Mercury Bobcat — [ edit ] — Mercury Bobcat Runabout Lincoln-Mercury dealers marketed a rebadged variant of the Pinto, as the Mercury Bobcat, beginning with model year in Canada produced in all of the same body styles. It was styled with a unique eggcrate grille and chrome headlamp bezels.
In April,the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions.
Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but Report on ford pinto cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto.
Although the first Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard FMVSS for fuel system intergrity took effect January 1,the standard only required passenger cars to meet a mph fixed front barrier crash.
There was no requirement for side or rear impacts allowing Ford to claim the Pinto met all applicable safety standards for fuel system integrity.
Not until the model year did the Pinto and other passenger cars have to meet a mph rear moving barrier and a mph side moving barrier test. Light trucks and vans got until the model year to meet side and rear impact requirements.
Based upon the tests performed for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and by the tremendous publicity generated over the problem, Ford agreed to recall all through Ford Pintos and Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for modifications to the fuel tank.
The modifications included a longer fuel filler neck and a better clamp to keep it securely in the fuel tank, a better gas cap in some models, and placement of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and the differential to protect the tank from the nuts and bolts on the differential and another along the right corner of the tank to protect it from the right rear shock absorber.
Recall notices were mailed in September, and parts were to be at all dealers by September 15, However, between June 9,and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated 2.
In one of the instances, an Elkhart, Indiana grand jury returned indictments against Ford Motor Company for three cases of negligence from the deaths of three young women. But on March 13,a jury found Ford innocent of a charge of failing to warn about or offer to repair fuel system defects in the Pinto before the day the three women were fatally burned.
The verdict is not an unfavorable precedent with regard to criminal prosecution of corporations for defective products that kill. Join us on social media:CASE THE FORD PINTO Discussion Questions 1. Although the Pinto passed the NHTSA test, Ford officials knew that the Pinto was prone to catch fire when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions, thus it was unsafe to drive the car without any technical improvements implemented/5(2).
Ford Pinto Fuel Tank November 13, Major and Historic Recalls 7, Views On June 9, , Ford Motor Company agreed to recall million Ford Pinto and 30, Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for fuel tank design defects which made the vehicles susceptible to fire in the of a moderate-speed rear end collision.
Jan 21, · Oldsmobile Olds Restomod Custom & Engine Sound on My Car Story with Lou Costabile - Duration: Lou Costabile , views.
The Ford Pinto case is mentioned in most Business Ethics texts as an example of Cost-Benefit analysis, yet in those formats any appreciation of the complexity surrounding the issues of such decisions is overly simplified. The Ford Pinto case is today considered a classic example of corporate wrong-doing and is a mainstay of courses in engineering ethics, business ethics, philosophy, and the sociology of white - collar crime.
Ford claimed that the Pinto’s fuel-tank design was the same as other subcompacts, and that the company had done everything possible to comply with the recall once it had been enacted.
Due to a.