Case: Pinto

Pinto

In the late 1960s ford designed a subcompact, the Pinto, weighing less than 2,000 pounds and selling for less than $2,000. Anxious to compete with foreign-made subcompacts, Ford brought the car into production in a little more than two years (compared with the usual three and on-half years). Given this shorter time frame, styling preceded much of the engineering, thus restricting engineering design more than usual. As a result, it was decided that the best place for the gas tank was between the rear axle and the bumper. The differential housing had exposed bolt heads that could puncture the gas tank if the tank were driven forward against them upon rear impact.

In court the crash tests were described in this way:

These prototypes as well as two production Pintos were crash tested by Ford to determine, among other things, the integrity of the fuel system in rearend accidents.... Prototypes struck from the rear with a moving barrier at 21-miles-per-hour caused the fuel tank to be driven forward and to be punctured, causing fuel leakage.... A production Pinto crash tested at 21-miles-per-hour into a fixed barrier caused the fuel tank to be torn from the gas tank and the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing. In at least one test, spilled fuel entered the driver’s compartment....

Ford also tested rear impact when rubber bladders were installed in the tank, as well as when the tank was located above rather than behind the rear axle. Both passed the twenty-mile-per-hour rear impact tests.

Although the federal government was pressing to stiffen regulations on gas tank designs, Ford contented that the Pinto met all applicable federal safety standards at the time. J.C. Echold, director of automotive safety for ford, issued a study entitled "Fatalities Associated with Crash Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires." This study claimed that the costs of improving the design ($11 per vehicle) outweighed its social benefits. A memorandum attached to the report described the costs and benefits in this way:

Benefits
	Savings	180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles
	Unit Cost	$200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle
	Total	180 x $200,000 180 x $67,000 + 2100 x $700 $49.15 million
Costs
	Sales	11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks
	Unit Cost	$11 per car, $11 per truck
	Total	11,000,000 x $11 1,500,000 x $11 $137 million

The estimate of the number of deaths, injuries, and damage to vehicles was based on statistical studies. The $200,00 for the loss of a human life was based on a national Highway Traffic Safety administration study, which estimated social costs of a death in this way:

Component		1971 Costs
Future productivity losses	Direct	$132,000
	Indirect	$41,300
Medical costs	Hospital	$700
	Other	$425
Property Damage		$1,500
Insurance administration		$4,700
Legal and court		$3,000
Employer losses		$1,000
Victim's pain and suffering		$10,000
Funeral		$900
Assets (lost consumption)		$5,000
Miscellaneous accident cost		$200
Total per Fatality		$200,725

Discuss the appropriateness of using figures like the above in Ford’s deciding whether or not to make a safety improvement in its engineering design. If you believe this is not appropriate, what would you suggest as an alternative? What responsibilities do you think engineers have in situations like this?

| BACK TO TOP |