Failure Knowledge Database / 100 Selected Cases

Ford Pinto Collision Fire[In 1972, on Highways in the US]
By Masayuki Nakao(Tokyo University, Institute of Engineering Renovation)

A Ford Pinto had stalled on the highway, another car following at 30 miles/hour
rear-ended the Pinto and the Pinto burst into flames.
the passenger was seriously burned.
defects of the fuel tank system.

The driver of the Pinto died andThe main cause of this incident was design

One of the root causes was Ford’s policy of rushinginto production and ignoring the safety issues in order to compete in the strong small
car market. The jury verdict awarded plaintiffs over 100 million dollars (later it wasappealed and the amount was reduced).
1. Event
A Ford Pint stalled on a highway, and another car following at 30 miles/hour
rear-ended the Pinto.

The Pinto burst into flames.

The driver died and thepassenger was seriously burnt.
2. Course
Ford rushed into the production of its newest sub-compact car, Pinto, in the much lesstime of 25 months versus the time it usually takes (about 43 months) and introduced
Pinto to the market in 1971.
In 1972, When a Pinto car stalled on a highway, another car following at 30 miles perhour rear ended the Pinto causing it to burst into flames.
passenger was seriously burnt.

The driver died and theAs shown in Fig. 1, the fuel tank at the rear of the car

was pushed forward to the deferential housing when it was hit.

The fuel tank wasdamaged and gasoline leaked. The leaked gasoline flowed inside the cabin throughgaps.

The impact of the accident ignited the gasoline resulting in flames.

Filler tube pulled out offuel tank
Weak bumper
Structure is vulnerable
to rear impactcollisions
Gas tank and thebumper are too close

1

Failure Knowledge Database / 100 Selected Cases

Fig. 1Defects in Ford Pinto 71 and 72 [1]At the jury trial of this accident, Ford’s ex-employees, who were against the shortdevelopment period and left the company, testified against Ford and broughtsignificant impact on the verdict.
In 1973, the US Department of Transportation proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 301 to Ford to improve the fuel system, but Ford filed a petition forreconsideration because of the increased costs.

According to Ford’s cost-benefit

analysis, there is no financial benefit in complying with proposed safety standards
because it would cost them $137,000,000 ($11 x 12,500,000 cars) that is 2.7 times of theestimated total compensation of $49.5 million (180 burn deaths x $200,000 per death,
180 serious burn injuries x $67,000 per injury, 2100 burned vehicles x $700 per vehicle).
When this calculation was presented during the jury trial, it was considered as
infringement of human rights and used as proof of malicious intention.

It was used as

evidence for being liable for compensation. This trial is famous for awarding morethan one million dollars.

(Compensatory damages of $2,800,000 and Punitive

Damages of $125,000,000 [later appealed and reduced to $3,500,000]).
3. Causea) The direct cause was design defects in fuel tank system as shown in Fig. 1.

Itsoriginal design had the fuel tank above the axles, but the position of the fueltank was moved to the back of the axle for better appearance.
b) One of the indirect causes was lack of protection around the fuel tank. Due tocost benefit, weak bumpers were used. However, there were no safety measurestaken to prevent deformation or to reduce impact.
c) At the root of this problem, there is a contributing factor that is the policy of thecompany of reducing development period and taking safety issues lightly.
4. Immediate Action
In 1973, the US Department of Transportation proposed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 301 to Ford to improve the fuel system, but Ford filed a petition forreconsideration because of the increasing costs. .
5. Countermeasures
Ford recalled the vehicles and moved the fuel tank to above the axle housing in order tosecure impact absorbent space and used stronger bumpers and fuel tanks.
6. Summary
This is an example of failure by reducing development period and cost significantly inorder to complete in the market and to profit.

Contrary to the intention, the company

lost credibility, product reputation, as well as significant financial loss.
2Failure Knowledge Database / 100 Selected Cases

Prioritizing safety versus cost and safety versus convenience is an endless assignment.
For example, if a sidewalk is created along a busy street, many pedestrian accidents
may be prevented. However, a large amount of tax money will be spent for it and may
cause inconvenience to the drivers living on that street.

If Japanese society sees

evidence of comparing priority of safety versus cost as Ford did, all media will start
bashing.

However, in order to create a healthy society, it is necessary to clarify merits

and demerits, eliminate “taboo” from the environment, and provide a climate to
comfortably discuss these issues.
7. Knowledge
Safety first.

If safety is taken lightly in order to reduce cost or quick delivery, bigger

problems occurs without doubt. For safety, “Because the boss decided” is no excuse.
In an ethics case study for engineers, only the engineers who protect safety andenvironment pass, even if it is contrary to the employer’s expectation.
fired by doing so.

You may get

If so, you can file a civil law suit.

8. Background
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from
Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition
Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in 25 months, much less time thanis usually required to develop a car. (The regular time to produce an automobile is 43months.) According to some source, although Ford engineers had discovered that
Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily in nearly all rear-end crash test
collisions, Ford Officials decided to manufacture the cars with $2000 in cost and 2000
pounds in weight because assembly-line machinery was already tooled.

The famous

Lee Iacocca was the head of development division at that time.

<References>
1) ZOKU-ZOKU JISSAI NO SEKKEI (Practical Design Vol.3)
by Yotaro Hatamura and Jissai no Sekkei Society, Published by Nikkan Kogyo
Shinbun LTD. (1996)
2) DESIGN DEFECTS OF THE FORD PINTO GAS TANK：
http://www.fordpint.com/blowup.htm

3