The Ford Pinto is a subcompact car manufactured and marketed by Ford Motor Company in North America, sold from 1971 to 1980 model. Ford's smallest American vehicle since 1907, Pinto is the first subcompact vehicle manufactured by Ford in North America; Pinto is also the first mass-produced American car sold with rack and pinion steering.
Ford Pinto is marketed in three body styles through its production: a two-door fastback sedan with luggage, a three-door hatchback, and a two-door station wagon. Mercury offers a rebad version of Pinto as Mercury Bobcat from 1975 to 1980 (1974-1980 in Canada). From 1974 to 1978, the Ford Mustang II shared a common platform with Pinto/Bobcat, albeit with different unibody and powertrain. For the 1981 model, Ford Pinto was replaced by the Ford Escort, when Ford shifted its product line toward the front wheels.
Over 3 million Ford Pintos were produced during the 10 years of production, with Ford Pinto and Mercury Bobcat being produced at Edison Assembly (Edison, New Jersey), St.Thomas Assembly (Southwold, Ontario), and San Jose Assembly (Milpitas, California). Since the 1970s, Ford Pinto's safety reputation has been surrounded by controversy; the design of its fuel tanks attracted the attention of the media and government after several deadly fires linked to rear-end collisions. The subsequent analysis of the overall safety of the vehicle showed safety comparable to other 1970s subcompact cars. Ford Pinto has been widely cited as a business ethic as well as a case-case reform study.
Video Ford Pinto
​​â € <â €
American car manufacturers first offset imports like the Volkswagen Beetle with compact cars including the Ford Falcon, Chevrolet Corvair and Plymouth Valiant, although these cars feature a six-cylinder engine and consist of a larger vehicle class. Due to the growing popularity of Japanese imports from Toyota and Datsun increasing throughout the 1960s, Ford North America responded by introducing Cortina from Ford Europe as a captive import. American car makers will soon be introducing their own subcompact. It's led by AMC Gremlin, who arrived six months before Pinto, and Chevrolet Vega, introduced the day before Pinto.
Named for horses, Pinto was introduced on September 11, 1970. Pinto is a completely new platform, but uses a powertrain from Escort to European specifications. Ford Chairman Henry Ford II bought 1971 Runabout (hatchback) for use as one of his personal cars.
Maps Ford Pinto
Product development
Initial planning for Pinto began in the summer of 1967, recommended by Ford Product Planning Committee in December 1968, and approved by the Ford Board of Directors in January 1969. Ford President Lee Iacocca wanted a 1971 model that weighs under 2,000 pounds and will be priced at less than $ 2,000. The development of Pinto products, from concept through delivery, is completed in 25 months, when the average of the automotive industry is 43 months; Pinto project is the shortest production planning schedule in automotive history up to that time. Some development processes are usually done sequentially in parallel. Machine tools overlap with product development, which freezes the basic design. Decisions that threaten the schedule are not recommended. Ford's management attitude is to develop Pinto as quickly as possible. Iacocca ordered the project in a hurry to build the car, and Pinto became known internally as "Lee's car." Bodywork Pinto styled by Robert Eidschun.
Offered with an inline-4 engine and bucket seats Pinto's mechanical design is conventional, with a unibody construction, a machine mounted extending in front of the rear wheel drive through a manual or automatic transmission and rear axle altitude. The suspension is with a control arm that is not the same length as the front coil springs; the rear axle of life is suspended on the leaf springs. Rack and pinion steering has optional power assist, as well as brakes.
Production history
On September 11, 1970, Ford introduced Pinto under the tagline of The Little Carefree Car.
After the structural design on alternative body styles confronted, Ford offered Pinto solely as a two-door sedan, with entry level models priced at $ 1850, weakened GM Chevrolet Vega and directly targeted imported models - which included new competitors such as the Mazda 1200 in the year 1971, Subaru DL in 1972, and Honda Civic in 1973.
In January 1971, Pinto had sold more than 100,000 units and 352,402 for the entire production of 1971. 1974 saw Pintos most produced in a single model year, with 544,209 units.
1971-1973
Ford Pinto went on sale on September 11, 1970 in a single bodystyle, a fastback sedan with trunklid rods and metal. A hatchback became available on February 20, 1971, debuting at the Chicago Auto Show. In 1971, the Pinto brochure came with a foldable piece of Pinto paper to create a 3D model. Marketed as Runabout, hatchback went on sale five days later, for $ 2,062. The hatch itself features chrome hinges open to liftgate and five decorative chrome strips, pneumatic struts to help open the hatch, rear window is approximately the size of a sedan, and a folding chair - a feature that becomes simultaneously the choice on the sedan. The hatchback model matches the sedan in all other dimensions and offers 38.1 cubic feet (1.08 m 3 ) cargo space with its seat folded. In 1972, Ford redesigned the hatch itself, with the glass part of the hold hatch almost to the entire size of the hatch itself, eventually going equipped for 1977-1980 with an optional hatchback made entirely of glass.
On October 30, 1970, less than two months after its introduction, 26,000 Pintos were recalled to overcome a possible problem with the accelerator sticking once more in more than halfway. On March 29, 1971, Ford withdrew 220,000 Pintos, all Pintos manufactured before March 19, 1971, to address possible problems with fuel vapors in the engine air filter powered by a boomerang through a carburetor.
On February 24, 1972, the Pinto station wagon debuted with an overall length of 172.7 at (4,390 mm) and 60.5 cubic feet (1.71 m 3 ) cargo volume. As Ford's first 2-door carriage since Falcon 1965, Pinto's carriages were equipped with open back windows. Along with front disc brakes, the 2.0L engine is standard equipment. The Pinto Squire carts feature an imitation wood-side panel similar to a full-size Squire.
1974-1978
In 1974, to comply with federal regulations, a 5 mph bumper was added to the front and rear. Unlike the majority of cars of the 1970s, the addition of larger bumpers to Pinto will not require major changes to bodywork. While the non-powered Kent machine was dropped, the optional OHC machine expanded to 2.3L. In various forms, this machine will drive Ford vehicles for 23 years. In 1974, Mercury started selling a rebadged version of Pinto called Bobcat as a Canadian model only. 544,209 units sold, 1974 will be the most popular model year for Pinto. Steel-belted tires, Anti-theft alarm systems, and metallic light paint are optional.
In 1975, in an effort to better compete with AMC Gremlin, Ford introduced the 2.8L V6; while much more powerful than Gremlin, the V6 gives Pinto a feature that is not available in Chevrolet Vega. Sales of Mercury Bobcat expanded to Lincoln-Mercury dealerships in the United States; it is sold as a hatchback and cart.
As a minor styling update for 1976, Pinto received an egg grille and chrome headlamp bezel that was recycled from Canada-only 1974 Mercury Bobcat. For one-year models only, two new option packages are offered. One of them is a new Stallion sporty package package with black trim and two black accents offered in red, yellow, silver, and white body colors. This option package is shared with Mustang II and Maverick. Another new option package is Runabout Squire featuring woodgrain vinyl bodysides like the Squire wagon. The interior accepts an optional Luxury Decor Group featuring a vinyl back seat or a new small bucket box with matching door trim.
For the 1977 model year, Pinto received its first significant styling update with a sloping bevelet headlamp, parking lights, and grille. Taillamps is revised except for hoppers. Runabouts offers an optional rear glass hatch for the first time. The pinto carriages are given a new option package. Dubbed the Pinto Cruising Wagon , it is a sedan delivery version of Pinto laid out to resemble a small convertible van, complete with round sides panel "bubble window" and optional vinyl graphics option.
Ford offers a new sporty appearance package similar to that found on Chevrolet Vega and AMC Gremlin but a tight cosmetic upgrade that does not add to vehicle performance.
In 1978, Pinto was no longer the smallest Ford sold in the US, because the company introduced the Fiesta. Nearly two feet shorter than Pinto, the German-designed Fiesta is the first front-wheel drive car Ford sold in the US.
1979-1980
For the 1979 model year, Pinto noticed significant recent styling updates. Abandoning its original style like Maverick, Pinto takes on the modern Fairmont look with rectangular headlights, vertical parking lights inside and a taller and tilted rear grille. Except for the carriages, taillamps are revised. Various sports performance packages revised, some with new graphics.
1980 marked the end of Pinto production. For 1980, the V6 engine was discontinued, leaving 2.3L as a single engine.
Powertrain
Except for 1980, Pinto is available with a choice of two machines. During the first five years of production, only four-cylinder inline engines are offered. Ford changes power ratings almost every year.
In 1974, the 2.3 liter engine (140 Â ° c in) OHC was introduced. This machine will be updated and modified multiple times, allowing it to be manufactured in 1997. Among other Ford vehicles, the turbocharged engine version of this engine will drive performance based on Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, Mustang SVO and Merkur XR4Ti made in Europe.
Initial Pinto shipments in the early years used the English engines (1,600 cc (98Ã, cuÃ, in)) and Germany (2,000Ã, cc (120Ã, Â ° cuÃ, in)) tuned for performance (see below). The 2,000cc engine uses a two-barrel carburetor in which only one hole is larger than the one used on Maverick. With a low weight (no more than 2,000 pounds (910 kg)) and the SOHC engine is rated 10.8 seconds 0-60 times. With the emergence of emission control requirements, Ford moved from Europe-sourced engines to domestic, using new designs or modifications. New security laws have an impact on bumpers and other parts that add weight to the car, reduce performance. The revised SAE standard in 1972 reduced the 1.6 liter Pinto (98 Â ° c) engine to 54 bhp (40 kW) - and 2.0 l engine (120 cuÃ, in) to 86 hp (64 kW). Mercury Bobcat (1974-1980)
Lincoln-Mercury dealers market rebadged variant of Pinto, such as Mercury Bobcat, starting with a 1974 model in Canada that is produced in all the same body styles. It's styled with a unique egg grille and chrome bezel headlamp. Rear features modified double width taillamps for sedan and runabout models.
For 1975, Bobcat was added to the US market and sold initially with improved trim levels as Runabout hatchbacks and car wagons. Less trimmed versions are offered on next year's model. Bobcat was never offered as a 2-door sedan with closed luggage for the US market. All Bobcats are trimmed with a domed hood and a higher vertical grille bar laid out to look like a senior Mercury model. Throughout all models, Bobcats are given a variety of appearance options similar to Pinto.
For 1979, Bobcat received a large restyling featuring a rear forward front end with rectangular headlights and a larger vertical grille bar. Except for the carriages, taillamps are revised.
Bobcat production ended in 1980 to make way for its successor, Mercury Lynx. In total, 224,026 Bobcats were produced from 1975 to 1980.
Reception and criticism
Once released, Pinto received positive and negative reviews. Street & amp; Track blames the standard drum suspension and brake, calling the latter a "serious drawback," but praising the proven 1.6Ã,® L Kent engine adapted from Ford Europe. The larger 2300 inline-4 found at Chevrolet Vega is an innovative new design using aluminum alloy blocks and an iron head, but requires more development work as it was originally released. Super Stock Magazine finds fit and finishes being "superior" and impressed with the car as a whole. Car and Driver found Pinto, when equipped with a larger 2.0L engine and front disc brakes, became a nimble and powerful commuter car with good visibility and sports car feel. The 1974 Pinto Review with Automatic Transmission by Car and Driver is not very profitable by noting significant reduction in mileage and acceleration.
The controversy surrounding Pinto has resulted in inclusion in the retrospective automotive list. In 2004, Forbes included Pinto among the fourteen Worst Cars of All Time, saying "When people talk about how bad little American cars create opportunities for Japan to come, and cleaning houses in the 1970s and 80s, they are referring to vehicles like this. "In 2008, Time magazine included Pinto in the Worst Flawed Car of All Time, citing the Pinto is "easy to change". The car tends to erupt in the fire at the rear. crash. "
Fuel system, recall, and litigation
The safety of the Pinto fuel system design led to a critical incident and subsequently resulted in recalls, lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and public controversies. The events surrounding the controversy have been described as "landmark narratives" and myths. Ford Pinto has been cited and debated in various business ethics as well as case-reform case studies.
The placement of car fuel tanks is the result of both conservative industry time practices as well as an uncertain regulatory environment during the development and early periods of car sales. Ford was accused of knowing that the car had unsafe tank placement, and then canceled the design changes based on an internal benefit cost analysis. Two well-known legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford and The State of Indiana vs. Ford resulted from a fatal accident involving Pintos.
The scientific work published in the decades after the Pinto release has examined the cases and offers a summary of Pinto's general understanding and controversy regarding car safety performance and fire risk. These works also review misconceptions related to the number of fire-related deaths associated with fuel system design, "wild and unsupported claims expressed in Pinto Madness and elsewhere", facts from related law cases, Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company
Fuel system design
The design of the Pinto fuel system is complicated by an uncertain regulatory environment during the development period. The first federal standard for the safety of automotive fuel systems, authorized in 1967, known as Section 301 in the Federal Vehicle Safety Standard, initially only considered future impacts. In January 1969, 18 months into the Pinto development cycle, NHTSA proposed a standard extension to cover the rear collision. The proposed standard is based on a 20 mph rear-stop impact test move. Ford announced publicly that it supports the standards. In August 1970, the month of Pinto began production, NHTSA changed the proposal to a standard 20mph fixed barrier tighter which will be encountered by the car company in 18 months. Standard barriers remain to be seen by the automotive industry as a significant increase in test severity. At the same time NHTSA announced its long-term goal to set a standard 30-mph fixed barrier. Due to confusion over the various proposed standards and expectations that NHTSA will not opt ​​for a tighter 30mph fixed barrier standard, Ford chose to voluntarily meet the 20mph moving barrier standard for all cars in 1973. Ford and other automakers object to security standards a tighter fuel system and filed an objection during the required comment period of the proposed rule.
The Pinto design positioned its fuel tank between the rear axle and the rear bumper, a standard practice in a US subcompact car at the time. Pinto's vulnerability to fuel leaks and fire in rear-end collisions is exacerbated by rear spaces, lack of structural reinforcement behind, and rear bumper "basically ornamental" (though similar to other manufacturers). Crash testing, conducted in 1970 with modified Ford Mavericks, as part of the response to NHTSA's proposed rule, shows vulnerability at fairly low speeds. Design changes are made, but post-launch tests show similar results. These tests are conducted to develop an accident testing standard rather than specifically investigating the integrity of the fuel system. Although Ford engineers were unhappy with the performance of the car, there were no reports of time that showed any special attention. Ford also tested several different vehicle modifications that can improve rear impact performance. However, the technician's caution and unwillingness to "unproven" solutions and the view that the collision test results can not be inferred results in the use of conventional fuel tank design and placement. The above use of the axle tank location is considered safer by some (but not all) at Ford. This placement is not a viable option for hatchback and station wagon body styles.
Beginning in 1973, Ford Pintos field reports were consumed by fire after a low-speed rear-end collision was received by the Ford recall coordinator's office. Based on standard procedures used to evaluate field reports, Ford's internal recall evaluation group twice reviewed field data and found no actionable problems.
Cost-benefit, Pinto Memo
In 1973, Ford's Environmental Safety and Safety division developed a profit-and-loss analysis entitled Deaths Related to Leaking Fuel Leakage and Leakage to be submitted to NHTSA to support Ford's objections to propose fuel system regulations stronger. The document is known as "Pinto Memo". The cost-benefit analysis is one of the tools used in the evaluation of design safety designs received by industry and NHTSA. This analysis compares the cost of repairs with the social costs for injuries and deaths associated with fires in case of rollover vehicles for all cars sold in the US by all manufacturers. The value set for serious burns and casualties is based on the value calculated by NHTSA in 1972. In the memo, Ford estimates the cost of modifying the fuel system to reduce the risk of fire in rollover events to $ 11 per car in 12.5 million cars and light trucks (all manufacturers), for a total of $ 137 million. The design changes are estimated to save 180 deaths from burns and 180 serious injuries per year, costing the public for $ 49.5 million.
In August 1977, a copy of the memo by Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. Before the trial of the plaintiff, Mark Dowie's investigation article "Pinto Madness," published in Mother Jones magazine, emphasized the emotional aspect of the Grush-Saundy memo and implied that Ford cleverly traded life for profit. The Mother Jones article also falsely claims that somewhere between 500 and 900 people have been killed in a fire attributed to Pinto's unique design features.
The public understanding of cost-benefit analysis has contributed to the mythology of the Ford Pinto case. The Time magazine says the memo is one of the industry's "best known paper trail". A common misconception is that the document assumes the cost of tort liability is more expensive than public costs and is applied to the annual sales of all passenger cars, not just Ford vehicles. A common misconception of the document, as presented by Mother Jones, gives it an operational meaning that never existed.
NHANA NHTSA Investigation
In April 1974, the Automatic Safety Center requested the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to summon Ford Pintos to address the fuel system design defects following a report from three lawyer deaths and four serious injuries in rear-end collisions at medium speed. NHTSA found that there was not enough evidence to warrant disability investigation. In August 1977, Dowie's "Pinto Madness" article published a series of allegations against Ford, Pinto and NHTSA. This includes that Ford knows Pinto is "firetrap," and says that Ford is not implementing design changes because Ford's cost-benefit analysis document shows that paying millions in damages in lawsuits is more profitable than design changes. The day after the article released consumer support Ralph Nader and author of the Mother Jones article held a press conference in Washington DC about alleged Pinto design hazards. On the same day, Nader and the Automatic Safety Center sent back their application to NHTSA.
UCLA law professor Gary T. Schwartz in the Rutgers Law Review article said that NHTSA's investigation of Pinto was in response to consumer complaints and noted Mother Jones articles including a "Coupon" outlet clip that can be sent readers to NHTSA. Lee and Ermann noted that labeling Pinto as Mother Jones as a "firetrap" and allegations that NHTSA was being bent with industry pressure as well as the public interest created by a sensational new story "forced Pinto's second investigation and secured that NHTSA would under a microscope for its duration. "
On August 11, 1977, the day after the press conference of Nader and Mother Jones, NHTSA began an investigation. On May 8, 1978, NHTSA told Ford of their determination that the Pinto fuel system was damaged. NHTSA concluded:
1971-1976 Ford Pintos has experienced medium speed, rear-end collisions that have resulted in fuel tank damage, fuel leaks, and fire incidents that have resulted in fatalities and non-fatal burns... Fuel tank design and structural characteristics from 1975-1976 Mercury Bobcat which makes it synonymous with contemporary Pinto vehicles, also makes it subject to consequences such as impact collisions in the rear.
NHTSA scheduled a public hearing for June 1978, and NHTSA negotiated with Ford about the withdrawal.
Lee and Ermann noted that NHTSA used the worst case test to justify Pinto's memory, rather than a rear impact impact test in 1977. A large "bullet car" was used instead of the standard moving barrier. The weights are placed in the nose of the car to help slide under the Pinto and maximize the contact of the gas tank. The vehicle headlights are turned on to provide a possible ignition source. The fuel tank is completely filled with gasoline rather than partially filled with non-flammable Stoddard liquid like normal test procedures. In an interview later NHTSA engineers were asked why NHTSA forced the Pinto recall for failing a 35 mph test given that most of the small cars of that time would not pass. "Just because your friends go with shoplifting does not mean you have to go with it too."
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) eventually led Ford to remember Pinto. Initially, NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall because of a fire incident. The NHTSA investigation found that 27 deaths were found between 1970 and mid-1977 in a rear-impact collision that resulted in a fire. NHTSA does not indicate whether this impact will be likely to cause a fire or if the impact is more severe than the sophisticated fuel system (for 1977) can survive. In their analysis of social factors affecting NHTSA action, Lee and Ermann noted that 27 is the same number of deaths attributed to Pinto transmission problems that contribute to collisions after the car is impacted by traffic jams. They also note that NHTSA has two key incentives in proving disability in the design of the Pinto fuel system. Administration is suppressed by security supporters (Automatic Security Center) as well as public respose. It was also forced to act because of the ways in which both courts and the executive branch restricted NHTSA's ability to address systematic automatic safety concerns.
Call back
Although Ford may proceed with formal recall hearings, fearing additional damage to the company's public reputation, the company agrees to a "voluntary withdrawal" program. On June 9, 1978, a few days before NHTSA issued a Ford official withdrawal order, Ford withdrew 1.5 million Ford Pintos and Mercury Bobcats, the largest withdrawal in automotive history at the time. Ford disagreed with NHTSA's findings about disability, and said the withdrawal was to "end public attention caused by criticism of the fuel system in this vehicle." Withdrawal Ford places a polyethylene shield between the tank and the possible cause of the puncture, extends the filler tube, and fixes the tank filler seal in the event of a collision.
Legal case
Around 117 lawsuits were filed against Ford in connection with a back-end accident at Pinto. The two most significant cases are Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company and Indiana State vs. Ford Motor Company .
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. , decided in February 1978, is one of two important Pinto cases. The 1972 Pinto driven by Lily Gray stopped in the middle of the California highway. The car was struck from behind by a vehicle that originally drove at a speed of 50 mph and impacted an estimate of between 30 and 50 mph that resulted in a fuel tank fire. Gray died at the time of the impact. The passenger, Richard Grimshaw, was seriously burned. The plaintiff's bar collaborates with Mother Jones and the Automatic Security Center to publish incriminating information about Ford before the trial. The jury awarded $ 127.8 million in total damage; $ 125 million in damages and $ 2,841,000 in damages to passengers Richard Grimshaw and $ 665,000 in damages to the family of the deceased driver Lily Gray. The jury award is said to be the largest in US product liability and personal injury cases. The jury award was the biggest against the automaker at the time. The judge reduced the jury's compensation penalty for damages of up to $ 3.5 million, which he later said "is still greater than any other punishment in the state with a factor of around five." Ford then decided to settle related cases out of court.
The reaction to Grimshaw was mixed. According to the Los Angeles Times in 2010, the award "signaled to the auto industry that it would be subject to tough sanctions for ignoring the known defects." This case has been raised as an example of a disconnect between the use of corporate risk analysis and the jury's tendency to be offended by the analysis. This case is also cited as an example of award for irrational punishment damages. While supporting the findings of responsibility, Schwartz notes that the punitive damages award is difficult to justify.
State of Indiana vs. Ford Motor Company
On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls from the Urlich family in Osceola, Indiana were killed when Pinto 1973 they were involved in a collision in the back. The driver stopped on the road to retrieve the gas lid of the car that accidentally left at the top of the car and then fell into the street. While stopping Pinto was hit by a Chevrolet van. Ford sent Urlichs a notice of withdrawal to Pinto in 1979. The grand jury sued Ford over three counts of careless murder. Indiana v. Ford is a landmark in product liability law as the first time a company faces criminal charges for defective products, and for the first time a company is accused of murder. If found guilty, Ford faces a maximum fine of $ 30,000 under Indiana's tragic killing law of 1978. Ford's legal defense is far more ambitious than the efforts made in the Grimshaw case. The effort was led by James F. Neal with a staff of 80 and a budget of about $ 1 million; Elkhart County state attorneys have a budget of about $ 20,000 and law professors and law students volunteering. A former head of NHTSA, testifying on behalf of Ford, says that the design of Pinto is no more or less secure than other cars in its class. In 1980 Ford was declared innocent. In 1980 a civil suit was decided for $ 7500 for each plaintiff.
According to Automotive News in 2003, the indictment was the lowest point in Ford's reputation. Some people see the lawsuit as a landmark to take corporations to the task of their actions while others see the case as frivolous. In 2002 Malcolm Wheeler, a lawyer who worked with the Ford defense team, noted that the case was a poor application of criminal law. This case also affects the way Ford handles future product liability cases both legally and in the media.
Next analysis
The recall was included in the 2009 top ten magazine's top product withdrawal, the 2010 magazine's Popular Mechanics magazine's five most famous recalls of all time, and NBC News 2013's twelve famous recall. Time says "The Ford Pinto is a notoriously bad car, but worse is probably the handling of Ford's security issues." According to the Los Angeles Times in 2010, the award "signaled to the auto industry that it would be subject to tough sanctions for ignoring the known defects."
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments