Do you think the Ford Pinto or the AMC Gremlin is more underrated?

[Randomguy]

?

I know that many folks here are passionate about those fine vehicles, don't hold back!

[petitepedal ★]

What about the Pacer 

[Randomguy]

2 minutes ago, petitepedal said:

What about the Pacer 

I AM ASKING THE QUESTIONS HERE!  Hmm, it looks like you are, too!

Anyway, what about the Vega?  I felt I had to restrict the question at the moment.  Now I wish I had done a poll.  Next time...

[petitepedal ★]

I had a college roommate..at U of MN Crookston..northwestern MN..with a Vega...the aluminum engine did not like winters in MN.

[Kirby]

Did the gremlins burst into flames quite as efficiently as the pinto?  If not, I'll say gremlin.

[Further]

I wish I had a dozen or so, 28,900 for this one

[Further]

I had a Pinto wagon, woody, like all the cool kids wanted

Yep, that's cool

[Wilbur ★]

The Gremlin was an awesome car.  Chicks digged them too. 

[Rattlecan ★]

3 hours ago, petitepedal said:

What about the Pacer 

I owned both a Gremlin and a Pacer, and somehow I am still alive.

[Rattlecan ★]

1 minute ago, Wilbur said:

The Gremlin was an awesome car.  Chicks digged them too. 

My gremlin was a really fun car even if it was a piece of junk. Put a good run on a 318 Dodge in a quarter mile if the shifter didn't jam.

[Further]

I think the Gremlin had an available 289 V8, the Pinto was 4 cylinder only, the Mustang 2 was a Pinto in fancy dress and had an available V 6.

Guess the Gremlin wins

[Rattlecan ★]

7 hours ago, Further said:

I think the Gremlin had an available 289 V8, the Pinto was 4 cylinder only, the Mustang 2 was a Pinto in fancy dress and had an available V 6.

Guess the Gremlin wins

The Gremlin V8 was a 304 cid. Not exactly a torque monster but it was peppy.

The Mustang II was available with a 302. My brother in law had one.

My Gremlin was a 1972. Earlier versions of the 304 had over 200 hp and 300 lb ft of torque but by 72 the emissions hardware dropped those numbers substantially.

[Ralphie ★]

I think the pinto was more underrated because all my experience with AMC cars said they were terrible cars. And I think I read somewhere that the flammability of pintos was over stated, that most cars of the time tended to blow up when hit from behind, but I must be misremembering that because it does not seem right. Or maybe it is:
 

 

Was the Ford Pinto really that bad?

Its fuel-tank design attracted both media and government scrutiny after several deadly fires occurred when the tanks ruptured in rear-end collisions. A subsequent analysis of the overall safety of the Pinto suggested it was comparable to other 1970s subcompact cars

 

[maddmaxx ★]

^^^  This.  After all the press bullshit and the rumors, the pinto problem turned out to be the same as many others including the Toyota stuck throttle problem and German cars through the back wall of garages.  

Then there was the Crown Vic police car exploding problem when hit from behind on the highway.

Loud voices obscure truth.

 

[groupw]

The Pinto was more underrated in my opinion. The pre 1974 Pintos were best. They used the proper “Pinto” 2.0 L that was sourced from Europe. It produced decent power and loved to rev. Ford decided not to get it re-certified to new emissions standards, in part because their mechanics never got the hang of adjusting the mechanical lifters. 
The 2.3 L “Lima” engine was an abomination. It was designed to make 4 cylinder rolling appliances. It was gutless. It took fuel injection, turbocharging and inter cooling to make it a sect performer. By then it weighed almost as much as a V8. 

[Airehead]

Einstein pondered that and today reported it was the Gremlin. His opinion does not change when adding the pacer to the equation.

[MickinMD ★]

My first new car after IIT was a white 1977 AMC Gremlin with a 6-cyl;inder motor and blue Levi's interior.

I was a good car where you could move the back seats down so you had something that resembled a station wagon for hauling stuff.

But moving the seats up and down was cumbersome and some other brilliant things now found in today's SUVs/Crossovers weren't there so I had two sedans before my 2013 Honda Fit, the best car I've ever owned and I won't get a sedan in the future.

 

[Ralphie ★]

43 minutes ago, groupw said:

The Pinto was more underrated in my opinion. The pre 1974 Pintos were best. They used the proper “Pinto” 2.0 L that was sourced from Europe. It produced decent power and loved to rev. Ford decided not to get it re-certified to new emissions standards, in part because their mechanics never got the hang of adjusting the mechanical lifters. 
The 2.3 L “Lima” engine was an abomination. It was designed to make 4 cylinder rolling appliances. It was gutless. It took fuel injection, turbocharging and inter cooling to make it a sect performer. By then it weighed almost as much as a V8. 

Wow, you have a disturbing amount of detailed knowledge of the Pinto.

 

[Ralphie ★]

Ok,my negative experience with AMC, admittedly a very small sample size at two cars.

1. A company Matador, maybe just a couple years old, not really sure. Smelled of gasoline and every time we tried to drive it ootside of work, it would stall and sputter until the second you turned around to return to work.

1.  A cow- orker was nice enough to loan my wife her AMC Spirit that was just sitting because she had bought a new car. (My wife’s couple year old Renault Fuego was in for a transmission replacement. ). That Spirit could barely make it over an arched bridge. I had never seen a car be so sluggish. The cow-orker said she always hated it. Her dad had bought it for her because he got it cheap and thought it looked like a nice car. 

[groupw]

15 minutes ago, Ralphie said:

Wow, you have a disturbing amount of detailed knowledge of the Pinto.

The 2.0 was the same engine as in my Capri. I rebuilt one so, yes. I knew them inside and out. 
I also rebuilt a 2.3 in high school shop for my friend’s 74 Pinto wagon. It ran better than it did when it came in, but that’s not saying much. 

[Ralphie ★]

13 minutes ago, groupw said:

The 2.0 was the same engine as in my Capri. I rebuilt one so, yes. I knew them inside and out. 
I also rebuilt a 2.3 in high school shop for my friend’s 74 Pinto wagon. It ran better than it did when it came in, but that’s not saying much. 

I rebuilt my 72 MGB engine because it broke a valve, I think, when I came home to my parents from my first job for Christmas. Luckily I had the following week off which gave me time to get it rebuilt. That was nuts. I was not into that stuff very heavily so I was somewhat of a novice, but amazingly I got it back together well enough to make it the whole 350 miles back. But I sold it shortly thereafter because I was tired of MG foibles. I can’t really remember what the exact problem was, and why it didn’t damage the head or block. What I remember was I pulled into a rest stop around 50 miles from home, and when I put the clutch in, the engine stayed at the same rpm even with my foot not on the pedal, so I thought: “uh-oh, this is bad. I better skip the stop and avoid turning the car off”, so I just let the clutch back oot and did make it home, thankfully!  

My dad was a big help even though I don’t think he ever rebuilt an engine either.  But he told me where to take the cylinder head to get the valves ground. Although maybe he did rebuild some, because he also drove a lot of junk cars in his day, most notably Crosleys, which from what I have read were total POSes. He also had Hudsons and heaven knows what else!  

[maddmaxx ★]

I had more than one Pinto.  There was my butterscotch yellow that I used as a business car for Stewart Warner and then there was the one I really really wish I had back.