Free Essays on Ford Pinto

Ford Pinto Plato said,† The appetites or the passions may gain control of him and refuse to obey the dictates of his highest part, reason or mind.† (Frost 131) If this is so what was Ford Motor Company so hungry for in the early 1970’s to knowingly sell thousands of unsafe cars to its customers? Yes, we can all agree that the foreign automakers were taking a big chunk out of the American industry with its fuel-efficient compact cars. We can even understand the concept of Ford wanting to produce it’s own compact car to compete with it’s foreign competitors. Does this make it all right then to take shortcuts if the end justifies the means? Ford Motor Company did just that when it mass-produced and sold the Pinto. Customers expected a certain degree of respect, honesty, and quality with the purchase of their vehicle. In return for their loyalty to an American built car they got a death trap. I don’t know if there are any written professional codes of conduct for automakers and even if they were it doesn’t mean Ford would have followed them in this case. I do know there were safety standards successfully lobbied against by Ford for almost a decade. The money spent lobbying for almost ten years could have been used to fix the problem in the first place. Two hundred thousand, seven hundred and twenty five dollars is the price Ford put on human life. In actuality Ford said human lives were not worth the five to eight dollar fix. The man who puts a monetary value on life looks at the world, and instead should stand in front of the mirror to truly gauge that value. Sure the number of human lives lost in the Pinto due to rear end collisions is very small compared to the total number of Pintos sold. I don’t think Iacocca would think so if it were his wife or child in those collisions. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their duties. This is the first fundam ental canon o... Free Essays on Ford Pinto Free Essays on Ford Pinto Ford Pinto Plato said,† The appetites or the passions may gain control of him and refuse to obey the dictates of his highest part, reason or mind.† (Frost 131) If this is so what was Ford Motor Company so hungry for in the early 1970’s to knowingly sell thousands of unsafe cars to its customers? Yes, we can all agree that the foreign automakers were taking a big chunk out of the American industry with its fuel-efficient compact cars. We can even understand the concept of Ford wanting to produce it’s own compact car to compete with it’s foreign competitors. Does this make it all right then to take shortcuts if the end justifies the means? Ford Motor Company did just that when it mass-produced and sold the Pinto. Customers expected a certain degree of respect, honesty, and quality with the purchase of their vehicle. In return for their loyalty to an American built car they got a death trap. I don’t know if there are any written professional codes of conduct for automakers and even if they were it doesn’t mean Ford would have followed them in this case. I do know there were safety standards successfully lobbied against by Ford for almost a decade. The money spent lobbying for almost ten years could have been used to fix the problem in the first place. Two hundred thousand, seven hundred and twenty five dollars is the price Ford put on human life. In actuality Ford said human lives were not worth the five to eight dollar fix. The man who puts a monetary value on life looks at the world, and instead should stand in front of the mirror to truly gauge that value. Sure the number of human lives lost in the Pinto due to rear end collisions is very small compared to the total number of Pintos sold. I don’t think Iacocca would think so if it were his wife or child in those collisions. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their duties. This is the first fundam ental canon o... Free Essays on Ford Pinto Intro Back in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, Ford was considered one of the four major U.S. automobile manufacturers. This paper will focus on Ford, and the safety issues regarding the gas tank with the Ford Pinto between 1971 and 1977. In 1977, there was a criminal indictment brought against Ford stating that the Pinto had been considered a fire hazard, because of where the gas tank was located in the rear of the vehicle. Allegations were brought up that after detailed rear-end crash tests; the actual design of the gas tank, and the placement of the gas tank was a safety hazard, and considered dangerous to the driver, as well as to any passengers in the vehicle. It was stated in the case analysis that Ford was so anxious to get the car on the market, they decided that the design changes would not be made, because it would take too much time and cost too much money (1). The controversy surrounding the fuel tank was that it was located behind the rear axle, instead of above it. This was initially done in an effort to create more trunk space. The problem with this design, which later became evident, was that it made the Pinto more vulnerable to a rear-end collision. This weakness was enhanced by other features of the car. The gas tank and the rear axle were separated by only nine inches. There were also bolts that were positioned in a way that threatened the gas tank. Finally, the fuel filler pipe design resulted in a higher probability that it would disconnect from the tank in the event of an accident, causing gas to leak, which could lead to dangerous fires. With a combination of the enactment of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) rear-end fuel system integrity standard in1969, called Standard 301, and the abundant design defects of the Pinto, this case became the center of public debate. Part 1Element 1Duties to the Consumer When it comes to purchasing products or services from a merchant, the ... Free Essays on Ford Pinto Ford Pinto Plato said,† The appetites or the passions may gain control of him and refuse to obey the dictates of his highest part, reason or mind.† (Frost 131) If this is so what was Ford Motor Company so hungry for in the early 1970’s to knowingly sell thousands of unsafe cars to its customers? Yes, we can all agree that the foreign automakers were taking a big chunk out of the American industry with its fuel-efficient compact cars. We can even understand the concept of Ford wanting to produce it’s own compact car to compete with it’s foreign competitors. Does this make it all right then to take shortcuts if the end justifies the means? Ford Motor Company did just that when it mass-produced and sold the Pinto. Customers expected a certain degree of respect, honesty, and quality with the purchase of their vehicle. In return for their loyalty to an American built car they got a death trap. I don’t know if there are any written professional codes of conduct for automakers and even if they were it doesn’t mean Ford would have followed them in this case. I do know there were safety standards successfully lobbied against by Ford for almost a decade. The money spent lobbying for almost ten years could have been used to fix the problem in the first place. Two hundred thousand, seven hundred and twenty five dollars is the price Ford put on human life. In actuality Ford said human lives were not worth the five to eight dollar fix. The man who puts a monetary value on life looks at the world, and instead should stand in front of the mirror to truly gauge that value. Sure the number of human lives lost in the Pinto due to rear end collisions is very small compared to the total number of Pintos sold. I don’t think Iacocca would think so if it were his wife or child in those collisions. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their duties. This is the first fundam ental canon o...