Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum - View Single Post - What every Focus owner needs to know about the Ford Pinto
View Single Post
Old 01-10-2013, 09:58 PM   #6
Focus Addict
suss6052's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Fan#: 95752
Location: ..., MI
What I Drive: 2013 Ford Focus ST2 Ingot Silver

Posts: 13,920
Points 12,333, Level 72
Points: 12,333, Level: 72 Points: 12,333, Level: 72 Points: 12,333, Level: 72
Level Up 71% Completed
Level up: 71% Level up: 71% Level up: 71%
Forum Activity 5%
Activity: 5% Activity: 5% Activity: 5%
FF Reputation: 40 suss6052 Great Standing Member
Buy-Sell-Trade Rating: (3)
Originally Posted by Just Tom View Post

Ford did use a "cost-benefit" analysis. In fact Ford cited their cost-benefit analysis as part of their legal defense (see chart below). Not only that, during testing/development stage, Ford crash tested 11 Pintos, 8 of which had test results which resulted in "potentially catastrophic situations". Basically these were fireballs. Accidents waiting to happen.

I should note however that Ford was cleared of any criminal wrong doing and that no laws were broken. It amounted to a finding by the NHTSA that the cars were deemed unsafe and a mandatory recall was issued on 1.5 million cars. Also it was a huge publicity nightmare, to say the least. Pinto production ended shortly thereafter.

You're probably right about other sub-compacts not being much safer. In general, I think that with very few exceptions safety wasn't at the top of the list for most manufactures. However, the early Toyota's, Datsun's and Honda's didn't have these issues, at least not on the scale of the Pinto. If they did, I think those companies would have faced the same scrutiny and loss of reputation. Another point I think we agree on is, filing criminal (homicide) charges against Ford was unfounded and the result of a well orchestrated smear campaign. As you probably remember the Chevy Corvair suffered a similar fate when Ralph Nader went on the attack. Independent studies eventually cleared the Corvair's name as it was deemed to be on par with other competitors with regard to safety in scenarios where the car is pushed to extremes.

At the end of the day, I think it all came down to a calculated risk for Ford when they produced the Pinto. I'd say, they lost that bet. GM faired much better.

Exhibit One: Ford's Cost/Benefit Analysis
Benefits and Costs Relating to Fuel Leakage
Associated with the Static Rollover
Test Portion of FMVSS 208
Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100 burned vehicles
Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle
Total Benefit: 180 x ($200,000) + 180 x ($67,000) + 2100 x ($700) = $49.5 Million
Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks
Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck
Total Cost: 11,000,000 x ($11) + 1,500,000 x ($ I 1) = $137 Million
From Ford Motor Company internal memorandum: "Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires." Source: Douglas Birsch and John H. Fielder, THE FORD PINTO CASE: A STUDY IN APPLIED ETHICS. BUSINESS, AND TECHNOLOGY. p. 28.1994.

The cost benefit analysis was done by the government initially, having set a value on a human life, and you're not even reading what you're posting. The government came up with those figures for what a life was worth not Ford. Ford only used them for their equations.

FMVSS 208 is referring to static roll over, not a rear impact as you are trying to state and trying to state how it relates to the pinto being damaged in a low speed rear end collision.

What part of static roll over means that the car is hit from behind? Oh that's right it doesn't.

Learn the facts before going off half cocked.

I've had to study this case extensively in my engineering ethics course on ethics about corporate and governmental deviance.

Its people like you who make it so easy to blame Ford for everything.

They may have been culpable as far as engineering the vehicle, but the regulators didn't work with the engineers and vice versa, so to say the entire company knew the car was unsafe or knew what this so called cost/benefit analysis said is complete and utter hogwash.

Its this selective choice of facts and mixing in opinion that makes it hard to take what you say seriously.

If a fix for a roll over was the same as the fix for a rear impact then maybe your argument would hold water, but it doesn't.
Moderator for: DURATEC Ti-VCT Performance, ST Performance, MK3 Focus
suss6052 is offline  
    Reply With Quote