Ford engineers discovered in pre-production crash tests that rear-end collisions would rupture the Pinto’s fuel system extremely easily.
Because assembly-line machinery was already tooled when engineers found this defect, top Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway—exploding gas tank and all—even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gas tank. But that tank would have changed the design of the trunk space, reducing it, and trunk space was a sales point.
Internal company documents in our possession show that Ford has crash-tested the Pinto at a top-secret site more than 40 times and that every test made at over 25 mph without special structural alteration of the car has resulted in a ruptured fuel tank. Despite this, Ford officials denied under oath having crash-tested the Pinto.
cost-benefit analysis argued that Ford should not make an $11-per-car improvement that would prevent 180 fiery deaths a year.
Ford’s cost-benefit table is buried in a seven-page company memorandum entitled “Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires.” The memo argues that there is no financial benefit in complying with proposed safety standards that would admittedly result in fewer auto fires, fewer burn deaths and fewer burn injuries.
When the Pinto liability suits began, Ford strategy was to go to a jury. Confident it could hide the Pinto crash tests, Ford thought that juries of solid American registered voters would buy the industry doctrine that drivers, not cars, cause accidents. It didn’t work.
Ford lost a court case in 1977 for 125 million dollars (which was reduced to 3.5 million later) to Richard Grimshaw. That's when it decided that going forward, it would settle instead of go to court
The issue of fuel tank safety hasn’t been eliminated in the years since Pinto Madness was published, either. The side-saddle fuel tank design used in full-size GM pickups from 1973 to 1987 was found to be the cause of over 2,000 deaths through 2009, some 20 times more than those ultimately killed in Ford Pinto fires. Despite the deaths and numerous lawsuits, GM has steadfastly denied that a problem with the design exists, and no recall was ever issued.
Chrysler faced its own fuel-tank fire crisis with the 1993-’98 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 2002-’07 Jeep Liberty, repaired (via a voluntary recall) by the installation of a trailer hitch at no charge to owners. Even Ford failed to learn a lesson from the Pinto, positioning the fuel tank in its Crown Victoria between the axle and the bumper, resulting in a series of fires particularly in cars modified for law enforcement duty.
Chrysler faced its own fuel-tank fire crisis with the 1993-’98 Jeep Grand Cherokee and 2002-’07 Jeep Liberty, repaired (via a voluntary recall) by the installation of a trailer hitch at no charge to owners. Even Ford failed to learn a lesson from the Pinto, positioning the fuel tank in its Crown Victoria between the axle and the bumper, resulting in a series of fires particularly in cars modified for law enforcement duty.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
