Talk:Ford Pinto engine

Untitled

The entire section on the DOHC engine in this article is complete rubbish. Maybe someone is getting confused and thinking of the Cosworth YB? Never fitted to a RWD escort as standard though.

What vehicles still use this engine? The Ranger switched over to a Mazda engine in 2001. The industrial powerplant version is still available. --Sable232 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ranger does not use a Mazda Engine. The Ranger still uses a development of the 2.3L Lima 4 cylinder.

The 2.3L Lima engine is not a development of the original 2.0L German Built Pinto Engine. It is a significantly different design. It did replace the 2.0L German engine in Pintos. And eventually a 2.0L Lima engine was produced, but it is a completely different design than the original 2.0L Pinto engine.

The Lima engine is referred to on this page.

And no, the Ranger currently uses a DOHC 2.3L engine which was designed by Ford and Mazda it is NOT either the Pinto or the Lima. --Sable232 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2.0OHC section is rubbish as well, because the de-bored 2.3 lima engine was not used in any vehicle named "Escort" and the Sierra(also listed) IIRC used the 2.0EAO engine, not the LIMA. We need to disambiguate the several 2.0 engines all simplistic labeled as "OHC".AllanDeGroot 01NOV06

Not necessarily a disambiguation, just splitting off the Lima engine into a new article. I don't know much about the original EAO (I still can't find a PInto for sale) so I'm not sure how similar these two are. It would help to know when production of the EAO stopped. --Sable232 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a split tag on the 2.3 OHC section so maybe a few more folks will see it. I'm not sure about those smaller ones, they were only used in European models, so I'd guess they're still EAOs. But the later 2.0, 2.3, and 2.5 are Limas. --Sable232 07:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger engine dimensions incorrect

The bore/stroke dimensions for the Ranger 2.0L are incorrect, according to [1]. I have corrected them. Vykk 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the section under the "lima" motor it is including 1.3 OHC; 1.6 OHC; 1.8 OHC. which is incorrect. these motors are european and belong under the "EAO" section.

The 1.6 liter engine as used in the early North American Pintos is not overhead cam. It is a pushrod design (Kent crossflow).

The 2.0L engine used in 1971 to 1974 Pintos and early Capris is an overhead cam engine, but it is not metric, and shares nothing with the later 2.3 Lima engine except the placement of the bottom bellhousing bolts (the two top bolts are different). 64.250.237.7 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion?

I dont think that the Cosworth YB should be stuck on this page as being a subsection of the 2.0. While the YB may have been based on the 2.0's bottom end, it was definitely NOT a 'Pinto' engine. Cosworth made these under contract for Ford, and Ford never produced these in-house.

AFAIK the YB blocks are just 'selected' 205 Pinto blocks bored out!? at any rate i think the YB should be included in the DOHC section 193.187.200.142 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the BDA and BDG were NOT based on the Pinto - they were introduced before the Pinto Engine, in 1970, as a derivative of the 1600 X/Flow.

Please see here: http://www.burtonpower.com/technical_1/bda_bdg_16v.aspx

--Fordsierra4x4 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is incorrect. BDA stands for "Belt Driven Anglia" because it was based on the anglia engine and was available long before the pintos. I _think_ they were in the sixties at a similar time to the Lotus derivatives of the Ford engines - I'd have to check on this though.

+1. The BDA had nothing whatsoever to do with the Pinto. Rather it owed a considerable amount to the FVA, which was based on the 116E block as used in the 60's Cortina.

Cosworth did consider a normally-aspirated DOHC version before the YB but IIRC it never got further than the prototype stage - Graham Robson's book Cosworth: The Search For Power has the details. Another manufacturer - I forget whom, sadly - produced an aftermarket DOHC conversion, but it didn't find much favour due to its high price. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cosworth versions should be referenced as they are a derivative, but the article is confusing. 80.176.88.36 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to my knowledge in which i do have a pinto with a 2.0l, rs capri, mustang svo, turbo coupe thunderbird, escort gt, a german capri, courier pickup and ford exp all these engines are very close to the same some parts interchange and some don't i dirt track race mustangs as well and there is bits and peices you can take from each to build the perfect motor but the best i have seen is taking a 2.3l block putting a 2.5 crank and rods with an aftermarket piston with an escort gt flywheel with a volvo 2.3l dohc head and the svo's turbo with the thunderbirds intercooler and computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.134.8 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High importance rating?

Uh, where is the assessment, as in "This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale."? I'm not sure that this article deserves to go straight from "Low" to "High" without one, especially given that there haven't been any edits to it since August. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what criteria people apply when inserting these value judgements, but I see that the entry on the Pinto engine has been viewed 5,461 times in 30 days, which seems an awful lot for an engine. The number of people sufficiently interested to click on a link from .... whereever ... is only one mark of importance, I guess. But I can't think of a more objective one off the top of my head. And yet ... does anyone know how many hits the "average" wiki entry generates. I suspect it is a lot fewer than 5,000 but I'm not smart enough to unearth the figure.

I suppose another question is how many of these engines - including derivatives - actually got produced? Again, I suspect it would come in the top hundred on a list of all known internal combustion engine designs, which if anyone was sufficiently time-rich to attempt to compile it, must run to several thousand. The question we seem to be asked to address is not how important the engine is in the context of the world, the universe and everything. The question to be addressed appears to be the less challenging on of how important it is (or isn't) when your interest is focused on automobiles.

So while it is (almost) ALWAYS sensible to question other folks' value judgements, on this one I think that the "High importance" grading can be supported by objective evidence. How often can you say (write) that?

AND Happy Christmas et seq Charles01 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ford Pinto is a massive engine in terms of its success. It was the staple Ford 4-cylinder engine for years in the higher capacity range, and is so popular that many kit cars used Pinto engines from scrapped Sierras right up until the supply of those cars began to dry up, when people generally switched to the Rover K-Series or the newer Ford Zetec/Duratec range. For comparison, the entire List of Renault engines article has 3k views or so in the last 30 days. For someone with a little knowledge of European 4-cylinder engines, there is no assessment needed - and if you don't have that knowledge, why are you challenging it? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the above being a bit snarky; was in the middle of several other things, a couple of which were severely straining my patience. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number muddle

Late variant (TL16E)

IF the bore was 81 and the stroke was 76.2, as stated in the article, then the displacement was only 1570.633592 cc (approx.), not as stated.

86.148.153.189 (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

=== never had a 76.2 stroke, confused with 76.95 of the 2000 cc.