Post Pics of Your 2014+

MikeBMW · May 30, 2021

37 minutes ago, JimCost2014 said:

Come on now, how many Pinto's actually exploded from having an exposed gas tank at the rear of the car

Look how much money Ford saved by literally "chopping" a foot off that car.

Interesting story about the Pintos (well one of them) - the biggest crash that happened was in my old hometown resulting in the end of the Pinto. (not mentioned in the video)

JimCost2014 · May 30, 2021

13 minutes ago, MikeBMW said:

Interesting story about the Pintos (well one of them) - the biggest crash that happened was in my old hometown resulting in the end of the Pinto. (not mentioned in the video)

On June 9, 1978, Ford Motor Company agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for fuel tank design defects which made the vehicles susceptible to fire in the of a moderate-speed rear end collision. The action was the result of investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigations (Case Recall C7-38), sparked by a petition from Center for Auto Safety, publicity generated by national publication expose of the hazard (Mother Jones News Magazine, “Pinto Madness” by Mark Dowie, Sept/Oct, 1977) and publicity over the largest punitive damages awarded by a California jury to a young man who had been severely injured in a Pinto fuel tank fire (Grimshaw v Ford).

In April, 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. The Center’s petition was based upon reports from attorneys of three deaths and 4 serious injuries in such accidents. This petition languished in the NHTSA offices until 1977.

Closely following the publication of the Mother Jones article, a jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded Richard Grimshaw $125 million in punitive damages for injuries he sustained while a passenger in a 1971 Pinto which was struck by another car at an impact speed of 28MPH and burst into flames. Although the award was eventually reduced to $3.5 million by the trial judge, the jury’s reason for the figure of $125 million was that Ford Motor Company had marketed the Pinto with full knowledge that injuries such as Grimshaw’s were inevitable in the Pinto and therefore the punitive damages should be more than Ford had made in profit on the Pinto since its introduction, which was $124 million. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348 Cal.App. 4 Dist., 1981.

MikeBMW · May 30, 2021

3 minutes ago, JimCost2014 said:

On June 9, 1978, Ford Motor Company agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for fuel tank design defects which made the vehicles susceptible to fire in the of a moderate-speed rear end collision. The action was the result of investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigations (Case Recall C7-38), sparked by a petition from Center for Auto Safety, publicity generated by national publication expose of the hazard (Mother Jones News Magazine, “Pinto Madness” by Mark Dowie, Sept/Oct, 1977) and publicity over the largest punitive damages awarded by a California jury to a young man who had been severely injured in a Pinto fuel tank fire (Grimshaw v Ford).

In April, 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. The Center’s petition was based upon reports from attorneys of three deaths and 4 serious injuries in such accidents. This petition languished in the NHTSA offices until 1977.

Closely following the publication of the Mother Jones article, a jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded Richard Grimshaw $125 million in punitive damages for injuries he sustained while a passenger in a 1971 Pinto which was struck by another car at an impact speed of 28MPH and burst into flames. Although the award was eventually reduced to $3.5 million by the trial judge, the jury’s reason for the figure of $125 million was that Ford Motor Company had marketed the Pinto with full knowledge that injuries such as Grimshaw’s were inevitable in the Pinto and therefore the punitive damages should be more than Ford had made in profit on the Pinto since its introduction, which was $124 million. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348 Cal.App. 4 Dist., 1981.

Yep! Bad design but it sold like crazy.
I suppose we're getting a little off-topic, however, I must add, unfettered capitalism, without oversight, is a disaster - always.
JMO

JimCost2014 · May 30, 2021

1 minute ago, MikeBMW said:

Yep! Bad design but it sold like crazy.
I suppose we're getting a little off-topic, however, I must add, unfettered capitalism, without oversight, is a disaster - always.
JMO

I would think Pinto bashing is an acceptable topic in any GM forum

MikeBMW · May 30, 2021

2 minutes ago, JimCost2014 said:

I would think Pinto bashing is an acceptable topic in any GM forum

Oh, heck, let's not speak of the Corvair ... My Nanny had one, I loved it!
I still love that car!
My Mom sent me the receipt from when she bought it - treasured memories ...

Edited May 30, 2021 by MikeBMW

JimCost2014 · May 30, 2021

5 minutes ago, MikeBMW said:

Oh, heck, let's not speak of the Corvair ... My Nanny had one, I loved it!
I still love that car!
My Mom sent me the receipt from when she bought it - treasured memories ...

The Corvair was GM's attempt at a mid-engine car to compete with Porches, and other in the lower Trans Am series.

The Turbo versions are worth a lot of money these days.

Chevrolet designed a car that deviated from traditional American norms of design, powered by an air-cooled, horizontally opposed six-cylinder engine with many major components in aluminum. The engine was mounted in the rear of the car, driving the rear wheels through a compact transaxle. Suspension was independent at all four wheels. Bodywork used monocoque rather that body-on-frame construction. The tires were a wider, low-profile design mounted on wider wheels. The styling was unconventional for Detroit, with no tail-fins or chrome grille. Its engineering earned numerous patents. Time magazine put Ed Cole and the Corvair on the cover, and Motor Trend named the Corvair as the 1960 "Car of the Year".

MikeBMW · May 30, 2021

1 minute ago, JimCost2014 said:

The Corvair was GM's attempt at a mid-engine car to compete with Porches, and other in the lower Trans Am series.

The Turbo versions are worth a lot of money these days.

Chevrolet designed a car that deviated from traditional American norms of design, powered by an air-cooled, horizontally opposed six-cylinder engine with many major components in aluminum. The engine was mounted in the rear of the car, driving the rear wheels through a compact transaxle. Suspension was independent at all four wheels. Bodywork used monocoque rather that body-on-frame construction. The tires were a wider, low-profile design mounted on wider wheels. The styling was unconventional for Detroit, with no tail-fins or chrome grille. Its engineering earned numerous patents. Time magazine put Ed Cole and the Corvair on the cover, and Motor Trend named the Corvair as the 1960 "Car of the Year".

I have a pic of me, as a kid, by the Corvair from long ago.
I'll have to search it up, and the receipt.
I'll post it in the off-topic forum for a Corvair thread when I get it all sorted.

Grumpy Bear · May 30, 2021

10 hours ago, poconojoe said:

That's crazy! I don't blame your wife. That had to be scary!

What's the deal? A defective suspension from the factory?

Has anyone else had this problem?

I think if this was common it would be well known.

I don't doubt you from your description, but it seems unique. I would have brought it back to the dealer for them to explain what was wrong.

Anyway, what mods did you do to correct it?

What is wrong is a half ton truck sprung to carry a full ton and price point shocks along with a crazy dose of castor. It is aggravated with the RCSB models as the wheelbase is shorter. I fit new springs and King shocks front and back, dialed back the castor to 2* and problem solved. While I was at it, dropped it 1/4.

Grumpy Bear · May 30, 2021

2 hours ago, JimCost2014 said:

Come on now, how many Pinto's actually exploded from having an exposed gas tank at the rear of the car

Look how much money Ford saved by literally "chopping" a foot off that car.

I actually had the Corvair in mind

JimCost2014 · May 30, 2021

1 hour ago, Grumpy Bear said:

What is wrong is a half ton truck sprung to carry a full ton and price point shocks along with a crazy dose of castor. It is aggravated with the RCSB models as the wheelbase is shorter. I fit new springs and King shocks front and back, dialed back the castor to 2* and problem solved. While I was at it, dropped it 1/4.

11 hours ago, poconojoe said:

That's crazy! I don't blame your wife. That had to be scary!

What's the deal? A defective suspension from the factory?

Has anyone else had this problem?

I think if this was common it would be well known.

I don't doubt you from your description, but it seems unique. I would have brought it back to the dealer for them to explain what was wrong.

Anyway, what mods did you do to correct it?

A little off topic, but close, I can get the front tires off the ground with the factory Rancho's going over speed bumps at slow speeds. Kind of like a bunny hop.

The Z71 has a very stiff suspension, does not like the washboard type freeways either.