Man gets pulled over driving an unsafe car by Minnesota State Patrol

[SteveG1988]

http://jalopnik.com/5924130/how-was-anyone-driving-this-ridiculously-unsafe-car-on-the-highway//@TomJoslin

[Molandfreak]

U.S. Highway 52 in Koochiching County.

[sic] it's U.S. 53

I saw this article last summer. I agree that the car was long overdue for the junkyard; it's a shame, from the article, that the owner of the car appeared not to be able to afford a better car/didn't have a license.

In other news, check out this video from the comments section. Seems to be in far worse shape. I would not want to see that on the road:

[agentsteel53]

In other news, check out this video from the comments section. Seems to be in far worse shape. I would not want to see that on the road:
[video]

if that's a body-on-frame construction (which I believe it is) then the vehicle may still be safe, with just cosmetic damage.  I saw a truck with the rear end bashed in like that the other day in California; didn't think much of it other than that the guy would probably need to unbend the bed.

that Pinto is a complete POS and unsafe and needs to be off the road.  being too broke to afford anything else is no excuse for endangering others with a Molotov cocktail on wheels.

[Molandfreak]

that Pinto is a complete POS and unsafe and needs to be off the road.  being too broke to afford anything else is no excuse for endangering others with a Molotov cocktail on wheels.

Pintos in good condition are Molotov cocktails on wheels

[SteveG1988]

In other news, check out this video from the comments section. Seems to be in far worse shape. I would not want to see that on the road:
[video]

if that's a body-on-frame construction (which I believe it is) then the vehicle may still be safe, with just cosmetic damage.  I saw a truck with the rear end bashed in like that the other day in California; didn't think much of it other than that the guy would probably need to unbend the bed.

that Pinto is a complete POS and unsafe and needs to be off the road.  being too broke to afford anything else is no excuse for endangering others with a Molotov cocktail on wheels.

It is unibody

[PHLBOS]

In other news, check out this video from the comments section. Seems to be in far worse shape. I would not want to see that on the road:
[video]

if that's a body-on-frame construction (which I believe it is) then the vehicle may still be safe, with just cosmetic damage.  I saw a truck with the rear end bashed in like that the other day in California; didn't think much of it other than that the guy would probably need to unbend the bed.

It is unibody

If that SUV in the video is a 1989-1995 Toyota 4Runner, then it's body-on-frame.  Even today's 4Runner still features body-on-frame construction.

[SteveG1988]

In other news, check out this video from the comments section. Seems to be in far worse shape. I would not want to see that on the road:
[video]

if that's a body-on-frame construction (which I believe it is) then the vehicle may still be safe, with just cosmetic damage.  I saw a truck with the rear end bashed in like that the other day in California; didn't think much of it other than that the guy would probably need to unbend the bed.

It is unibody

If that SUV in the video is a 1989-1995 Toyota 4Runner, then it's body-on-frame.  Even today's 4Runner still features body-on-frame construction.

Misread, i meant the pinto.

[JREwing78]

This story reminds me a little bit of this clip from Smokey & the Bandit:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-xixt4bt7uhbJmm/smokey_and_the_bandit_1977_sheriff_justice_encounters_state_trooper/

[SteveG1988]

my question is, how long was the vehicle like that

[bugo]

In other news, check out this video from the comments section. Seems to be in far worse shape. I would not want to see that on the road:
[video]

if that's a body-on-frame construction (which I believe it is) then the vehicle may still be safe, with just cosmetic damage.  I saw a truck with the rear end bashed in like that the other day in California; didn't think much of it other than that the guy would probably need to unbend the bed.

that Pinto is a complete POS and unsafe and needs to be off the road.  being too broke to afford anything else is no excuse for endangering others with a Molotov cocktail on wheels.

The Pinto wagon didn't have the design flaw that caused the sedan and hatchback ("Runabout") models to exploded upon rear contact.

[agentsteel53]

my question is, how long was the vehicle like that

given that it's a Pinto?  it must have just been taken out of the cosmoline a week ago, to have only that amount of rust on it.

[agentsteel53]

The Pinto wagon didn't have the design flaw that caused the sedan and hatchback ("Runabout") models to exploded upon rear contact.

this particular Pinto has a jury-rigged gas tank sitting in the passenger seat! 

[PHLBOS]

The Pinto wagon didn't have the design flaw that caused the sedan and hatchback ("Runabout") models to exploded upon rear contact.

That was mainly because the wagon model was 10" longer than the sedan/runabout model.  That extra length provided more space between the gas tank and the rear bumper.  Coincidenatally, the wagon was the best-selling model among the Pintos.

Also, Ford supposedly addressed the gas tank problem by placing an additional metal plate between the tank and the rear bumper of the sedan/runabout models from '77 through '80 (the final model year).  A friend of mine in college had an '80 Pinto sedan and showed me the additional protective plate (we both crawled under the back to take a look).

BTW, the blue Pinto wagon in the pic. is a 1980 model.

To SteveG1988, all Pintos/Bobcats/Mustang IIs featured unitized/unibody construction.  The only body-on-frame cars from Ford Motor Company were all full-size RWD Fords, Edsels & Mercurys, Lincolns older than 1958 & newer than 1969 (note: the '68-'71 Mark III was considered a mid-size and featured unitized construction), '72-'83 Marks IV/V/VI and all '72-'79 mid-sizes (Torinos/Montegos/LTD IIs/Elites/'74-'79 Cougars & XR7s/'77-'79 T-Birds).

[bugo]

The Pinto wagon didn't have the design flaw that caused the sedan and hatchback ("Runabout") models to exploded upon rear contact.

That was mainly because the wagon model was 10" longer than the sedan/runabout model.  That extra length provided more space between the gas tank and the rear bumper.  Coincidenatally, the wagon was the best-selling model among the Pintos.

Yes, the extra length of the wagon was a large part of it.  We had 2 1973 Pinto wagons and they were good cars, although we had them when I was a kid and I never got to drive them.

Also, Ford supposedly addressed the gas tank problem by placing an additional metal plate between the tank and the rear bumper of the sedan/runabout models from '77 through '80 (the final model year).  A friend of mine in college had an '80 Pinto sedan and showed me the additional protective plate (we both crawled under the back to take a look).

I understand it was a plastic plate.

[PHLBOS]

Yes, the extra length of the wagon was a large part of it.  We had 2 1973 Pinto wagons and they were good cars, although we had them when I was a kid and I never got to drive them.

My father owned a '74 Pinto Squire wagon and later a '72 wagon.  The latter wagon was the vehicle I first learned to operate a stick (manual transmission).

My main gripe with those cars was the cramped rear seat.  I was 8 going on 9 when he bought the '74 Squire new (as a left-over) and I was still cramped in that back seat.

Also, Ford supposedly addressed the gas tank problem by placing an additional metal plate between the tank and the rear bumper of the sedan/runabout models from '77 through '80 (the final model year).  A friend of mine in college had an '80 Pinto sedan and showed me the additional protective plate (we both crawled under the back to take a look).

I understand it was a plastic plate.

It might have been.  Although I could've sworn that it was metal.  I last saw my friend's '80 Pinto back in 1989; so I'm just going by memory.

[bugo]

Looks like we're both right:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto12.htm

The second method that had been employed was an extra steel plate attached to the rear of the car just behind the bumper, isolating the tank from direct contact during impact. It successfully warded off a blow at 30 mph, helping to keep the tank intact. No company cost analysis was done at the time, but experts felt that this part could have cost up to $11 per car to install.
Engineers found that the majority of the ruptures were caused by two factors: 1) the filler neck breaking off and allowing fuel to pour out, where it could be exposed to an ignition source; and 2) the tank being penetrated by contact with the differential mounting bolts and right shock absorber.

This is where a third successful fix had been devised -- a rather simple plastic insulator fitted on the differential that would keep the bolts from ever making contact with the fuel tank. Cost of this item was less than $1.

[Brandon]

Looks like we're both right:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto12.htm

The second method that had been employed was an extra steel plate attached to the rear of the car just behind the bumper, isolating the tank from direct contact during impact. It successfully warded off a blow at 30 mph, helping to keep the tank intact. No company cost analysis was done at the time, but experts felt that this part could have cost up to $11 per car to install.
Engineers found that the majority of the ruptures were caused by two factors: 1) the filler neck breaking off and allowing fuel to pour out, where it could be exposed to an ignition source; and 2) the tank being penetrated by contact with the differential mounting bolts and right shock absorber.

This is where a third successful fix had been devised -- a rather simple plastic insulator fitted on the differential that would keep the bolts from ever making contact with the fuel tank. Cost of this item was less than $1.

However, the Pinto fire problems were hyped by Mother Jones Rag..er..Magazine.  The NHTSA found that only 27 deaths could possibly be attributed to the fuel filler design, the same number attributable to the transmission and declared that there was no recallable problem in 1974.  It was only later, under pressure, that the NHTSA had Ford recall the Pinto.  Quite frankly, the incidents of fire due to the fuel filler of the Pinto were no more and no less than typical for the era.  It wouldn't be the last time a "news" publication or program would make claims of a vehicle being unsafe.  Shall I bring up the sidesaddle fuel tanks and Dateline NBC's rigged explosions?

The Pinto as BBQ makes a good myth.