Posted on 01/22/2022 4:47:04 PM PST by Brookhaven
Ford Motor Company once manufactured a car called the Ford Pinto. It entered the U.S. market in 1970.
Its’ mission for Ford? Stem the flow of car sales to Japanese companies such as Honda, Toyota and Nissan (then called Datsun).
Yes – it was a time of rising car imports in America and Detroit was feeling the pressure.
In response to this invasion of Japanese vehicles, Lee Iacocca, then a rising star at Ford, demanded that his team come up with a new small car that could compete. The Pinto was born with instructions from Iacocca that it be limited to 2,000 pounds in weight and be manufactured and sold for no more than $2,000 per car.
And it was a hit when first released.
Sadly – it also quickly became infamous.
It burst into flames if struck from behind by another vehicle.
Thankfully, those injured by Ford’s negligent car design had access to the courts and an opportunity to recover for their often frightful losses.
Why the word negligent above?
It turns out that Ford field-tested the Pinto before releasing it to U.S. markets.
And guess what – each time the car was rear-ended at speeds over 25 miles-per-hour in these field tests, the gas tank ruptured, causing a fire.
Ford engineers actually explored numerous, simple, and inexpensive solutions to the fuel tank problem – solutions that cost as little as $1. Remarkably – none of these protective options were added to the car.
Why?
Two factors were at work.
The first – according to the staff at Ford, the term safety was “taboo” with Iacocca.
The second – and more chilling reason? Ford’s accounting team calculated that it would be cheaper to settle lawsuits with the public than repair the problem.
And remember – we’re talking about a very inexpensive problem to fix.
The result?
As many as 900 innocent people died in catastrophic car accidents involving Pinto cars.
And yes – Ford paid out millions in damages to innocent people harmed by their product. They also spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress to defeat new car safety measures being advanced at the time.
Yup – that’s not a typo. Ford spent millions to lobby against car safety.
Finally, in 1978 – eight years after the Pinto first went on sale – and following a damning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report, Ford was forced to recall 1.5 million Pintos to correct the problem.
Yes – burning Pintos had finally become a public embarrassment for Ford.
Ironically, for a long time, Ford had aired radio spots that included the line: “Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling.” After all the lawsuits and the findings of the Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford’s advertising agency, J. Walter Thompson, was forced to drop that line.
The moral of this story?
Corporations all too often put profit far ahead of consumer safety. The public’s greatest defense is access to the courts and tort laws – laws that protect people from the bad acts of others.
The only “immunity” conferred by the vaccines is that of Big Pharma against lawsuits.
“Yup – that’s not a typo. Ford spent millions to lobby against car safety.”
Now they simply RUBBER STAMP everything the government tells them, even when it’s stupid - like selling electric cars that no one wants.
You don’t have to go back that far
Gm did the same thing with the ignition locks that failed in late 2000s gm cars.
Many times the addition of forced ‘safety improvements’ wind up killing more people than not doing them. For example, the national building codes now mandate sprinkler systems in all new (and substantially remodeled) housing. What happens next is that the cost of major renovations and rebuilds gets that much higher...so many people hang on to their old units without ever upgrading (look at some of the apartments in NYC if you want to see an extreme example of where that leads).
And since new housing, even without sprinklers, is FAR SAFER than very old housing...those few people who are saved by sprinklers are far outnumbered by those who die from fires or electrocution in old houses.
Safety is a BALANCE...extreme/costly measures forcing ‘safety improvements’ are often as counterproductive (and deadly) as not forcing very cheap improvements (like GFCI receptacles).
Not as reprehensible as the GM key problem. Death toll was lower, but they left on girl to rot in prison as part of the cover up. The senior GM execs should have been left to rot in a Texas prison, but they all sailed free with their years of huge bonuses.
Ford never could make a gas tank that was safe according to my grandfather people were blowing themselves up because they were lighting a match to see if there was gas in the tank.
“And if they put governors on every car limiting top speed to 55mph they would save even more lives.”
Back when 55 was the speed limit, I had a 1962 Chevrolet Biscayne with a straight-6, three on the tree with a mechanical Overdrive. It loved 55 mph. It was smooth cruising. So I reaken 55mph being fast or slow really depends on the equipment set.
I still drive the speed limit, right hand lane, music on, takin’ a cruise... that’s how I roll.
Interesting, thanks for posting
Although that looks like maybe 1/3 of a Michael Moore. :)
We’ve learned thst bean-counters can easily ruin a car design.
CC
“Gm did the same thing with the ignition locks that failed...”
After the third problem with the wife’s Malibu, piece of s*** Malibu I might add, I was told that the problem was that the key fob and key ring full of keys was too heavy and to only use the key. Surprisingly that actually worked.
But that wasn’t good enough for me I just wired in a hidden kill switch and a start button... everything worked fine after that. Besides, Camry’s were the cars to steal not the lowly Malibu.
Car companies make these calculations all the time. The Pinto was a great little cheap car. Want a safer car? Pay more. The Pinto case taught us that Americans want media and government to determine who should manufacture what, and how, and what people should buy. It was: Burn up in a Pinto? Sue Ford. Ford won’t make products for long that lose money or embarrass the brand. Now it’s: no Pintos. No cheap cars. No fast cars. Speed governors. Thousands of regulations. Outrageously complicated injection systems. A whole car industry uilt on the debt Americans incur to drive a Gov-mobile.
I’m on my second car, a Honda Accord, just like my first car.
If and when my 1999 Accord finally is done, even if Honda no longer makes any more Honda’s with combustion engines, my third Honda Accord will be ... borrowed...after the collapse hits.
THAT is how much I trust Honda over any other auto companies.
Some years after this fiasco, I read a blip buried in the middle of the newspaper that after testing, NTSB(?) determined that the Pinto was actually safer than competing Japanese cars of the time in case of rearend collision.
Of course they buried it and mentioned it only one time so as to not spoil the narrative the American companies are evil.
No go. The essence of good transportation is speed.
Ford Pinto? Bought a new one in 1970 when they first came out after graduating college. Had the piece of crap 10 months before unloading it for a bug. Great car. Then traded it in for a Ford Maverick. Another 10 month wonder piece of crap. Then Iacocca moved to Chrysler. I started buying Dodges. Also, pieces of crap. I guess I never learn. Love Iacocca as a superior marketeer (after all, he sold me), but hate his cars. lol
Almost every line in that Article was a lie, and has been proven to be a hoax. This is an advertisement by a law firm of Ambulance Chasers.
I had two- of them. Got rear ended in one and did not blow up. They were great little cars, comfortable, easy to work on. and good on gas. The Tort lawyers got after the Pinto like they went after the Chevy Monza. Juries were fed a lot of bushwah by the Tort lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.