Latest news with #FordPinto
Car and Driver
17-06-2025
- Automotive
- Car and Driver
Project Pinto: The Joy, Sorrow, and Work of Building a Race Car
From the March 1978 issue of Car and Driver. Once again the intrepid editors of Car and Driver have thrust their necks into the thick of the Goodrich Radial Challenge, which, for all of you who came in late, is a road-racing series for small sedans sanctioned by the International Motor Sports Association. Four races were entered, two poles were captured, and one winner's circle was invaded. So much for what we did on our summer vacation. Our car was a Ford Pinto, and the win was the first victory for a Pinto in two years of Goodrich racing. But the really fascinating part—to us, at least—is that the season's results strongly support a hunch we've been kicking around the office for years. We reckon that motor racing is almost entirely an intellectual game. Brains are trump. Bullfighter-brave drivers will give the car a good run and Onassis budgets take the worry out of blown engines, but it is thoughtful selection and logical preparation of the car in the first place that wins races. There are no tricks and no short cuts. It's common sense all the way. At least, that's what we thought. And the Pinto project—winning in its second appearance, long after most of the serious racers had dismissed Ford's subcompact as a lost cause—rather grandly supports our theory. Every racing project has to start with fundamentals. You must have a thorough understanding of the rules and complete specifications for all the eligible cars. It would be easy to lapse into "The Anatomy of a Winning Pinto" at this point—everything from valve-seat angles to camber settings—but frankly, it would be pretty dull. The car, in fact, is completely conventional. It even scored its one victory (at Charlotte Motor Speedway) using its original hydraulic valve lifters. Any number of competent mechanics would have made the same modifications we did and, if they were thorough, probably would have ended up with the same results. So the real story is not in the car itself but in our approach to it: Why we chose a Pinto and how we knew what to do with it. Every racing project has to start with fundamentals. You must have a thorough understanding of the rules and complete specifications for all the eligible cars. Ideally, you would also have first-hand and quantitative observations of the cars that you'll have to beat: how fast they are, where are they fast (corners, straights, or under braking), and how close are they to the limits of their development. You have to know all of this before you can choose the right car. And the right car is absolutely essential if you want to win. The Top Cars: BMW 2002 and AMC Gremlin (Really) We went into the 1974 Goodrich series with an excellent backlog of information. Car and Driver's Mazda Wankel race car had been a first-class observation platform during the 1973 races. We had been able to run with the leaders in every race and could compare their strengths and weaknesses to a car we knew. Apart from the Mazda (which IMSA subsequently hobbled with a rules change), there were only two other competitive cars in the series: the AMC Gremlin and the BMW 2002. The Gremlin is an odd duck. It's really a big car made compact by chopping out about a third of the body. But it retains the control-arm front suspension, huge brakes, and six-inch-wide wheels of the big American Motors models, not to mention the 232-cubic-inch six-cylinder engine. Next to the Mazda, it was the fastest car on the straightaways and we considered it the one to beat. But how do you recognize the third-best car? Durability is the most important factor—you have to finish to win. Speed is next, then handling, and finally brakes. Ties are broken by picking the least costly alternative. The BMW ranked a close second. Its 2.0-liter engine is very powerful for its size, enabling the 2300-pound sedan to keep up with the 2700-pound Gremlins in acceleration, losing out only in top speed on long straights like those at Road Atlanta and Daytona. Handling and braking are about on a par with the Gremlins and better than you would expect, considering the BMW's MacPherson front suspension and rather small brakes. This can probably be attributed to the endless development work done by Miller & Norburn, the leading BMW team. And it would further suggest that these cars are nearing the limit of their potential. At this point, a right-thinking racer should check the price difference between American Motors and (gasp!) BMW replacement parts, then slide himself into a Gremlin. If the point of the exercise were simply to win races, that's what we would have done. But we had a theory: that a logical and thoughtful approach applied to a lesser car could knock off the heavies. The only way to find out was to try. Why We Picked the Third-Best Car The search began for the third-best car. (We weren't willing to push our theory too far. Fourth or fifth best makes the job just a little too hard.) But how do you recognize the third-best car? Everyone has their own theories on that; this is ours. Durability is the most important factor—you have to finish to win. Speed is next, then handling and finally brakes. Ties are broken by picking the least costly alternative. Car and Driver While durability is most important, it is also the hardest to predict. You can examine the finishing records of various makes of cars for a clue, but usually you find only a reflection of how well they are prepared. And of course there can be exceptions. If there is a pattern to the failures—the crankshafts always break or the transmissions always fail—you can pinpoint a problem. But usually the failures are random, and you have to assume that you'll spot weak areas during preparation. There are two kinds of speed, and the importance of each depends upon the type of tracks on which you'll be racing. At Daytona and Talladega, top speed is critical, and it depends entirely upon horsepower and aerodynamic drag. Since the principal component of drag is frontal area (roughly the width multiplied by the height of the car), hp-to-frontal area ratios are good indications of performance. At all the other tracks, acceleration is more important. A comparison of horsepower to weight tells the story here; ties are decided by the car with the closest spacing in the transmission ratios and the widest choice of axle gears. The value of handling once again depends on the track, ranging from being of relatively minor importance at Daytona and Talladega to being a critical factor at tight tracks such as Lime Rock and Mid-Ohio. In fact, cornering capability is more important than power at Lime Rock. Handling can generally be predicted from the following parameters, listed in order of importance: suspension type (unequal-length control arms are better than MacPherson struts), wheel width, track width, and car height. The more of these items that are relatively favorable, the better the car will handle. The importance of brakes increases on tracks with long straights followed by tight turns, but only in cases where brakes don't have enough capacity to last through the race do they become truly critical. When you have the freedom to substitute racing linings for the stock equipment (which you do in the Goodrich series), brake capacity depends almost entirely upon the weight of the car and size of the brakes. Under those circumstances, almost all of the eligible cars have adequate brakes, the Mazda RX-2 being the chief exception. Since speed depends upon horsepower, there comes a point at which you have to get down to numbers. With all of these car-evaluation parameters in mind, it's time to take a look at the tracks. The Goodrich series includes eight to 10 races, only three of which are on the superspeedways. So acceleration and handling are the most important qualities because they will see you through the conventional road courses in the best fashion. But the three superspeedway races depend almost entirely upon top speed and nothing else, so you can't afford to overlook this aspect. The Competitive Equation Since speed depends upon horsepower, there comes a point at which you have to get down to numbers. We knew the Wankel Racer produced 218 horsepower on the dyno, weighed 2350 pounds, and had a frontal area of 3400 square inches. Assuming that the Gremlins and BMWs were down to minimum weight and calculating their frontal areas from the specifications, we estimated their power-to-weight and power-to-frontal-area ratios relative to the Mazda based on their comparative speeds on the track. Solving the equation for horsepower, we concluded that the Gremlins had about 215 hp and the BMWs about 185, and this seemed within their capabilities. (Horsepower numbers have to be viewed with a great deal of caution. Some dynos—and some dyno operators—are optimistic; others are pessimistic. If you don't know the predilections of each, you can be seriously misled by their test results.) Setting the Gremlin's power-to-weight and power-to-frontal-area as a target, it was then possible to check out all of the other eligible cars by simply substituting their weights and frontal areas and solving the equation for horsepower necessary to match the Gremlin's speed. That left the key question: Could the engines of the cars in question produce the required horsepower? The power-to-frontal-area equation eliminates all of the small-engine cars right off the bat. We were particularly interested in the Toyota Corolla because of its 1850-pound minimum weight, but its frontal area turns out to be only 15 percent smaller than the Gremlin's and therefore would need about 180 horsepower to be competitive on long tracks. That would never happen with a 1.6-liter engine set up according to IMSA rules. The Honda Civic, with roughly the same frontal area, would be even worse off with only a 1237-cc engine. Car and Driver So the search for the third-best car was confined to those with engines of at least 2.0 liters, and it narrowed down to the Toyota Celica, the Mercury Capri 2000, and the Ford Pinto with either the 2.0-liter or new 2.3-liter engine. The Datsun 610 had previously been rejected because its 4.5-inch wheels are too narrow to work well with wide Goodrich Radial T/A tires, and the 2.0-liter Dodge Colt will not be approved by IMSA as long as it is only imported with an automatic transmission. Further calculations eliminated the 2.0-liter Pinto. IMSA assigned it a minimum weight of 2100 pounds and specified an additional 200 pounds if the 2.3-liter engine was used. The 15 percent displacement increase of the 2.3 engine more than outweighed the 9.5 percent weight increase. Further, since frontal area remains the same, the larger engine would have a much better shot at the superspeedways. Handling shot down the Toyota Celica. It's a narrow-track, MacPherson-suspension car and much too nose-heavy in street form. And IMSA's preparation rules don't allow enough latitude to fix its basic problems. Also, the engine was a complete unknown, and performance parts are rare. We were attracted to the Capri primarily because of its fine aerodynamics. Its smaller frontal area would require about 15 less horsepower than the Pinto for the same top speed, and its uncommonly slippery shape would help even more. It was, however, 100 pounds heavier than the Pinto with the same 2.0-liter engine, its track was two inches narrower in front and three inches narrower in back and, finally, it had a MacPherson front suspension. All of this was tempered by the fact that a street Capri handles better than the stock versions of most of the cars it would race against and therefore wouldn't need as much improvement to be competitive. We try to benefit from our own experience. When we find products or suppliers that do the job, we stick with them. At this point, neither the Pinto nor the Capri had a firm advantage. The Pinto promised high aerodynamic drag (due to its width and poor shape), excellent handling potential (control-arm front suspension, wide track, and low car), and a large engine. The Capri offered low drag and moderately good handling. It was the 2.3-liter engine that finally tipped the scale in favor of the Pinto. The 2.0-liter Pinto/Capri engine, on the other hand, had been around long enough so that all of the race shops had experience with it. And they all said the same thing: The intake ports are shaped wrong, severely limiting its potential for racing. At this point, nothing was known about Ford's new 2.3 engine except that it was the first U.S. engine to be produced with all metric dimensions—which hardly counts when the starter waves the green flag. So we bought a cylinder head and shipped it off to Doug Fraser Racing Engines in Marblehead, Massachusetts, for a candid opinion. Fraser specializes in Formula Fords but has broad four-cylinder experience including 2.0-liter Pinto, Colt, and BMW engines built to IMSA specifications. We were also familiar enough with his work to know that his engines were durable and his horsepower quotes quite conservative. Fraser pronounced the 2.3-liter ports substantially better than those of the 2.0 and predicted that the 2.3 would not only make more power than the 2.0 but would produce more power per cubic inch as well. At the same time, he was pessimistic about equaling the output of the 2.0-liter BMW, which has excellent ports. But with enough work, he thought the big Ford could come close. Adding up the Pinto's advantages and disadvantages, we could predict with fair accuracy its performance on various tracks. Its high drag and shortage of horsepower would hold it back on the superspeedways, but on short tracks its excellent chassis would probably compensate for any lack of power. Our Car This was as far as the project could go on a slide rule, so we went out and bought a solid 30,000-mile 1972 Pinto two-door. A new car would have been an easier way to go—there are no hidden cracks in the unit-body and no worn parts to rebuild—but the 1974 Pinto is a substantially heavier car, and we could see no way to trim the weight down to the 2300-pound IMSA minimum. The job of converting a street car into a racing car is time-consuming, but it's not particularly complicated. Making the car fast is a straightforward application of physics. The engines were farmed out to Doug Fraser, since professional engine builders usually save you money in the long run. You need good engines if you want to win, and good engines are the products of machine shops, airflow benches, and dynamometers. Not many amateur racers have this kind of equipment in their garages—or, for that matter, have enough time to build engines and keep their cars in first-class shape too. So we concentrated our efforts on the car, pausing occasionally to encourage Fraser when the horsepower was elusive and to threaten him when he was late. His plan was to build the first engine according to the dictates of his own experience, using whatever special parts (pistons, camshafts, valves, springs, etc.) could be obtained in time to meet our deadline. The second engine, to be available later in the season, was to be the product of much camshaft and cylinder-head development and would —hopefully—produce more power. By having engines built outside, we were free to concentrate on the chassis. Since this figured to be the Pinto's only strong point, we wanted to optimize every detail right from the start. And the only way to have complete control, to make sure no shortcuts were taken, was to do the work in our own shop. Fortunately, C/D is equipped to do this. When it comes to building racing cars, there are a very few key guidelines to follow, and if they are kept firmly in mind, the car will almost always turn out well. The most important is safety. The car has to be structurally strong to prevent breakage and it has to be reinforced to protect the driver in case of a crash. Like most of the other construction guidelines, safety has side benefits that show up in performance. If a car is structurally strong, it will also be rigid. And a rigid car will be predictable to its driver and respond to fine tuning adjustments of the brakes and suspension. The main source of rigidity is the tubular-steel roll cage. It not only protects the driver but stiffens the car as well. To do this properly, it must tie into any suspension mounting points that are of questionable rigidity. Finding them is pure educated guesswork. Usually you tie into as many as you can reach and gusset the ones you can't, all the while trying to add the least weight. There are no textbooks for guidance, so we brazed up a scale model of the roll cage using straight sections of stiff wire. This proved to be only a rough aid, since it is impossible to simulate the structure of the car to which the cage will be attached. The job of stiffening the car is simpler in the Goodrich series because the rules specify street radial tires, which don't generate the cornering forces of racing tires and therefore don't load the chassis as much. When we rubbed a hole in the oil pan during the car's third race (at Lime Rock), we knew how low is too low. Next in importance to a rigid, safe car is—in the interest of both handling and aerodynamics—a low car. For handling, the important thing is to have the weight (center of gravity) low. This can be achieved in part by lowering the body/chassis unit as far as possible on the suspension, which obviously lowers every single pound in the car. But you can also lower the center of gravity by mounting various components (the seat, fuel cell, oil cooler, and other movables) as low in the car as possible. To reduce aerodynamic drag, you want to minimize the space for air to flow under the car. A low car is the most direct way of doing so—but there is a limit. If you go too far, you'll either bottom out the suspension or scrape something off the underside. The only way to know is try and see what happens. With the Pinto at IMSA's minimum height (six inches from the ground to the center of the rocker panel) we rubbed a hole in the oil pan during the car's third race (at Lime Rock). Now we know how low is too low. The next item is to make sure that all moving parts travel in exactly the paths you intend with no interferences. This applies mainly to the suspension. We favor hard bushings instead of rubber in all of the suspension pivots. It's also important to make sure the shocks don't bottom out, the ball joints aren't over-angled, and the brake hoses are neither pulled tight nor pinched as the suspension moves through its travel. It's also a good idea to build in extra capacity in those areas where there is no serious penalty for doing so: Overdesign the cooling system (our Pinto has a Corvette aluminum radiator); use the largest brake ducts that will fit, and master cylinders with ample reservoirs; build in two electric fuel pumps with a large-diameter line to the carburetor; choose oversize filters where possible; and use heavy electrical wiring and high-quality bolts, clamps, and fasteners. The car may turn out somewhat heavier, but you won't have to waste time reworking systems that prove to be inadequate during the first few test sessions. We also try to consult specialists whenever we can find them, since it always saves time to benefit from somebody else's experience. Sometimes other teams will even give away a tip or two. Bob Negstad, who modified the suspension on Larry Campbell's quick Pinto, suggested that we use the 1974 Pinto steering gear because it was stronger and told us how to fabricate the necessary mountings. He also showed us how to adapt the larger 1974 disc brakes to the 1972 car. The final point to remember about building a race car is that there is no single right answer for any part of the car. Finally, we try to benefit from our own experience. When we find products or suppliers that do the job, we stick with them. Much of the special equipment on the Pinto was proven on the previous Mazda Rotary Racer project: StewartWarner instruments, Superior Industries steering wheel, Cibie lights, Raybestos disc brake linings, and Velvetouch drum brake lining specially made at Rochester Brake and Clutch in Rochester, New York. The Pinto also has certain problems of its own that require special attention. A Hurst shifter happily replaces that standard Ford part that has been known to periodically pop out of the top of the transmission if the driver pulls too hard. And Hurst/Schiefer also makes 4.10 and 4.30 axle ratios to supplement the standard Ford gears, which are correct only for superspeedways. For the most part, we used Koni shock absorbers in front, Bilsteins in back, and did some promising experimentation with Gabriel Striders along the way. Unfortunately, four races didn't give us enough time to find all of the answers in the shocks department. Which brings us to the final point about building a racing car: There is no one single right answer for any part of the car. There is no perfect spring rate, no optimum chassis stiffness, and no ideal sway-bar setting. Cars will work well with a broad range of these valves so long as they are all compatible. The only way to know what works and what doesn't is to try them. This applies particularly to the suspension. Our plan was to make the best estimate going in and then provide plenty of adjustment. It has proven to be a workable approach. The Pinto required only half a day on the skidpad and half a day of testing at Lime Rock to iron out its problems. With no more proving than that, it finished at Talladega (where two pit stops to replace flat tires—not Goodrichs—dropped it to 24th place) and then went on to win at Charlotte a week later. Would we do it all again? Well, if our mechanical insight gets much better, we figure that soon there won't even be any point in going to the track. We'll be able to decide the outcome of the races without ever leaving our desks.
Fast Company
16-05-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
The case for cooperation
The Ford Pinto. New Coke. Google Glass. History is littered with products whose fatal flaw— whether failures of safety, privacy, performance, or plain old desirability—repelled consumers and inflicted reputational damage to the companies bringing them to market. It's easy to imagine the difference if these problems had been detected early on. And too often, businesses neglect the chance to work with nonprofits, social enterprises, and other public interest groups to make product improvements after they enter the marketplace or, more ideally, 'upstream,' before their products have entered the crucible of the customer. For companies and consumer groups alike, this is a major missed opportunity. In an increasingly competitive marketplace, partnering with public interest groups to bake an authentic pro-consumer perspective into elements like design, safety, sustainability, and functionality can provide a coveted advantage. It gives a product the chance to stand out from the crowd, already destined for glowing reviews because problems were nipped in the bud thanks to guidance and data from those focused on consumers' interests. And for the nonprofits, working proactively with businesses to help ensure that products reflect consumers' values from the outset means a better, safer marketplace for everyone. Zoom, in a nutshell We've already seen the difference working together can make, especially if it's early in a product's introduction to consumers. Just look at Zoom. The videoconferencing platform, while launched as a tool for businesses, had not been introduced to a wide consumer audience before the COVID-19 pandemic made its services a global necessity. In early 2020—as Zoom was poised to explode from 10 million monthly users to more than 300 million by April—Consumer Reports' (CR) testing experts went under the hood in our digital lab to assess it from a consumer well-being perspective. CR uncovered serious flaws. These included a protocol allowing the company to collect users' videos, call transcripts, and chats and use them for targeted advertising, as well as features that allowed hosts to record meetings in secret and alert them when a participant clicked away from the screen. At the precipice of a moment when elementary school classrooms to therapy sessions would be conducted over Zoom, there's no telling what the fallout might have been—for the company or its customers—had these problems persisted. But CR reached out to the business—and the business reached back. Within days, Zoom had worked with CR to solve a wide array of problems, helping strengthen its case as a lifeline for users all over the world. Partnerships require new ways of thinking Now imagine what could be possible if such a partnership began even earlier in the process. This is the relationship CR has worked to build with businesses, providing companies our testing expertise and data about consumers' needs and desires. Our advisory services have led to us providing feedback on prototypes, and with feedback implemented earlier in the product development lifecycle, we've seen immediate impact for consumers: improved comfort of leg support in vehicles; privacy policy changes for electronics; reduced fees for a basic checking account; an improved washing machine drying algorithm for one brand; improved safety of active driver assistance systems; and strengthened digital payments app scam warnings before users finalize transactions. These partnerships have proven productive, but they remain the exception to the rule. Building more of those cooperative, upstream relationships will require new thinking on both sides. Advocacy organizations must adopt an entrepreneurial spirit, leveraging their insights and expertise as a collaborator to companies they're more accustomed to critiquing. Businesses must embrace these relationships as a central part of their research and development process, understanding that embedding pro-consumer values gives them a real edge in today's hyper-social marketplace. This cooperation is especially important in the modern digital era, when many consumers are making choices that reflect their principles and where products and services are growing increasingly complex. As the rise of AI-fueled products brings a new wave of threats and vulnerabilities in its wake, it is critical that businesses and public interest groups make an effort to forge strong relationships. By coming together early and often around their common interest—the consumer—they can improve products, craft strong industry standards, burnish the reputation of companies that act responsibly, and help maintain the health and integrity of the marketplace.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
New center providing comprehensive youth services in Spokane
Nika Bartoo-SmithUnderscore Native News + ICT Toni Lodge, CEO of The NATIVE Project, beamed as she introduced a new four-story children's health center in Spokane, a crowning achievement for an organization that started with $100 nearly 40 years ago and was now unveiling a $12 million centerpiece of community pride. Speaking at the March 21 grand opening of The NATIVE Project's Children and Youth Services Center, Lodge expressed her appreciation for both the moment and the future. 'Thank you all for being here to witness the blessing of this building, this new home for our youth and our children,' Lodge, citizen of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe, told the crowd. 'We hope that when they come into this building, that their hearts are full of joy and love.' Walking into the new building that morning, community members were greeted by a staff member using an eagle fan to help spread smoke from the smudge burning in an abalone shell. Lodge welcomed them to the new space, reminiscing on how far The NATIVE Project has come in the past few decades. One of the original founding members of The NATIVE Project, and current CEO, Lodge remembers when the organization launched in 1987 with just $100 to its name. As the story goes, that $100 turned into $200 after a board member donated an old Ford Pinto that was raffled off at the Kalispel Powwow. That money allowed the organization to apply for 501(c)(3) status. The NATIVE Project officially opened its doors on May 15, 1989. The original $100 has now turned into millions of dollars — and the Children and Youth Services Center. Through community support, the $12 million project was completed without any debt. 'We left our children no debt,' Lodge told the gathered crowd on March 21. 'We left our children a four-story building, a place and a space for them to do the work that they need to do, for healing, for fun, for culture, for therapy, for treatment.' Beginning in 1989, The NATIVE Project set out to serve urban Indigenous youth through services such as leadership camp. It was founded based on efforts led by Indigenous matriarchs from the community. 'A lot of the actual work was done with all the heavy lifting by a bunch of Native women from different tribes,' Dylan Dressler, citizen of the Aaniiih Nation from Fort Belknap and health services director at The NATIVE Project, told Underscore Native News + ICT. 'I would say a handful of five to seven Native women built the clinic, and so on top of the clinic, we still ran our children, youth services, prevention health program that did AA groups and intensive outpatient treatment.' What started as a small nonprofit serving Native youth and families quickly grew into a full-blown health center, as the organization opened a medical facility in 1999. The NATIVE Project is a Federally Qualified Health Center and Urban Indian Health Clinic. Since 2011, it has opened its doors to the broader community. Now, about 53% of its patients identify as Native and about 47% identify as non-Native, according to Dressler. As a primary health care facility, it provides comprehensive care to the wider Spokane community, with an emphasis on Native health and serving Indigenous community members. 'We really started out as a nonprofit for children and youth and families to have kind of like a safe haven to do extracurricular activities like culture leadership development and just building community,' Dressler said. 'And then it turned into a small health center.' The NATIVE Project provides a range of services for the Indigenous community and beyond in Spokane, with a goal of promoting balance of mind, body and spirit, according to its website. Services include: primary health care; dental health care; prevention; youth behavioral health; pharmacy; care coordination; and more. All along the walls of the new Children & Youth Center, dispersed between art by Indigenous artists, the words 'Sacred Hospitality For All' is painted in gold lettering. 'We call it the matriarch monarch,' Dressler said about the new Children and Youth Services Center. 'A lot of Native women built this building. Put their time, love and energy into it.' Canoe motifs are scattered throughout the building, including a traditional Kalispel canoe that greets visitors to the center, created by Shawn Brigman, a citizen of the Spokane Tribe of Indians. On the fourth floor resides a canoe that has actually been on canoe journey, also built by Brigman. 'When kids come in the door, the first thing they see is the canoe, and it symbolizes the journey,' Lodge said. 'No matter where you go in this building, there is a reminder that we are just on the journey, and we're honoring all the people who come through our door.' The new center will allow staff at The NATIVE Project to expand services for community youth. This includes wraparound services, grounded in Native traditions, to connect youth and families to resources. Youth-focused substance use treatment programs and efforts to reach at-risk youth will be offered. The new campus offers a variety of different rooms for counseling and behavioral health support; an area for music therapy; art therapy space; and space for the Native Youth Council to meet regularly, encouraging youth leadership. 'As we teach kids about their journey, we teach kids about their healing and their wellness,' Lodge said. 'We have reminders of all the ancestors that came before us. We're here as a result of their prayers.'
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Yahoo
‘Bizarre and violent crime' in Commerce City leaves man on 3-wheeler severely injured
DENVER (KDVR) — Commerce City police need help solving a 'bizarre and violent crime' that left a man riding a three-wheeler with severe injuries. On Thursday at 8 p.m., the Commerce City Police Department said a man on an ATV three-wheeler was followed into the Rose Hill Grange Park by a minivan. The park is located at 4051 East 68th Ave., east of Miller Reservoir. The police department said on Facebook that the man on the three-wheeler was apparently being chased by the minivan. A second vehicle entered the park from the east, and police said the driver seemed to intentionally run over the rider and the three-wheeler. Police said both vehicles then fled the scene, leaving the three-wheeler rider severely injured. The victim was taken to a local hospital and is expected to recover. FOX31 Newsletters: Sign up to get breaking news sent to your inbox Commerce City police are asking for the community's help in identifying the vehicles in what they called a bizarre case. According to witnesses, the second vehicle was described as a 70s model white-colored Ford Pinto or Maverick. The van is described as a Honda Odyssey. The department released a photo of the reported minivan and said there were no clear images of the second vehicle. However, police believe the second car likely has front-end damage and possibly blue paint on the exterior. Anyone with information on the case is asked to call the Commerce City police tipline at 303-289-3626. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
5 Classic Cars That Aren't Worth the Money, According to Car Experts
Classic cars might seem like a sound investment, but some are just not worth the high price. Even if owners kept the cars in great condition, some may never sell for more than the owner paid. Read More: Check Out: Here's a look at what car experts said are the classic cars that are not worth the cash. Also see seven things to know if you want to buy a classic car. What use is a car if it's too scary to drive? Erin Kemp, a consumer advocate for Bumper, said that the Ford Pinto's safety concerns far outweigh any financial benefit owners would get. 'The Pinto is well-known for its unsafe design — the uncovered fuel tank was prone to bursting in rear-end crashes, making it a risky choice for collectors. Despite Ford's later adjustments, most Pintos rusted or were discarded, leaving just a few around today,' Kemper said. Discover More: This model was trying to capitalize on the excitement of the earlier Shelby Mustangs, but Kemp commented that it simply does not measure up. 'With poor performance and style that falls short of rivals such as Pontiac or Dodge, you should explore elsewhere for a vintage muscle car investment,' Kemp said, adding that it's not fast and its build is unattractively bulky. The DeLorean will always be associated with the popularity of 'Back to the Future,' but that doesn't necessarily make the 1980-1981 models solid investments. Joe Giranda, director of sales and marketing at CFR Classic, said its build quality and performance drag down its worth. 'The underwhelming PRV V6 engine makes just 130 horsepower, and early production models were plagued with reliability issues. The hefty price of this model is due to nostalgia, but mechanically, it's a headache that rarely matches its inflated price tag,' he said. 'The 1971 to 1977 Chevrolet Vega is, in most circles, considered a disaster waiting to happen,' Giranda said. He explained that the aluminum engine is notorious for overheating and failing prematurely. 'Add in rust problems and the low resale price, and it's an even less appealing classic with expensive maintenance costs,' he said. Hagerty Insurance reported that a 1968 Dodge Charger R/T in good condition can be worth $98,000, but does it deliver? Evaldas Zabitis, automotive expert at carVertical, said no. 'They look and run great but aren't four times better than, let's say, the 1971 Dodge Demon, which costs four times less. Right now, these Chargers are overpriced, making them a risky asset for collectors and out of reach for regular car enthusiasts,' he said. More From GOBankingRates25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value This article originally appeared on 5 Classic Cars That Aren't Worth the Money, According to Car Experts
