(Photo: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1971-1980-ford-pinto-1979.jpg)
In the late 1960s, Ford began the development of a subcompact car that it hoped would compete with small inexpensive imports. In an apparent effort to maximize profit, Ford executives set strict specifications for the car, mandating that it be “2000 pounds and $2000" (Birsch). In order to get the car to market as quickly as possible, Ford implemented a rushed production schedule. In 1970 Ford introduced the Pinto, a car that would sell well for the next several years.
From 1970 to 1976 a number of rear end collisions involving the Pinto resulted in fires and deaths. In September 1977, Mother Jones published an article, "Pinto Madness," that brought attention to the car's problems, accusing Ford executives of producing a car they knew was fatally flawed. One of its primary accusations was that preliminary crash tests done on the Ford Pinto demonstrated how low-speed rear-impact crashes were likely to cause fire due to the placement of the fuel tank. Perhaps the most surprising of all, however, were the allegations that Ford executives implemented a cost-benefit analysis to decide if issuing a recall would be financially advantageous. Allegedly, the results of the cost-benefit analysis influenced Ford to forgo modifications and release the car as it was.
In 1978, while in the midst of civil suits and mounting bad press from the Mother Jones article, Ford recalled approximately 1.5 million Pintos (model years 1070-76) to fix the fuel tank issue. Later in that same year, Ford was charged with reckless homicide in Indiana, the first criminal offense ever charged against a corporation. The principle argument in the case was that Ford had allowed the Pinto “to remain on Indiana Highways, knowing full well its defects" (Flammang). Although Ford was eventually cleared of criminal charges, the Pinto was a public relations nightmare and was unceremoniously removed from production by the 1980s.
NEXT: BACKGROUND
From 1970 to 1976 a number of rear end collisions involving the Pinto resulted in fires and deaths. In September 1977, Mother Jones published an article, "Pinto Madness," that brought attention to the car's problems, accusing Ford executives of producing a car they knew was fatally flawed. One of its primary accusations was that preliminary crash tests done on the Ford Pinto demonstrated how low-speed rear-impact crashes were likely to cause fire due to the placement of the fuel tank. Perhaps the most surprising of all, however, were the allegations that Ford executives implemented a cost-benefit analysis to decide if issuing a recall would be financially advantageous. Allegedly, the results of the cost-benefit analysis influenced Ford to forgo modifications and release the car as it was.
In 1978, while in the midst of civil suits and mounting bad press from the Mother Jones article, Ford recalled approximately 1.5 million Pintos (model years 1070-76) to fix the fuel tank issue. Later in that same year, Ford was charged with reckless homicide in Indiana, the first criminal offense ever charged against a corporation. The principle argument in the case was that Ford had allowed the Pinto “to remain on Indiana Highways, knowing full well its defects" (Flammang). Although Ford was eventually cleared of criminal charges, the Pinto was a public relations nightmare and was unceremoniously removed from production by the 1980s.
NEXT: BACKGROUND
