FORD PINTO
Through early production of the model, it became a focus
of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car's design allowed its fuel
tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which sometimes
resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack
of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear
panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust
forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could
puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during
an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap. 
Ford was aware of this design flaw but allegedly refused
to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead,
it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits
for resulting deaths. Mother Jones magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis
that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 ($57 today, allowing
for inflation) repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits, in
what became known as the Ford Pinto memo
The characterization of Ford's design decision as gross
disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to significant lawsuits. While
Ford was acquitted of criminal charges, it lost several million dollars and
gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four."
Nevertheless, as a result of this identified problem, Ford initiated a callback
which provided a dealer installable "safety kit" that installed some
plastic protective material over the offending sharp objects, negating the risk
of tank puncture Engines
Except for 1973 and 1980, the Pinto was available with two engines. The first
was always the smallest and least powerful of the two and was the standard engine
offered. The second was always a larger, more powerful engine available at an
extra cost. For the first five years of production, only four cylinder inline
engines were offered. As can be seen in the following breakout of available
engines, Ford changed the power ratings almost every year.
Of particular note is the introduction in 1974 of the 2.3 litres (140 cu in) OHC I4 engine. This engine would be updated and modified several times allowing it to remain in production into 1997. Among other Ford vehicles, a turbocharged version of this engine would later power the performance based Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, Mustang SVO, and the European-built Merkur XR4Ti.
Initial Pinto deliveries in the early years used the English (1,600 cc/98 cu in) and German (2,000 cc/120 cu in) engines tuned for performance (see below). The 2,000 cc engine used a two barrel carburetor where just one bore was bigger than that used on the Maverick. With the low weight (not much above 2,000 lb/910 kg) and the SOHC engine it rated a 10.8 second 0-60 time. With the advent of emission control requirements, Ford moved from the European sourced to domestically sourced engines, using new or modified designs. New safety legislation impacted bumpers and other parts adding to the weight of the car, reducing performance.
One major change to hit the industry in 1972 was in the method used to measure horsepower. Using a net figure based on engine power received at the rear wheels rather than the gross number generated untethered on a test stand, the 75 bhp (56 kW) rating of Pinto's 1.6 litres (98 cu in) engine dropped to 54 bhp (40 kW) for 1972, while the bigger 2.0 litres (120 cu in) four went from 100 horsepower (75 kW) in 1971 to 86 hp (64 kW) in '72.