Convinced that 3/4 of my clients are dumb.

You are surely mistaken.. thats an AMX

 

what I bought a maverick, I thought it was a camaro as well

 

and who forced them to get behind the wheel after they had been drinking? They have no one to blame but themselves.

 

Idiots!

Personally, I NEVER get behind the wheel after I have been drinking.

I just get behind the keyboard and come to the forum to make an a$$ out of myself

 

Maybe you can install a breathalyzer on my computer?

That would keep me from having to delete posts in the morning...

 

I had a guy start talking to me about mine one day. In the guard shack at a private neighborhood. He was just a few years younger than me, and everyone still calls me a kid. Conversation was going good until he told me he had one with the original 289 in it. Needless to say I entered the neighborhood a little disappointed.

 

Ha, sounds like my roommate. He blows up facebook all night in a drunken political rage. then when he sobers up he has to go back and delete his posts.

 

hey now.. if i kept my radiator thread for 2000 replies, you should keep your threads.. lol

 

ahhh...the radiator thread...good times...

 

When people tell me nice Pinto I just shake my head and say "thanks". But then I realize..wait I'M driving a Pinto! JK. I am so sick of hearing "you know those blow up if you get hit in the rear right?" If I dont hear that 3 times a week something is wrong. Of course people who actually used to own Pinto's say they are one of the best cars they ever had.

My Maverick has been called everything under the sun so Im used to it.

 

Of course, actually OWNING a Pinto (like me) carries a great stigma with it. For the uninformed (most folks are, that's not necessarily a reflection on this group but the public at large - and note, these facts are from reading lots of information regarding these problems, not just my own conjecture):

1) Pintos do not explode when hit from behind - the problem (was) twofold:
a) Side collisions: Impacts on the drivers side could potentially lead to separation of the filler neck and gas tank, leading to gas spills
b) Rear collisions: Early models had a problem with an unprotected "extrusion" at the rear bumper which could be pushed forward into the gas tank, causing it to rupture

Anytime you have gasoline or gas vapors, and an ignition source, danger is there. But if you compound it with the fact that the car bodies crumpled in substantial impacts to an extent where the door jambs were forced against the doors, there was no escape for the occupants - and the danger level was compounded that much more.

2) The gas tank issues were primarily with the units built in the first two years - not later years.

3) The problems were more likely to compound in small bodied cars (sedans and coupes), and did not affect wagons (which came out a few years later).

...and there you have it. It amazes me how much the Pinto is lauded, yet people today never mention the side crash tank eruptions in Ford trucks or the Police cruisers that caught fire in great numbers. History often tells a slanted story - becuase people will focus on the drama and emotional impacts, rather than the facts.

Chris

 

I have no sympathy for Drunk Drivers, any of them.
My wife and I were almost killed by one. (photos of my wrecked S10 in my gallery)
They do not deserve to drive ever again.
Sorry to hijack your post, but I have to vent.
I would like to see laws changed so EVERY drunk driver has to get your breathalizer in their car.
Thanks to your hard work, the roads are safer for all of us.:Handshake

 

Actually there are many cars that have the same "exploding" problem as the pinto. One of the worst was the 73-87 chevrolet pickups with the side tanks.

The biggest reason the stigma on the pinto stuck out so much is the fact that Ford found it cheaper to pay the associated lawsuits then to fix the problem after the initial findings.($11 per car)
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html

Now I just spent the last half hour reading through this and I can understand why Ford did it and I got to learn a few things about this case I never knew before. Tell you what $11 per car/ light truck does not sound that much but when it equates to total cost. [SIZE=-1]This $11 per unit cost applied to 11 million cars and 1.5 million trucks results in an overall cost of $137 million.

Hmmm interesting

Ironically the biggest lawsuit brought against the pinto because a guy in a pieced together van(even had a 2X4 for a front bumper) that was drunk/stoned "[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] open beer bottles, marijuana, caffeine pills and capsules of "speed.""[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]. Ran into the back of a car full of girls that was sitting in the middle of the road because the driver did not put the fuel cap back on correctly so she stopped to get it. Rather than the state accepting liability for improper emergency lanes the state put a lawsuit against ford. So basically put if he had one of those breathalyzer things then the lawsuit and the pinto stigma ever would have happened.
[/SIZE]

 

the problem was a fuel line that get cut when you crush them from behind, so suddenly a ball of fire catch your ass, something like this:

 

That's a myth. Good article with excellent video here: http://wiki.gmnext.com/wiki/index.php/GM_vs._NBC,_a_New_Wave_of_Employee_Pride

The whole "exploding Chevy trucks" thing got started because of a Dateline "expose" wherein they showed shocking crash test footage in which these trucks burst into a massive ball of fire on impact. Turns out they were rigged to explode in those videos. GM proved it, aired it, people at NBC got fired over it.