truck

D3TE-1 – 1973, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

D3TE-AC – 1973, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

D3TE-HA – 1973, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

D3TE-SA – 1973-1977, 330 FE Medium Block, 2 Hole Net, Truck

D3ZE-A – 1973, 351 Cleveland Small-Block, 4-hole net

D4AE-32A – 1974-1977, 351M Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-AA – 1974, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-AA8 – 1974-1978, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-B1A – 1974-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-B2A – 1974-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-BA – 1974-1978, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-BZA – 1974-1979, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-D2A – 1974-1982, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-DA – 1974-1980, 351M Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4AE-ED – 1974-0976, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4DE-AA – 1974-1979, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4DE-BA – 1974-1979, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4HE-AA – 1974-1978, 401/477/534 Super Duty Big-Block, 2-bolt net, truck

D4OE-AA – 1974-1980, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D4TE – 1974-1978, 330 FE medium block, 2 bolt net, truck

D4TE-AC – 1974, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

D5AE-A – 1975, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D5AE-AA – 1975, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D5AE-A1A – 1975, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D5AE-A2A – 1975, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D5AZ – 1975, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D5ZY-AA – 1975-1981, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D7TE – 1977-1982 460 Big Block Ford 4-bolt net truck

D7TE-A1A – 1977-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-bolt net, truck

D7TE-A2A – 1977-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-bolt net, truck

D7TE-A2B – 1977-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-bolt net, truck

D7TE-A3A – 1977-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-bolt net, truck

D7TE-AB – 1977-1982, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-bolt net, truck

D7TE-AZB – 1977-1980 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block 2-Hole Net Truck

D7TE-BA – 1977, 390 FE medium block, 2 hole net

D8AE-A – 1978, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D8AE-AA – 1978, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D8AE-A1A – 1978, 351M/400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D8BE – 1978-1979, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D8OE – 1978-1980, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D8TE – 1978-1982 460 Big Block Ford 4-bolt net truck

D8VE-A3A – 1978-1980, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D9AE-AA – 1979-1980, 400 Cleveland Small-Block, 2-hole net

D9AE-EB – 1979-1982, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D9AE-EC – 1979-1982, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D9AE-ED – 1979-1982, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D9OE-E3A – 1979-1981, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

D9TE – 1979-1984 460 Big Block Ford 2-bolt net truck

D9TE-AA – 1979-1982 351M Cleveland Small-Block 2-Hole Net Truck

D9TE-AA – 1979-1984, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-Bolt Net, 2-Bolt Net, Truck

D9TE-AB – 1979-1984 429/460 Big Block Ford 2 bolt net truck

D9TE-BB – 1979-1984 370 Big Block Ford 2 Bolt Net Truck

EOAE-D3C – 1980-1984, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

EOSE-A2E – 1980, 255 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E3AE-AA – 1983-1991, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E3AE-BA – 1983, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E4AE-FA – 1984-1991 351 Windsor Small-Block 2-Hole Net Truck

E5AE-AA – 1985, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E5AE-AA – 1985-1988 351 Windsor Small Block 2 Hole Net Truck

E5AE-C3B – 1985-1986, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E6AE-BA – 1986, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E6SE – 1986, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E7AE-CA – 1987-1991, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E7AE-EA – 1987-1991, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E7TE – 1987, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

E7TE-BD – 1987-1995 429/460 Big Block Ford 2 Bolt Net Truck

E9AE-AA – 1989 351 Windsor Small Block 2 Hole Net Truck

F1SE – 1991-1996, 302 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

F4TE-AA 1994-1996, 351 Windsor Small-Block, 2-hole net

In our latest harrowing foray into hell’s garage, we gave you the chance to choose one of two classic luxury lowrider projects on the Japanese market. It should go without saying that driving a slammed ’86 Nissan President would be worth all the trouble of importing and customizing such a car, but you may need to prove your patriotic credibility if you live in a traditional American town that specializes in drag racing. Race focused.

No problem! What you need in this case is the kind of car that quarter-mile freaks perfected in the 1970s: a tiny rear-wheel-drive Detroit car crammed full of good old small-block V8 power! With so many of these traction-limited, understeering monsters being built over the decades, it’s no problem finding a less-than-complete project cheaply. We found an example from each of the Detroit Big Three (sorry, AMC fans) of an unusual three-way Project Car Hell.

The last year of the Pinto, ready to quadruple its horsepower.

The Ford Pinto came from the factory with one of several inline-four engines or the occasional Cologne 2.8-liter V6, but Ford never saw fit to put a V8 in their lightweight Econo commuter. Oh, sure, the Mustang II was based on the Pinto and could be bought with a low-powered 302-cubic-inch V8, but what the world really needed was a underpowered, fire-prone (although not much more than most other gas-tank behind-the-bumper (American cars of the era) Small cars with 80/20 weight distribution and at least 400 hp.

Good news! You can build a car like this yourself, and we found this 1980 Ford Pinto V8 swap project in South Carolina (go here if the listing goes away) for you. The seller wants to trade in a bike, so just buy a cheap bike and you’re ready to trade! The car is the lightweight two-door, the V8 engine mounts appear to have been installed (“302 engine block set for mock-up”), so all you have to do is assemble a powerful Ford Windsor, get a gearbox and a rear end that dealing with the power and making it fit in the car, solving the exhaust routing problem, all the usual. When you’re done, you can spin yourself out of control by half-throwing on the freeway.

Since most V8 Vegas end up stuffed into dragstrip guardrails, supplies are limited.

Some people – bad people – will tell you that the Chevy Vega single-handedly destroyed GM’s reputation for a good 20 years. Even John Delorean tried to distance himself from the Vega fiasco. But even as grandma’s Sunday church Vega warped its cylinder head after 20,000 miles and rusted to nothing a few years later, wild-eyed engine swappers were cramming all sorts of big V8s into other Vegas.

The Vega-based Chevy Monza had an available small-block V8 (in 262, 305, and 350 cubic-inch flavors), but the first Vega small-block V8 swap likely happened about 19 minutes after the car went into the Showrooms came in 1971 (the first big-block swap happened the next day). Since that time, many thousands of V8 Vegas have been built to varying degrees of safety and/or health, and most of them have finished their careers in a steel-versus-concrete gloss.

You could buy one of the few complete V8 Vegas currently for sale, but where’s the fun in that? Instead, you’ll finish this 1971 Chevrolet Vega V8 swap project in California’s Emerald Triangle (go here if the listing goes away) for a price of just $500. This car does not come with an engine or transmission but the seller says it once moved under its own power with a V8: “71 Vega for Small Block 350 and Auto Trans, currently no engine or transmission but rear windows and motor mount has a disc brake car , which was used to run 12s on street tires. Interior in good condition, all original.” It ran 12 seconds on street tires! The rear end during its reign of drag strip terror was the factory unit, but now the car “currently has 9-inch halfs in theirs”. How heavy could that be be?

The body of this Colt looks rust free and fairly complete. Don’t you want to save it from a 17-year-old wannabe drifter?

Chrysler did not build Detroit-designed subcompacts in the early 1970s to compete with the Pinto and Vega; Instead, they turned to their global empire to provide facelifted Simcas, Hillmans and Mitsubishis for the American market. The Plymouth Cricket and Simca 1204 were exhibition failures here, but the Mitsubishi Galant Colt aka Dodge Colt sold fairly well.

Of course, Colts became instant drag-strip terrorists; There’s not as much of a tradition of V8-swapped Colts as you’ll find for the Vega and Pinto, but enough has been done that there’s some knowledge of how to make the swap work. We found this 1970 Dodge Colt in Virginia (go here if the listing goes away) even priced Grand.

Sure, the first Colts sold in the United States were 1971 models, and the seller’s description of this car is only 10 words (“1970 Dodge Colt setup for v8 1000 or best offer”), but don’t let that put you off – – we’re sure you’ll find a beautifully engineered combination of engine mounts and custom exhaust headers, and a Chrysler LA small-block will fit just right!

This content is created and maintained by a third party and imported to this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may find more information about this and similar content on piano.io

I never thought I’d apologize to the Ford Pinto, but I guess I owe him one.

I had a Pinto in the 1970’s. Actually, my wife bought it a few months before our wedding. The car became a kind of wedding dowry. Likewise, the remaining 80% of the outstanding car loan.

During a relatively short period of ownership, the cost of repairing the Pinto exceeded the price of the car new. The question wasn’t if it would fail, but when. And where. Sometimes it just wouldn’t start in the driveway. At other times it would fail at a busy intersection.

It’s considered the worst car I’ve ever had. That was back when some automakers made quality like Job 100, certainly not Job 1.

Despite my poor Pinto experience, I suppose an apology is due because of a recent blog I wrote. It focused on Toyota’s sudden acceleration problems. But when I spoke about it, I evoked the memory of exploding pintos, perpetuating an inaccuracy.

The widespread claim was that due to a design flaw, Pinto fuel tanks could easily explode in rear-end collisions, setting the car and its occupants on fire.

People started calling the Pinto “the four-person grill.” And the lawsuits are spreading like wildfire.

In response to my blog, a Ford executive (“I’d rather not have my name printed”) contacted me to set the record straight.

He says exploding pintos are a myth debunked by an investigation nearly 20 years ago. He cites Gary Schwartz’s 1991 Rutgers Law Review paper, which cuts through the wild claims and examines what really happened.

Schwartz methodically determined that the actual number of deaths from the Pinto rear end explosion was not in the thousands, as is commonly believed, but 27.

In 1975-76, the Pinto claimed an average of 310 deaths a year. But the similarly sized Toyota Corolla came in at 313, the VW Beetle at 374, and the Datsun 1200/210 at 405.

Yes, there have been cases like a Pinto exploding while parked on the shoulder of the road and being hit from behind by a speeding pickup truck. But fiery rear-end collisions accounted for just 0.6% of all deaths back then, and the Pinto had a lower fatality rate in that category than the average compact or economy car, Schwartz said after collating the numbers. The Pinto’s rear design wasn’t particularly unsafe either.

Not content to portray the Pinto as an incendiary device, ABC’s 20/20 decided to really heat things up in a 1978 show featuring “startling new developments.” ABC breathlessly reported that not only Pintos but full-size Fords could explode if hit from behind.

20/20 then aired video shot by UCLA researchers showing a Ford sedan being backed up and bursting into flames. A few issues with this video:

First, it was filmed 10 years ago.

Second, in a published report, the UCLA researchers had openly stated that they intentionally equipped the vehicle with an explosive device.

That’s because the test was intended to determine how a crash fire would affect the interior of the car, not show how easily Fords become fireballs. They said they had to use an accelerant because crash flames by themselves are so rare. They had attempted to start a vehicle fire in an accident without using an igniter, but had failed.

ABC made no mention of it when correspondent Sylvia Chase reported on “Ford’s secret rear-end crash tests.”

We could forgive ABC for that botched reporting job. After all, it’s been 32 years. But a few weeks ago, in another of its rigged car explosions, ABC showed video of a Toyota apparently accelerating on its own.

It turned out that the “runaway” vehicle had help from an associate professor. He built a gizmo with an on-off switch to provide acceleration when needed. Well, at least ABC didn’t show the Toyota slamming into a wall and bursting into flames.

On my blog, I also mentioned that Ford’s woes worsened in the 1970s, when an internal memo was allegedly uncovered by a Ford attorney who allegedly calculated that it would cost less to pay off wrongful death lawsuits than it would to rebuild the Pinto shape.

It became known as the “Ford Pinto Memo”, a smoking gun. But Schwartz looked at that too. He reported that the memo does not refer to Pintos or any Ford products. Instead, it had to do with American vehicles in general.

It was about rollovers, not rear-end collisions. Tort liability was not addressed at all, let alone advocated as a cheaper alternative to a redesign. It has valued human life because the federal agencies themselves have done so.

The memo was for the eyes of regulators only. But it went to the races after Mother Jones Magazine got a copy and reported it, which it didn’t.

The myth of the exploding Pinto lives on, mostly because more Americans watch 20/20 than read the Rutgers Law Review. One wonders what people will remember in 2040 about Toyota’s sudden accelerations, which are increasingly looking like driver error and, in some cases, driver fraud.

So I guess I owe the Pinto an apology. But it’s half-hearted, because my Pinto caused me a lot of grief, even though, as the Ford executive notes, “it was a cheap car, made a long time ago and a lot has changed, almost all for the better.”

Here, if I said something that offended you, Pinto, I’m sorry. And thank you for not blowing me up.

How many PS? What engine size? What dimensions? – Specification table identification data Ford Pinto Runabout 2000-ccm (man. 4-speed)

as offered for 1972 since September 1971 in North America USA. How many were produced? Check the data on available Ford (USA) Pinto production numbers. Production/sales period of vehicles with these specific specifications: September 1971 – September 1972 Year of manufacture: 1972 Country of origin: USA United States Make: Ford (USA) Model: Pinto 1971-1980 Sub-model: Pinto Runabout 1971-1980 Options: EG segmentation: C (mid-size cars, compact) Sub-segment: C-2 (mid-size hatchbacks, compact hatchbacks) Class: compact / small family car Body style: hatchback Doors: 3 Traction: RWD (rear-wheel drive) Basic dimensions Length: 4140 mm / 163 in. Width: 1763 mm / 69 in .4 in. Height: 1270 mm / 50 in. Height with roof rails or antenna: Wheelbase: 2388 mm / 94 in. EPA Declared Passenger Volume: EPA Calculated Passenger Volume: 77.4 cu ft Fuel Capacity: 42 liters / 11.1 US gallons / 9.2 Imp. gal Drag Coefficient (Cd value): Cw claimed: Cw estimated from a-c: 0.5

Interior and exterior dimensions, turning radius, track width, trunk, load volume, frontal and drag area, capacities etc. – click on the button below: Weights Curb weight (without driver): 968 kg / 2134 lbs Weight distribution v/h (%): Dry weight : Shipping weight: Estimated empty weight: Perm. total weight of the vehicle Gross Weight: Payload: Estimated Payload: Markets Markets Where Vehicles Were Sold With These Specific Specifications: North America USA Related Models: MERCURY BOBCAT Engine Specifications Engine Manufacturer: Ford EAO/OHC 2.0L Engine Type: Petrol 4-Stroke Fuel Type: Gasoline (Gasoline) Fuel System: Carburettor charging system: Naturally aspirated Valves per cylinder: 2 Control times: Additional features: Weber 32/36 DFAV 2-barrel OHC Emission control: Emission standard: Cylinder arrangement: Row 4 Displacement: 1993 cm3 / 122 cui What power? net hp: 64 kW / 87 hp / 86 hp (SAE net) / 5400 net torque: 139 Nm / 103 ft-lb / 3200 gross hp: gross torque: net car power-to-weight ratio: 66.1 watts/kg / 30 watts/ lb Gross car power-to-weight ratio: Net car power-to-weight ratio: 15.1 kg/kW / 11.1 kg/hp / 24.8 lbs/hp Gross car power-to-weight ratio: Full engine data: hp/torque rpm etc. – click button under:

Check:

1972 Ford Pinto Runabout 2000-cc Horsepower/Torque Curve Transmission Specifications Transmission: Transmission Type: Manual Number of Gears: 4 Full Transmission Specifications: Gear Ratios, Final Drive etc – click button below:

Tire size: 1972 Ford Pinto Runabout 2000cc Standard and alternative wheel and tire sizes How fast is this car? What top speed? How much fuel? – Performance Specifications Factory Claim Top Speed: 0-60 mph (sec): 0-100 km/h (sec): 0-1/4 mile (sec): 0-1 km (sec):

Fuel Consumption:

ECE 90/120/City (comb): EU NEDC/Australia ADR82: urban/extra-urban/combined EPA city/highway (combined): U.S. EPA (after 2008) City/Highway: (combined) 10-15 Mode: JC08 Mode: Emission: © automobile-catalog.com ProfessCars™ estimate

(the car with base curb weight, full tank and 90 kg (200 lbs) payload) Top speed: 159 km/h / 99 mph (theor. without speed limiter)

Accelerations:

0-80 km/h (sec): 7.6 0-100 km/h (sec): 11.9 0-160 km/h (sec): 0-200 km/h (sec): 0-300 km/h (sec): 0-50 mph (sec): 7.7 0-60 mph (sec): 11.1 0-100 mph (sec): 0-150 mph (sec) ): 0-200 mph (sec):

Drag times:

0- 1/4 mile (sec): 18.1 0- 1 km (sec): 34 Full performance data, acceleration graph, acceleration in gears, speed range in gears, overtaking factors, etc. or to add this car for comparison – click on one of the buttons below:

Fuel consumption (mileage) extra-urban (up to 100 km/h) / city / motorway (up to 140 km/h) / average combined:

l/100km: 9.3-11.2 / 11.9-14.3 / 12.4-14.9 / 11.3 mpg (imp.): 25.3-30.4 / 19.8-23 .7 / 19-22.8 / 25 mpg (USA): 21-25.3 / 16.5-19.7 / 15.8 -19 / 20.8 km/l: 9-10.8 / 7- 8.4/6.7-8.1/8.9

Range (km / miles on full tank) Extra-urban (up to 100 km/h): 375-450 km / 235-280 miles Urban: 295-355 km / 180-220 miles Motorway (up to 87 mph / 140 km/h): 280 -340 km / 175-210 miles Combined average: 372 km / 231 miles

Remarks

If you refer to the information on this website, please always give www.automobile-catalog.com as the source with the appropriate link. To view a table with full performance data and technical specifications (including final drive and gear ratios, drive train description, dimensions, acceleration chart, etc.) and more photos, or to compare up to 5 cars side by side, click on one of the buttons below:

www.automobile-catalog.com © The general catalog of automobiles since 1945 © Copyright. Subject to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the content, organization, graphics, design, compilation, magnetization, translation, digital conversion and other matters relating to the automobile-catalog.com website (including ProfessCars™ and automobile-catalog.com™ ) are protected by applicable copyright, trademark and other proprietary rights (including but not limited to intellectual property rights). The website automobile-catalog.com is only for online viewing via the internet browser. Commercial copying, redistribution, use or publication by you of any such content or portions of this website is strictly prohibited. You acquire no ownership rights in any content, document or other material displayed through the Website. Reproduction of part or all of the content of this website in any form is prohibited and may not be re-copied and distributed to third parties. The incorporation of material or any part thereof into any other website, electronic retrieval system, publication or other work (whether in paper, electronic or otherwise), including the storage of any part of this website on optical, digital or/or and electronic media is strictly prohibited. Except as expressly authorized by automobile-catalog.com, you agree not to copy, modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, assign, distribute, perform, display, the Site or any Content license, reverse engineer or create derivative works available through the website. Copyright infringement will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The full terms of use for this website and database can be found here.

Copyright ©. Subject to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the content, organization, graphics, design, compilation, magnetic translation, digital conversion and other matters relating to the automobile-catalog.com website (including ProfessCars™ and automobile-catalog.com™) are protected by applicable copyright, trademark and other proprietary rights (including but not limited to intellectual property rights). The website automobile-catalog.com is only for online viewing via the internet browser. Commercial copying, redistribution, use or publication by you of any such content or portions of this website is strictly prohibited. You acquire no ownership rights in any content, document or other material displayed through the Website. Reproduction of part or all of the content of this website in any form is prohibited and may not be re-copied and distributed to third parties. The incorporation of material or any part thereof into any other website, electronic retrieval system, publication or other work (whether in paper, electronic or otherwise), including the storage of any part of this website on optical, digital or/or and electronic media is strictly prohibited. Except as expressly authorized by automobile-catalog.com, you agree not to copy, modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, assign, distribute, perform, display, the Site or any Content license, reverse engineer or create derivative works available through the website. Copyright infringement will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The full terms of use for this website and database can be found here.

It was in the 1970s that automakers from Japan began to find a market among the great American cars of the era. As Toyota, Honda, and Datsun (later Nissan) products began to catch on, American automakers responded by producing several smaller models to counter the overseas invasion.

Unfortunately, many of these products were duds as manufacturers were unable to replicate the success they had with big cars and translate it into compact and smaller models. Five models from this period have largely fallen into oblivion, vehicles that tarnished the reputation of American manufacturers.

The worst cars of the 1970s

1. Ford Pinto

Ford’s first big foray into the small car class was a bomb. Literally. The Ford Pinto was launched in 1971 and stayed on the market for 10 years. Although the Pinto sold more than 3 million units throughout its history and also spawned a Mercury Bobcat variant, the Pinto became synonymous with fiery explosions.

Sold in hatchback, coupe and station wagon configurations, the Ford Pinto had a serious design flaw that could ignite the car if hit from behind. In particular, it was found that the structural design of the fuel tank filler neck broke off when the car was placed on its back. Fatal fires were the result.

Worse was the disclosure of an internal memo showing that Ford knew about the defect but had weighed the $11 per car repair cost against the cost of legal settlements. It took the work of the independent magazine Mother Jones to shed light on the issue and hasten the Pinto’s demise.

2.Chevrolet Vega

The same year that Ford launched the Pinto, Chevrolet introduced the Vega. It too was available in coupe, station wagon and station wagon body styles, a small car that remained in production for eight years. Quality issues dogged the Vega and eventually led to its discontinuation after nearly 2 million units were produced.

One of the Chevrolet Vega’s main problems was its aluminum engine, as it was bent and leaking. Rust was another problem that showed up in areas under the windshield, door bottoms and rocker panels.

GM got heated when consumer advocate Ralph Nader, head of the Center for Auto Safety, sent the GM chairman a 12-page letter outlining the Vega’s problems and calling the vehicle “poorly finished, unreliable and [an] unsafe.” vehicle”.

Nader pressured GM to back its repaired engines with a five-year, 50,000-mile warranty, something the automaker later provided. Despite largely resolving the engine problems and combating the rust problems by converting to galvanized steel, the Vega was discontinued due to a sharp drop in sales.

3. Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon

The Dodge Omni and twin Plymouth Horizon were introduced in 1978. These two front-wheel drive models and their variants, including the Dodge Rampage, lasted until 1990 with almost 1 million sold during that time.

Parent company Chrysler Corporation used its European arm, Simca, to design the cars, which looked remarkably similar to the Volkswagen Rabbit that debuted in 1974. The first engines were supplied by Volkswagen, but engine production limitations kept demand in check.

An early review by Consumer Reports cast the Dodge Omni in a negative light, noting that the car would lose control during hard maneuvers. This “unacceptable” rating left Chrysler adamant, but it prompted the automaker to make design changes to the steering system.

To Chrysler’s credit, its first attempt at a small car proved better than its American competitors, but the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon are largely forgotten today.

4. AMC pacemaker

American Motors Corporation (AMC) was a distant fourth when it introduced its compact Pacer hatchback and station wagon in 1975. Its style was aerodynamic and round, a vehicle likened to the flying cars in the Jetsons cartoon.

Despite its futuristic looks, the AMC Pacer had several contemporary issues that hampered its success.

For example, a lot of glass was used, including the wraparound rear quarter panels that brought in a lot of light. It also generated a lot of heat, necessitating the installation of air conditioning, an option in most cars at the time. It was too weak, even with its weak V6 engine, to move this “flying goldfish bowl”.

To make room for a V8 engine, AMC had to modify the hood to accommodate the larger engine. Originally, AMC had planned to source a lighter Wankel rotary engine from GM to power the Pacer, but when GM abandoned that program, an archaic V6 was used instead.

Perhaps the Pacer would have been a memorable car if that car had been powered by a Wankel engine instead.

5.Chevrolet Monza

The Chevrolet Monza was based on the Chevy Vega platform, a model intended to compete with the Ford Mustang II, itself a larger variant based on the Pinto platform. The Chevy Monza, like the AMC Pacer, was designed with a Wankel rotary engine in mind.

However, when GM realized that meeting strict emissions regulations would be too costly, it dropped the engine. Nevertheless, production of the Monza continued and various four, six and eight-cylinder engines were used.

The Chevy Monza lasted six model years, debuting in 1975. It also spawned similar models sold by other GM brands, including the Buick Skyhawk, Pontiac Sunbird, and Oldsmobile Starfire.

The Monza reflected many of the quality issues that GM’s subcompact cars had in the 1970s, namely ineffective suspension systems, missing bolts, poor fit and finish, and rust.

few and far between

Go to any car collectors event and you’re unlikely to find any of the five cars mentioned among the 1970s classics. Detroit automakers have learned their lessons since then and are now building quality small cars that will help consumers forget the models of the past.

Also read – 5 1990s Cars We’d Rather Be Faking Soon

Public domain and licensed photos purchased from Wikipedia.

What is the difference between a 302 and a 351W?

Identify a Ford Windsor Block by inspection

story

Ford produced the small-block Windsor engine family from 1961 to 2000. There have been many variations over the years.

visual difference

The main difference between the blocks was the deck height. The 351 blocks were up to 1,300 inches taller to allow for a longer stroke.

You can tell the difference fairly easily by looking at the front of the engine.

On a 302 (or smaller c.i.d.) block, the manifold bracket will be almost flush with the top of the block (where the inlet sits). The water passages are also at the very top of the block (where the heads sit). The image below shows a 302 block.

A 351W block is higher. So the manifold mount is below the block surface where the inlet sits. There is also more space between the water channels and the cylinder heads. The picture below shows a 351W block.

other differences