Separate names with a comma.
It seems the current seller has reviewed all the work he put into the car and I think the things he did to the car since he bought it might well have fixed many of the problems you noted, except for the roof rust, of course, which he disclosed. I would feel much better buying from the current seller than the original one. Given the trunk condition, it seems the rear roof rust can't be any worse than virtually every one you find these days. Be glad it isn't a B or E body, where rust is everywhere, even in California cars. With the right guy doing the work, I consider that rust repair as part of every C body purchase anymore and just assume it is part of the purchase. I believe his price is very reasonable too. If I didn't already have so many of these, I would consider it. Awesome cars.
the current seller could let us know how it runs now (ie on all eight cylinders without a miss)
I read through this old thread, wondering where it went off the rails and became political. Pretty much exactly where I expected it would. Then I came across this statement...
...which by pointing out, I mean no disrespect to the author. The fact is, this version of the Pinto story is what has been presented in thousands of college courses, most often to show the failings of capitalism and the "evils" that abound in large corporations.
The problem is, that's not really the truth. And rather than retell it in my own words, I'll quote that bastion of right-wing thought [/sarcasm], Wikipedia, adding just a few words in brackets and my own emphasis on their text.
The public understanding of the cost-benefit analysis [memo] has contributed to the mythology of the Ford Pinto case.
In 1973, Ford's Environmental and Safety Engineering division developed a cost-benefit analysis entitled Fatalities Associated with Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires for submission to the NHTSA in support of Ford's objection to proposed stronger fuel system regulation. The document became known as the "Pinto Memo". Cost-benefit analysis was one tool used in the evaluation of safety design decisions accepted by the industry and the NHTSA. The analysis compared the cost of repairs to the societal costs for injuries and deaths related to fires in cases of vehicle rollovers [not rear impacts] for all cars sold in the US by all manufacturers. The values assigned to serious burn injuries and loss of life were based on values calculated by NHTSA in 1972. [incidently, this memo was prepared at the request of NHTSA]
Time magazine said the memo was one of the automotive industry's "most notorious paper trails." A common misconception is that the document considered Ford's tort liability costs rather than the generalized cost to society and applied to the annual sales of all passenger cars, not just Ford vehicles. The general misunderstanding of the document as presented by Mother Jones gave it an operational significance it never had.
Mark Dowie's investigative article "Pinto Madness" published in Mother Jonesemphasized the emotional aspects of the Grush-Saundy memo and implied Ford was callously trading lives for profits  (the article suggested 500–900 deaths).
In April 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) to recall Ford Pintos to address fuel system design defects after reports from attorneys of three deaths and four serious injuries in rear-end collisions at moderate speeds. The NHTSA found there was not enough evidence to warrant a defect investigation.
[in 1977, after the Mother Jones article had been published, a second NHTSA test was conducted, resulting in a recall]
[in the second test] NHTSA used a worst case test to justify the recall of the Pinto, rather than the regular 1977 rear impact crash test. A large "bullet car" was used instead of a standard moving barrier. Weights were placed in the nose of the car to help it slide under the Pinto and maximize gas tank contact. The vehicle headlights were turned on to provide a possible ignition source. The fuel tank was completely filled with gasoline rather than partially filled with non-flammable Stoddard fluid as was the normal test procedure. In a later interview the NHTSA engineer was asked why the NHTSA forced a Pinto recall for failing a 35 mph test given that most small cars of the time would not have passed. "Just because your friends get away with shoplifting, doesn't mean you should get away with it too." 
The NHTSA investigation found that 27 deaths were found to have occurred between 1970 and mid-1977 in rear-impact crashes that resulted in fire. The NHTSA did not indicate if these impacts would have been survivable absent fire or if the impacts were more severe than even a state of the art (for 1977) fuel system could have withstood.
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., decided in February 1978, is one of two important Pinto cases. A 1972 Pinto driven by Lily Gray stalled in the center lane of a California freeway. The car was struck from behind by a vehicle initially traveling at 50 mph and impacted at an estimated between 30 and 50 mph resulting in a fuel tank fire...
On August 10, 1978 three teenage girls of the Urlich family of Osceola, Indiana were killed when the 1973 Pinto they were in was involved in a rear-end collision. The driver had stopped in the road to retrieve the car's gas cap which had been inadvertently left on the top of the car and subsequently fell onto the road. While stopped the Pinto was struck by a Chevrolet van.
Pintos represented 1.9% of all cars on the road in the 1975–76 period. During that time the car represented 1.9% of all "fatal accidents accompanied by some fire." Implying the car was average for all cars and slightly above average for its class. When all types of fatalities are considered the Pinto was approximately even with the AMC Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega, and Datsun 510. It was significantly better than the Datsun 1200/210, Toyota Corolla and VW Beetle. The safety record of the car in terms of fire was average or slightly below average for compacts and all cars respectively. This was considered respectable for a subcompact car. Only when considering the narrow subset of rear-impact, fire fatalities is the car somewhat worse than the average for subcompact cars. While acknowledging this is an important legal point, Schwartz rejects the portrayal of the car as a firetrap.
So why did I go through all this cutting and pasting? Remember the video clip posted in the thread that shows how college students are brainwashed by professors? That's why.
Thank you for taking the time to read that Stan. I thought it was probably posted in vain.
Since I work in the field of people who design "what's coming", I rather resent the idea that we're all callous conspirators who'd happily kill people to earn another dime. I believe Iacocca mentions in his book that dozens of Ford executives packed their own kids up for college in Pintos.
so they did all they could to kill it
I imagine they did what they needed to do in order to force a recall, after clearing the car initially. Surely their funding (jobs) were considered at risk from Senators and Congress people back home who's constituants had been fed a narrative by the media of the day (and then 20 years later).
Hello, I forgot that I also replaced the coil. It runs well and runs strong no miss, always has. Brakes will throw you through the windshield, whenever I get in it from driving my other cars i always hit the pedal too hard. I had the original dual diaphragm booster rebuilt along with a new master cylinder. The pedal has little travel. Even the cold light works.
Forgot to mention that I did do inspection of this car. Drove 229 miles one way. The rust issues are as stated. No simple patch. The photos here are from the ebay ad.
hey Carmine ! I was "that" author, but thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me. Your point is well taken. thanks, again, Dale.
Thanks for taking it in the spirit I intended... It wasn't really important "who" said it, which is why I didn't do the @ thing. Just the idea that we all look up to professors like they're gods-of-knowledge, and it so often appears they are no more rooted in fact than uncle Lou's Thanksgiving Dinner consipracy theories.
As I had stated in a previous thread considerable rust at the drivers side C post and at the base of the rear glass is rusted through. A pillar has the same problems. The true fix won't be cheap either. With front and rear glass removal and more rust to be found later a possibility and expected a 4000.00 repair unrealistic, 9000.00 to 11000.00 more likely. I do agree w/ fury fan and saforwardlook
Kinda funny you replied, David, as I had seen this car on ebay again. Too bad we didn't capture the 1st ebay listing, would be interesting to see where the car traveled to be sold again.
I don't very often like to say someone is lying, without seeing their body language to compare it to, so I'll just assume the current seller thinks rust can only occur in the painted parts. But OMG, how I'd be pissed if I showed up to collect my 'rust-free' car.
Reason I replied was specifically because I had driven to Chicago for the car was at the time and give it a thorough inspection therefore I was able to see where there was complete rust through at the rear glass as well as in both a pillars the time I drove up there was in 2016 if you research the postings on this site When the car was initially offered and there is a thread on this site supporting it as well as an entry I made about the car's condition at that time the VIN tag supports this
I meant kinda funny you replied today, as the last reply in this thread was in November - not that you had replied about this car in general. I had wanted to post the latest auction in this thread but didn't want to search thru for it, and FCBO emailed me there had been a new reply.