Ford Pinto
Upon release the Pinto was received with both positive and negative reviews. "Road & Track" faulted the suspension and standard drum brakes, calling the latter a "serious deficiency," but praised the proven 1.6 L "Kent" engine, adapted from European Fords. The larger "2300 inline-4" found in the Chevrolet Vega was an innovative, brand new design using an aluminum alloy block and iron head, but needed more development work as initially released. "Super Stock Magazine" found the fit and finish to be "superior" and were impressed with the car overall. "Car and Driver" found the Pinto, when equipped with the larger 2.0L engine and front disc brakes, to be a nimble and powerful commuter car with good visibility and sports-car feel. A review of the 1974 Pinto with an automatic transmission by "Car and Driver" was not as favorable noting significant decreases in mileage and acceleration.
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
The courts found that Lee Iacocca, at the time a vice president at Ford, conceived the Pinto "project and was its moving force" and said that "Ford's objective was to build a car at or below 2,000 pounds to sell for no more than $2,000." The courts described the Pinto as a "rush project," and said that while standard automotive industry practice was that "engineering studies precede the styling," in the case of the Pinto project "styling preceded engineering and dictated engineering design to a greater degree than usual."
The court found that the Pinto's styling required the gas tank to be placed behind the rear axle, instead of over the rear axle as was "the preferred practice in Europe and Japan" and that the Pinto had "only 9 or 10 inches" of "crush space," "far less than in any other American automobile or Ford overseas subcompact." The court found that the Pinto's bumper "was little more than a chrome strip, less substantial than the bumper of any other American car produced then or later." The court found that the Pinto's rear structure lacked reinforcement "found in all automobiles produced by Ford's overseas operations," rendering the Pinto "less crush resistant than other vehicles." The court found that a flange and a line of bolts on the Pinto's differential housing "were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward upon rear impact."