View allAll Photos Tagged Hatchback
Car: Alfa Romeo MiTo Veloce.
Date of first registration: 30th July 2009.
Registration region: Shrewsbury.
Latest recorded mileage: 81,918 (MOT 3rd June 2019).
Last V5 issued: 8th January 2020.
Date taken: 24th June 2020.
Album: Carspotting
I love the first generation Fabia in this green. I didn't know this generation was also sold in this color, I've never seen it before. And I still love it.
Generally This is a Very Great Compact Car in Second Life. Scripted by GEMC. Comes with LHD and RHD. Made by Lyte Rae.
Visit this location at The City of Port Dominion - Briggs County Roleplay in Second Life
Registered: 24/08/1995 near Brighton.
Production: 1993-1999.
Voted European Car of the Year 1995.
The MK1 Punto went on sale in 1993 but didn't arrive in the UK until 1994, hence why the Punto wasn't eligible for the 1994 Car of the Year award. Personally even as a former Punto MK2 owner, I think the MK1 has aged better than the Mk2.
This example is probably wearing its original suppling dealer number plates.
Car: Toyota Aygo Move VVTi.
Engine: 998cc in-line 3.
Power: 67 BHP.
Fuel: Petrol.
Gears: 5 manual.
Body: 5 door hatchback.
Layout: Front engine, front wheel drive.
Wheelbase: 2,340 mm.
Length: 3,405 mm.
Width: 1,615 mm.
Height: 1,507 mm.
Weight: 835 kg.
Production dates: 2005 to 2014.
Production units: Approximately 660,00..
Assembly: Kolin, Czech Republic..
Year of manufacture: 2014.
Date of first registration in the UK: 18th March 2014.
Previous registrations: None.
Place of registration: Nottingham.
Date of last V5 issued: 28th May 2024.
Total number of keepers: 5.
Date of most recent MOT: 19th May 2025.
Mileage at last MOT: 76,986.
Number of Toyota Aygo cars in the UK:
294,489 licensed.
4,522 SORN.
Date taken: 24th June 2025.
Album: Carspotting 2025
From the 1990's onwards Honda built a different (and somewhat smaller) version o the Accord for the European market. This generation was built from 1997 until 2002. Apart from the saloon model this hatchback was also available. Sales of the Accord declined rapidly over the years. In 2015 Honda decided to stop the export of the Accord to Europe.
A modification for my Subaru Vivio T-top MOC i did 7 months ago. Decided i want to finish this one as originally planned.
Video review:
Buy .PDF instructions from Rebrickable:
Thank you for your attention! Have a great day!
The 5-door 205 hatchback was designed by Gerhard Welter and was introduced in February 1983. Soon it gained such big approval of the audience that it helped the struggling PSA to find their way back to black figures.
The 2-door 205 XA was a minivan variant of the 205 hatchback.
1118 cc petrol engine.
Production 205 Berline: Dec. 1982-Sept. 1998.
Original first reg. number: Aug. 1988.
New French reg. number: after Oct. 2009 (Ain).
Number seen: about 6.
Meximieux (Ain), Rue De Lyon -Parking Carrefour ZAC de la, Impasse de la Billonnette, Aug. 5, 2019.
© 2019 Sander Toonen Amsterdam | All Rights Reserved
The R16 was presented in jan. 1965. The hatchback concept in combination with front-wheel traction was at the time very modern.
It was designed by Philippe Charbonneaux (1917-1998) in cooperation with Gaston Juchet.
For 1971 the R16 got a restyled rear end.
For 1973 the luxury R16 TX was added with lots of standard options and accessories.
Her double head lights makes it easy to recognize a TX.
1647 cc.
1030 kg.
Production R16: 1965-Jan. 1980.
Production R16 TX: 1973-Jan. 1980.
Original Dutch license number: Aug. 7, 1978.
Sold at Sept. 17, 2016.
Amsterdam-N., Vikingpad, Nov. 19, 2016.
© 2016 Sander Toonen Amsterdam | All Rights Reserved
The E-Kadett was presented in september 1984. In Sept.1988 the design was modified.
Once this car was very common on our streets. Now almost all have disappeared.
1297cc,
820 kg.
Production Kadett-E: 1984-July 1991.
Since May 1996 from same owner.
Amsterdam-W., Osdorp, Vrijzicht, March 20, 2015.
© 2015 Sander Toonen Amsterdam | All Rights Reserved
The Ford Pinto is a subcompact that was manufactured and marketed by Ford for model years (MY) 1971–1980. The 1971 two-door sedan was followed by hatchback and wagon models for MY 1972. With over 3 million produced over a 10-year model run, the Pinto outproduced the combined totals of its domestic rivals, the Chevy Vega and the AMC Gremlin.
In 1977 controversy surrounding the Pinto erupted after revelations that its structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off and the fuel tank to be punctured in a rear-end collision, resulting in serious and potentially deadly fires from spilled fuel. A lawsuit was won in 1978 over the matter and the car was recalled the same year. The Pinto has been covered extensively since as a landmark case in business ethics.
A rebadged variant, the Mercury Bobcat, debuted in 1974 in Canada and in March 1975 in the US. The Pinto/Bobcat and the smaller, imported Ford Fiesta were ultimately replaced by the front-wheel-drive Ford Escort and Mercury Lynx. Pintos were manufactured in St. Thomas, Ontario at St. Thomas Assembly; Edison, New Jersey at Edison Assembly; and in Milpitas, California at San Jose Assembly.
The nameplate "Pinto" derives from the distinctive white and solid pattern of coloration common in horses.
U.S. automakers had first countered imports such as the Volkswagen Beetle with compact cars including the Ford Falcon, Chevrolet Corvair and Plymouth Valiant, although these cars featured six-cylinder engines and comprised a larger vehicle class. As the popularity of smaller Japanese imports from Toyota and Datsun increased throughout the 1960s, Ford North America responded by introducing the Ford Cortina from Ford of Europe as a captive import. U.S. automakers would soon introduce their own subcompacts. The Pinto was in compliance with Japanese regulations concerning vehicle length and engine displacement, but exceeded width dimensions by 60 mm (2.4 in).
The Pinto was introduced on September 11, 1970. The AMC Gremlin was the first to arrive on the market six months before the Pinto, and the Chevrolet Vega was introduced the day before the Pinto. Both the Pinto and the Vega were new, but the Pinto used powertrains proven in Europe from the European Ford Escort, while the Vega's innovative aluminum engine would prove troublesome. The Gremlin was designed around a six-cylinder engine, and was derived largely by truncating the rear body from the compact-class AMC Hornet to achieve its short length.
Design
Ford President Lee Iacocca wanted a 1971 model that weighed less than 2,000 pounds and that would be priced at less than $2,000. A team of stylists at Ford was assigned to design the Pinto's exterior and interior instead of using the European Ford Escort. Robert Eidschun's design of the exterior theme was eventually chosen in its entirety. The clay models of the Pinto were finalized in December 1968 after which Eidschun left Ford to join Chrysler, as a studio Design Manager.
Ford North America's decision to create an all-new vehicle instead of integrating a design from international corporate resources paralleled GM North America's approach when creating the Chevrolet Vega — opting not to use the established Vauxhall Viva or Opel Kadett marketed at the time at GM dealerships in Canada, and USA Buick dealerships from 1967. Designers working on products intended for North America had more freedom with exterior dimensions and engine sizes in relation to Japanese counterparts, where those criteria were dictated by Japanese government regulations. Typically, Detroit manufacturers created products that emulated import aspects with market-driven improvements.
While the previously introduced Ford Maverick offered either straight-6 or V8 engine and a front bench seat, the Pinto offered an inline-4 engine, and bucket seats – more in keeping with small imports such as the Volkswagen Beetle, available since 1949, the Toyota Corolla, introduced to North America March 1968, and the newly introduced Datsun 1200 which appeared in 1970.
Compared with imports, seating was low to the floor. Styling somewhat resembled the larger Ford Maverick in grille and tail light themes, but with a fastback profile.
The car's mechanical design was conventional, with unibody construction, a longitudinally mounted engine in front driving the rear wheels through either a manual or automatic transmission and live axle rear end. Suspension was by unequal-length control arms with front coil springs; the live rear axle was suspended on leaf springs. The rack and pinion steering had optional power assist, as did the brakes.
Production history
After a 22-month development period, Ford introduced the Pinto under the tagline The Little Carefree Car.
After structural work on alternate body styles encountered obstacles, Ford offered the Pinto as a two-door sedan, with entry level models priced at around $1850, undercutting GM's Chevrolet Vega and directly targeting imported models — which included such new competitors as the Mazda 1200 in 1971, the Subaru DL in 1972, and the Honda Civic in 1973.
By January 1971, the Pinto had sold over 100,000 units and 352,402 for the entire 1971 production run. 1974 saw the most Pintos produced in a single model year with 544,209 units.
1979–1980
1979-1980 Ford Pinto coupe
For the 1979 model year, the Pinto saw its first significant styling update. Taking on square headlights, the Pinto shed its styling borrowed from the Maverick. Wearing larger taillights, the Pinto now wore a square, sloping grille.
1980 marked the end of the Pinto's production run. For 1980, the V6 engine was discontinued, leaving the 2.3L as the sole engine.
Fuel tank controversy
Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off and the fuel tank to be punctured in a rear-end collision, resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel.
Design flaws and ensuing lawsuits
The Pinto's design positioned its fuel tank between the rear axle and the rear bumper. In a crash, the filler neck could tear away from the tank, spilling fuel beneath the car. The tank itself could also be punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated complaints about the Pinto's fuel tank safety as early as 1974, taking action in 1977 — after an article in Mother Jones. The article said that Ford was aware of the design flaw, was unwilling to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of repairs (Ford estimated the cost to be $11 per car) against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts . The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.
An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production began but had decided against changing the design. The incident, and the Ford Pinto Memo in particular, has continued to be cited and debated as a major case in the study of business ethics.
Recall
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ultimately directed Ford to recall the Pinto. Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. 27 deaths were attributed to Pinto fires (the same number of deaths attributed to a Pinto transmission problem) and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem.
In 1978, Ford initiated a recall providing a plastic protective shield to be dealer-installed between the fuel tank and the differential bolts, another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber, and a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision.
Schwartz paper
In a 1991 paper, "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case", for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary Schwartz said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.
According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 3 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.
Schwartz's study said:
The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).
[Text from Wikipedia]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
This Lego miniland scale Ford Pinto 3-Door Runabout ESS (1980) has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 96th Build Challenge - The 8th Birthday, titled - 'Happy Crazy Eight Birthday, LUGNuts' - where all previous build challenges are available to build to. This model is built to the LUGNuts 10th Build Challenge, - "Sympathy for the Underdog" - a challenge to recreate a vehicle that had a hard time making friends (whether deserved on undeserved). The Ford Pinto is one of the industry text cases on Product Safety. Interestingly, the washup regarding the model was that it was no less safe than the competition, but you know, let the lawyers loose and anything can happen.