Ford Pinto Case5/6/2021
Mother Jones magazine wrote Iacoccas insistence on a 2,000 price tag kept Ford from adding additional fuel tank protection, not even a 1 piece of plastic shielding the gas tank.Link Aaron Waldo About Us Lemon Laws by State Victories Contact 866-440-2460 Allen Stewart PC Lemon Law Blog Lemon Law The Ford Pintos Deadly Legacy Generic selectors Exact matches only Exact matches only Search in title Search in title Search in content Search in content Search in excerpt Hidden Hidden Hidden Available Amidst Covid-19 We continue to be open and working remotely during the hours of 8 a.m.
Monday through Friday during the Coronavirus response. We continue to accept new cases and work on our existing cases. The Ford Pintos Deadly Legacy Sep, 2018 Mentioning the Ford Pinto conjures up images of corporate malfeasance, poor engineering and shoddy craftsmanship. Though often considered a punchline today, the 1971-1976 Ford Pinto and its engineering flaws were no laughing matter. If you think you own a lemon vehicle, contact Allen Stewart here or call 866-440-2460 The Ford Pinto started its life as the brainchild of then Ford Motor Company vice president Lee Iacocca. Iacocca envisioned Ford capturing the American subcompact market with a vehicle weighing no more than 2,000 pounds and costing no more than 2,000. ![]() ![]() Ford wanted to dominate the American small car space by beating their competitors to the market with a compact, affordable car. Ford spent 25 months planning the Pinto while most vehicles at the time spent roughly 43 months in planning. Robert Lacey, author of Ford: The Men and the Machine, said Iacocca disregarded technicians concerns about many details surrounding the Pintos development. The Pintos rapid development also meant the cars tooling developed at the same time as the car itself. Tooling refers to the development of manufacturing tools and processes needed to mass produce the car. Changes to the vehicle would mean time consuming and expensive tooling alterations. Ford sold 328,275 Pintos in 1971, though 900 incidents involving death and injury would cast a pall over that success. The Pinto contained a fuel tank positioned between the rear axle and rear bumper, per industry standards. The NHTSA proposed expanding crash safety standards to cover rear-end collisions in January 1969: 18 months into the Pintos development. Ford representatives stated they would meet a 20 miles per hour moving barrier standard for all its cars by 1973, though it and other automakers objected to more stringent fuel system safety standards. Our team of Texas lemon law attorneys can help you with your vehicle. Popular Mechanics reported the Pintos fuel tank would rupture in rear-end crashes. The tanks filler neck would tear away from the tank body, spilling fuel underneath the car. Bolts protruding from the nearby differential and right shock absorber would puncture the tank as well, spilling fuel and creating a fire hazard. Automotive News wrote Ford knew about fuel tank flaws during the Pintos development, but company officials pushed ahead with production because assembly line machinery had already been tooled by the time engineers discovered the flaw.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |