The Ford Pinto. Just the name conjures up images of 1970s subcompacts, perhaps the gas crisis, and maybe even…explosions? But beyond the infamous fuel tank controversy, there’s another facet of the Pinto story worth exploring: the Ford Pinto Wagon. For those of a certain age, the Pinto wagon might evoke less explosive memories and more…claustrophobic ones. Why? Let’s delve into why this compact wagon, in its attempt to be practical, might just be the reason SUVs and CUVs are so popular today.
With a roofline barely reaching 50 inches (1.27 meters), the Pinto wagon was surprisingly low-slung. To put that into perspective, it’s shorter than a modern Toyota 86 sports coupe and only a hair taller than a Mazda Miata. Imagine a Miata, but in wagon form. That image might help you grasp the front seating position, and more importantly, the realities of the rear passenger experience in the Pinto Wagon. If you’re old enough to have been crammed into the back of one of these on family road trips, the mere sight of it might trigger some latent PTSD.
What design philosophy led to such a diminutive wagon? Was it simply poor planning, warped priorities, or perhaps an attempt to apply Detroit’s “lower, longer, wider” mantra to a subcompact scale? The Pinto was initially conceived as a… well, what exactly? It wasn’t quite a two-door sedan, despite its small trunk hatch (initially, not even a hatchback). Was it a budget Mustang? A cheap coupe alternative? Or a miserably cramped attempt to compete with the Volkswagen Beetle, a design from four decades prior? Even the Beetle, for all its quirks, offered a more accommodating rear seat than the Pinto.
The Pinto’s foundation was borrowed from a shortened UK Ford Cortina chassis. The Cortina, in contrast, got the proportions right. It offered significantly more interior space than the Pinto, including comfortable front and rear seating with decent headroom and legroom, despite being only slightly longer at 168 inches (compared to the Pinto’s length). And crucially, the Cortina stood six inches taller than its American cousin!
The Pinto was not only five inches shorter but also surprisingly wide, almost 70 inches. To simplify the stats, imagine a Cortina that had been compressed vertically, with the lost height redistributed to its width rather than length. The result was an incredibly inefficient use of space.
Ford USA, however, believed they understood what American buyers wanted in a subcompact: a scaled-down Torino SportsRoof coupe. This vision initially manifested in the two-door coupe/sedan Pinto.
But there was a problem, or rather, two: the Chevy Vega. Also debuting in 1971, the Vega came in three distinct body styles, including a hatchback coupe that quickly became the top seller. Ford needed to respond.
While Ford’s relentless pursuit of cost reduction resulted in a lower base price for the Pinto ($1919) compared to the Vega sedan ($2146), it also led to a car that felt undeniably cheap. As Car and Driver noted in their 1971 small car comparison, the Pinto felt flimsy and rattled excessively. While the Vega had its own issues, it felt considerably more substantial than the Pinto.
Car and Driver conducted a grueling 15,000-mile comparison test between the Vega and Pinto. Their conclusion regarding passenger space was blunt: both the Pinto and Vega were realistically limited to two adults, with the rear seats suitable only for small children or parcels. Not exactly family-friendly.
They did find the Pinto hatchback, especially with the optional 2.0L engine, four-speed manual transmission, and disc brakes, to be enjoyable as a city car. However, its appeal waned on longer journeys. The ride was harsher than the Vega’s, high-speed stability was lacking, and the seats were uncomfortable for many. Even the ventilation system was deemed inadequate.
While the Vega engine had its own significant problems, the Pinto’s engine was not without its flaws either. Initial models suffered from camshaft issues, and the list of problems grew.
Ford quickly responded to the Vega hatchback by introducing a Pinto hatchback in February 1971, followed by a version with a larger rear window in 1972. But creating a wagon took a bit more effort.
The solution, arriving sometime during the 1972 model year, was to simply extend the rear bodywork of the Pinto by about ten inches. There was no lengthening of the wheelbase or raising of the roof. And forget about four doors.
The resulting Pinto Wagon was, unsurprisingly, highly compromised, unlike its more spacious UK cousin, the Cortina Mk II estate. Perhaps if American families had been forced to endure the back of a Cortina wagon, the SUV craze might never have taken hold.
Besides adding rear cargo space, the extended rear also offered slightly improved protection for the Pinto’s infamous gas tank – although that’s a story for another time.
Ford apparently considered a four-door version, even converting one side of a Pinto to accommodate two doors. However, this half-hearted attempt wouldn’t have significantly improved matters and might have even worsened front seat access. A three-door version, however, might have been a more sensible approach.
Looking at the front of the Pinto Wagon, it’s easy to mistake it for a Mustang II, which isn’t surprising given that the Mustang II was based on the Pinto platform. The basic architecture lent itself well to a low-slung sporty coupe, but less so to a practical small family wagon. (Note: the front seats, steering wheel, and additional gauges in the featured Pinto are not original, possibly sourced from a Mustang II).
Perhaps Ford’s thinking was that a Pinto was simply a multi-colored, downsized Mustang in wagon form.
The rear seat, however, was undeniably a torture chamber. It resembled the back of a 2+2 sports coupe far more than a family wagon. Perhaps “shooting brake” would have been a more accurate descriptor.
In a somewhat ironic twist, the Pinto Wagon’s cargo space was actually quite spacious compared to the rear seats. While not truly capacious, it offered a respectable 60.5 cubic feet of cargo room, besting the Vega Kammback’s 50.2 cubic feet. This cargo capacity, combined with the Pinto’s lower price, likely contributed to its sales success over the Vega.
Despite the domestic competition, both the Pinto and Vega did little to stem the tide of import sales, which surged by 25% in 1971. However, they did find buyers among the large cohort of young American baby boomers purchasing their first new cars. For Pinto owners, especially those who avoided the initial 1971 models, memories are likely generally positive. The Pinto was a reasonably reliable and economical vehicle for two people. However, many likely traded up to Japanese imports or larger American cars later on.
Vega owners, on the other hand, may have been less inclined to return to domestic brands. Although, some die-hard GM loyalists might have given them another chance.
It’s worth noting that the Pinto Wagon’s design wasn’t necessarily more improvised than the Vega wagon. In fact, Ford essentially mimicked the Vega wagon’s extended rear overhang. The end result was remarkably similar, although the Vega, designed under Bill Mitchell, had a more refined and cohesive appearance, while the Pinto looked more like a hastily assembled afterthought. Ultimately, both wagons were paragons of inefficient space utilization.
Just as the Pinto had a better-packaged British cousin in the Cortina, the Vega had a superior German counterpart: the Opel 1900. But that’s automotive history for another discussion.
The Vega hatchback coupe was the best-selling Vega model, thanks to its attractive styling. Within the Pinto lineup (sedan, hatchback, and wagon), the wagon quickly became the top seller from its second year onwards.
The Pinto wagon’s share of the Pinto model line initially surged, but then gradually declined as the Pinto became perceived as just a very cheap car, and buyers sought more refined small wagons. Interestingly, the Vega wagon’s share steadily increased, even challenging the coupe for the top spot in its final year, possibly due to the introduction of the Monza coupe in 1975 cannibalizing Vega coupe sales.
The Pinto wagon not only outsold the Vega wagon but, according to Ford, was the best-selling wagon globally. The 1973-1974 energy crisis boosted sales of both the Pinto and Vega, along with other small cars, while larger car sales plummeted. In 1974, the Pinto even became the best-selling nameplate in the US, surpassing the Chevy Impala. The Pinto briefly reigned supreme.
Let’s not forget the Pinto Cruising Wagon, with its panel-van styling. Despite its van-like appearance, it wasn’t exactly family-friendly, and its low roof and limited cargo space made it less practical than a proper van. Therefore, it’s unlikely many of today’s CUV owners were conceived in the back of a Pinto Cruising Wagon.
Returning to the specific Pinto wagon featured here, its front bumper suggests it might be a 1972 model, as the 1973 models had bumpers extended to meet new regulations.
However, despite the earlier bumper style, the owner confirmed it’s a 1973 model, built in July 1973, based on the build sticker. The front bumper was likely replaced at some point.
This particular Pinto wagon is for sale, with an asking price of $4,000.
Under the hood, the owner mentioned a “2.3” engine. However, 1973 Pintos still used the German-built 2.0L SOHC four, known as the “Pinto engine” in Europe. It’s possible this one has an aftermarket Weber carburetor, a common modification to improve driveability. The 2.3L “Lima four” engine, built in Lima, Ohio, was introduced in 1974. The less desirable 1600cc “Kent” engine was thankfully not offered in the wagon.
This 1973 Pinto wagon promises to be more engaging to drive than later models. The 2.0L engine was lively and less hampered by early emissions controls. It also features a four-speed manual transmission, a well-regarded unit for its time. While heavier than the sedan or hatchback, the wagon still offered fun city driving with direct rack-and-pinion steering and a suspension tuned more towards European standards. The standard four-speed manual was also a significant advantage over the Vega’s lackluster three-speed manual.
Things changed for the worse in 1974 when the Pinto received ungainly “shelf bumpers.” Subsequent years saw further additions of noise-deadening material, structural reinforcements, stricter emissions controls, and softer suspension, transforming the Pinto into a dull and heavy car.
The added weight eventually necessitated the optional 2.8L Cologne V6 starting in 1975. The driving enjoyment of an early 2.0L four-speed Pinto was long gone by the time the final 1980 models were produced.
Back to selling this particular Pinto wagon. The current owner acquired it from the original owner, pictured here driving it at a 2014 cruise-in.
The odometer reads 32,455 miles, which the current owner claims is original. However, given its condition, it’s more likely the mileage is 132,455.
Despite some dings, stains, and tears, and the presence of a trailer hitch and helper springs, the Pinto wagon is a simple and easy car to maintain.
If you’ve owned a Pinto, you might be tempted to relive the experience. Or, if you’ve never experienced the cramped rear seats firsthand, here’s your chance to understand why the Pinto Wagon was once the best-selling wagon in the world in 1974. Buy it and enlighten us.
For inquiries, contact Bobby at 54one-743-6669. The $4,000 asking price is remarkably low.
Related: 1971 Pinto: 1971 C&D Small Car Comparison, #4 PN
