The Ford Pinto Fuel Tanks Controversy

Running Head: THE FORD PINTO FUEL TANKS CONTROVERSY 1

Name

Institution

THE FORD PINTO FUEL TANKS CONTROVERSY 2

The Ford Pinto Fuel Tanks Controversy

The automobile production industry faces various issues relating to marketing and

customer relations. Key among the different issues in the car business is safety, performance,

fuel consumption and environmental concerns. Ford Company remains among the leading

companies whose engineering prowess in the car manufacturing industry remains remarkable

(Viscusi, 2015). The paper discusses the different elements of the Ford Pinto car model after

various cases of negligent homicide were raised against the manufacturer for reasons touching on

fuel tank safety by the NHTSA.

Q1. Why Ford Produced the Pinto Models

The Ford Company resolved on the production of the Ford Pinto models after Japanese

and German automobile manufacturing companies such as Toyota and Volkswagen identified

the middle and low-income customers as potential markets. After Japanese made cars evolved to

producing cheaper vehicles by fuel consumption and safety, Ford Company resolved to build the

subcompact models of pintos as a means to addressing competition from cheap car imports.

Q2. The Defects of the Ford Pinto Fuel Tank

However, the Ford Pinto car models had a defective car fuel tank that had fuel spills in

cases rear impact scenarios (Viscusi, 2015). Conducting the tests at 30mph, the company

production line realized that at 20mph, such vehicles had the tested prototypes fail as a result of

dangerous fuel tank leaks. Such conditions confirmed the inability of the Pintos’ fuel tanks to

meet the set NHTSA’s standards of safety. The fuel tank prototypes tested safe for use required

internal rubber lining at about $5 and other safety features including steel plates placed between

the fuel tanks and the rear bumper that would cost $11 (Wu, 2016). The extra costing per unit of

THE FORD PINTO FUEL TANKS CONTROVERSY 3

production appears to have informed the company’s decision to produce the cars without the

identified safety parameters.

Q3. Ford Pinto Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Ford Pinto’s cost-benefit analysis reports were well documented in the Grimshaw v. Ford

Motor Company in 1978 where the proceedings involved the safety designs of the pinto model.

The case saw the jury awarding the plaintiffs to a tune of $127.8 Million (Viscusi, 2015).

Savings

180 burns/Deaths; 2100 per car

Sales

11 million

units

Unit Cost

200000 per death; 67000 per injury; 700 per

car

Unit Cost

11 per car

Total

49.5 million

Total

137.5 million

SAFETY DESIGNS

COSTS ($)

Longitudinal side members

2.40

Cross members

1.80

Internal tank Flack suits

4.00

Tank-within-a-tank and their replacements

5.79

Bladder nylons within tanks

8.00

Tank over the rear axle and protective barrier

9.95

Protective differential housing for fuel tanks

2.35

Rear axle replacement

2.10

Rear bumper reinforcement

2.60

8 Inch additional crush space

6.40

TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS/UNIT

45.39

THE FORD PINTO FUEL TANKS CONTROVERSY 4

Cost

The costs of equipping the car included the reinforced rear, an additional crush space,

improved bumper, smooth bumper, and fuel tank protective interior at the expense of $ 45.39

helped efficiently in reducing the costs that the motor company would incur in litigation and

reputational damages once accidents occurred. On the contrary, the Ford Pinto Fatalities Review

indicated that the average cost of preventing the models from defective engines that would lead

to fire outbreaks stood at $11 per unit. Such charges remained considered minimal when taking

account of the assumptive 180 deaths that the report hypothesized to work on a cost-benefit

analysis.

Q4. Ethical Decision Making in Ford Motor Company

Ethical responsibilities in engineering companies’ accord their staff the space to

providing their opinions on engineering designs and their possible effects on safety standards

upon operations. The ethical principles applicable to decision making when there exist instances

of defects. Ford Pinto models had various reports raise ethical principles outlined by the De

George. De George’s had two principles anchoring on permissible and obligatory

whistleblowing. The perception of permitted whistleblowing anchors on firms accepting

responsibility for any failures realized in engineering works. The idea permits staff and engineers

to raise incidences anywhere the potential harm speculated shall be severe after they have made

such concerns known to superiors and their response is never satisfactory (Gioia, 2014). The

obligation principle based on the principle of professionalism in developing careers.

The belief of obligatory whistleblowing entrusts the company as well as the staff to take

responsibility when they realize that the company appears compromised when in dealings has

THE FORD PINTO FUEL TANKS CONTROVERSY 5

designs that pose considerable risks to the users (Gioia, 2014). Staff members should, therefore,

document their findings of the dangers posed by different sections of the plans. The company,

however, is on record to have disregarded the particular issues on security raised by the various

engineers who conducted tests on the models.

THE FORD PINTO FUEL TANKS CONTROVERSY 6

References

Gioia, D. A. (2014). Ford Pinto Recall. Global Supply Chain Quality Management: Product

Recalls and Their Impact, 107.

Viscusi, W. K. (2015). Pricing Lives for Corporate and Governmental Risk Decisions 1. Journal

of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(2), 227-246.

Wu, S. S. (2016). Product Liability Issues in the US and Associated Risk Management.

In Autonomous Driving (pp. 553-569). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."