Could Maverick be the next Pinto?

[Falcon first]

Consumer Reports is unbiased on cars. I get the magazine and get a questionnaire twice a year about my cars. They ask for milage, problems, repairs, everything twice a year. I’m also on two BMW forums and the problems Consumer Reports show are almost identical to the feedback that owners on the X3 and M240 say. For example, they say the X3 is great to drive and very reliable except for electronics. Our 2020 X3 has only had electronic issue, OTA updates but read pages and pages of X3 forums and most all complaints are about electronics and software. Same is true of M240 which is their highest rated sports car, very few problems but average reliability overall.

Sponsored

 

[fbov]

Consumer Reports is unbiased on cars.

CR's data is unbiased on cars. Listen to Talking Cars sometime. Their reviewers have their preferences, and like most automotive journalists, they see a lot of cars. But certain brands and cars keep surfacing, perhaps due to quality, perhaps due to novelty. It's most entertaining find out their least favorite cars, and why.

Ford won me over with the C-Max, highly reliable save for that tranny issue I never saw because I traded it in at 67K miles. Escape Hybrid has been just as good. And I'll tell CR that when they ask.

 

[Texchappy]

27 deaths

Deaths and Injuries Lead to Litigation
Before long, the Pinto's defective design began causing serious injuries — and fatalities. An official total of 27 deaths was tied to the vehicle, though some estimates are far higher. Google fact check.

I owned one that I shared with my brother never had any problems and later a Maverick as we got bigger.

I could be misremembering but was the 500 deaths what Ford considered ‘acceptable’? I have a vague recollection of Ford being cognizant of the design flaw late in development and deciding the cost of a few lawsuits (up to 500?!?) being less than the cost of redesign and being late to market.

My 76 stallion pinto did not explode

Glad you’re ok. looks serious. It was the hatchback that had the explosion problem. We had 3 or 4 station wagons in the family through the seventies And a dog of a Mustang II.

 

[tebowed]

The Maverick is based on the Escape and Bronco Sport that they did spend a lot of time on, so really they are just making modifications to a certain design, so its not like they created it from scratch.

That said, I am worried about the much shorter warranty on Ford products compared to Hyundai 10yr/100K miles, and fact that at least Consumer Reports has not put either the Escape nor the Bronco Sport on its "recommended" list despite very good road test scores, due to both being relegated to its worst predicted reliability score rating:

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/consumer-reports-cant-recommend-the-2021-ford-bronco-sport/

The Bronco Sport despite experience with the Escape already got three recalls in such a short period of time, and over on Edmunds there are also a lot of alarming reviews of people with powertrain errors on their new vehicles:

https://www.edmunds.com/ford/bronco-sport/2021/consumer-reviews/?rating=1

Many manufacturers including Volkswagen have also seen reliability issues out of vehicles built in Mexican plants, and the preview video we watched said that because this is a new line of vehicles being produced they are hiring a new crew and training them, rather than just retraining existing employees with years experience from one vehicle to a new vehicle. Makes you wonder if many of these people have ever even built a car before, or if this will be their first attempt.

Even though people were mocking them, I was also really interested in a Jeep Renegade back when they still made then in 4WD with the Abarth engine and 6-speed manual, but I was worried about reliability, and sure enough the forum ended up littered with reliability complaints where it would spend weeks in the shop. So the only real fear I have with the Maverick is not hard plastics or anything, but just if I'm going to have headaches or not. But then again I drove a 500 Abarth for damn near 100K miles and its been the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned, and it too had warnings about Fiat reliability.

Haven't trusted consumer reports since the 90s.

 

[Yardtruck]

I wonder about that too.

Most likely possibility I think is structural. Quick to create a "truck" platform unibody.
Can't happen? Look at the U.SS. Freedom (LCS-1).
Launched and with all the modern computer simulations-the thing wouldn't float straight. Had to add blisters to the hull.
Or Lockheed Martin's screw up with a USCG life extension program. Tried lengthening hulls and the darn things kept cracking

 

[2022MAVERICKAWDCT]

The Maverick is based on the Escape and Bronco Sport that they did spend a lot of time on, so really they are just making modifications to a certain design, so its not like they created it from scratch.

That said, I am worried about the much shorter warranty on Ford products compared to Hyundai 10yr/100K miles, and fact that at least Consumer Reports has not put either the Escape nor the Bronco Sport on its "recommended" list despite very good road test scores, due to both being relegated to its worst predicted reliability score rating:

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/consumer-reports-cant-recommend-the-2021-ford-bronco-sport/

The Bronco Sport despite experience with the Escape already got three recalls in such a short period of time, and over on Edmunds there are also a lot of alarming reviews of people with powertrain errors on their new vehicles:

https://www.edmunds.com/ford/bronco-sport/2021/consumer-reviews/?rating=1

Many manufacturers including Volkswagen have also seen reliability issues out of vehicles built in Mexican plants, and the preview video we watched said that because this is a new line of vehicles being produced they are hiring a new crew and training them, rather than just retraining existing employees with years experience from one vehicle to a new vehicle. Makes you wonder if many of these people have ever even built a car before, or if this will be their first attempt.

Even though people were mocking them, I was also really interested in a Jeep Renegade back when they still made then in 4WD with the Abarth engine and 6-speed manual, but I was worried about reliability, and sure enough the forum ended up littered with reliability complaints where it would spend weeks in the shop. So the only real fear I have with the Maverick is not hard plastics or anything, but just if I'm going to have headaches or not. But then again I drove a 500 Abarth for damn near 100K miles and its been the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned, and it too had warnings about Fiat reliability.

I had a 2015 Jeep Renegade Trailhawk....It was plagued with electrical issues and was in the shop for over a month once. It also chewed thru control arms every 6 months. Engine was the 2.4L and was decent though.

My 2018 Subaru Crosstrek has been very reliable, and only one issue, a water-pump, very early on. I am very hesitant to trade / sell it. I might keep it as backup.

So, I do have my concerns the Maverick may be plagued with problems, but I mostly work from home and my dealer is a few miles away. All I can hope for is that they will make things "right" and it's not in the shop too much.

 

[Falcon first]

Only subscribers to Consumer Reports get a car questionnaire, the don’t randomly contact people about cars. The also ask about all major purchases like appliances, lawnmowers, computers, phones but if your expecting someone to randomly contact you or you randomly contact them it doesn’t work that way.

 

[oljackfrost]

Only subscribers to Consumer Reports get a car questionnaire, the don’t randomly contact people about cars. The also ask about all major purchases like appliances, lawnmowers, computers, phones but if your expecting someone to randomly contact you or you randomly contact them it doesn’t work that way.

So their ratings are actually based on a small sample of overall vehicle owners. And, if they follow CR ratings, fewer of them actually own domestic vehicles. That and CR subscribers tend to be “nit picky”. I’ve owned a number of vehicles in the past that CR hated and they were all very reliable vehicles. Worked for a while at the dealership level and it was common knowledge that import buyers religiously followed the maintenance schedule and domestic buyers, on the whole, did not; that can skew any survey results. I always maintained my vehicles and did frequent oil changes... maybe that’s why my vehicles were reliable when CR said that they weren’t.

 

[LITH505]

I could be misremembering but was the 500 deaths what Ford considered ‘acceptable’? I have a vague recollection of Ford being cognizant of the design flaw late in development and deciding the cost of a few lawsuits (up to 500?!?) being less than the cost of redesign and being late to market.




Glad you’re ok. looks serious. It was the hatchback that had the explosion problem. We had 3 or 4 station wagons in the family through the seventies And a dog of a Mustang II.

I studied the Pinto case in college (30 years ago). If I remember correctly it was a $10 part that would have prevented the fires caused by a rear end collisions. There was company documentation showing the cost analysis of adding the part vs what they would have to payout in lawsuits. A human life at the time was worth a few hundred thousand (don’t remember the exact figure).
Basically they decided it was cheaper not to make the fix.

 

[LITH505]

I studied the Pinto case in college (30 years ago). If I remember correctly it was a $10 part that would have prevented the fires caused by a rear end collisions. There was company documentation showing the cost analysis of adding the part vs what they would have to payout in lawsuits. A human life at the time was worth a few hundred thousand (don’t remember the exact figure).
Basically they decided it was cheaper not to make the fix.

Found an article about the memo: https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/autos/2008/oct/17/pinto-memo-its-cheaper-let-them-burn/

The Infamous "Pinto Memo"

Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires

Expected Costs of producing the Pinto with fuel tank modifications:
Expected unit sales: 11 million vehicles (includes utility vehicles built on same chassis)
Modification costs per unit: $11.00

Total Cost: $121 million (11,000,000 vehicles x $11.00 per unit)

Expected Costs of producing the Pinto without fuel tank modifications:
Expected accident results (assuming 2100 accidents)
180 burn deaths
180 serious burn injuries
2100 burned out vehicles

Unit costs of accident results (assuming out of court settlements)
$200,000 per burn death
$67,000 per serious injury
$700 per burned out vehicle

Total Costs: $49.53 million (180 deaths x $200k) + (180 injuries x $67k) + (2100 vehicles x $700 per vehicle)
(http://www.calbaptist.edu/dskubik/pinto.htm)

interesting presentation:

 

[garnermike]

Read the earlier posts. That 500 figure is inaccurate

I read them, and know it's inaccurate.
My point was that the originating post by Platinum2, offered in "fun," then bringing up Pinto fatalities, was just plain strange (if not ridiculous).

 

[jimmy fitzwell]

So far, it is impossible. There are not enough Mavs to explode 500 times.

BTW, seriously, 500 death in explosions? I read some articles on internet, and they says only 27 death. I could be wrong. The internet may not be as credible as Pinto.

Yes, 27 deaths is more like it. That was the number running through my head after I read the "500".
Really no different than similar cars of the era>

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

Yes, 27 deaths is more like it. That was the number running through my head after I read the "500".
Really no different than similar cars of the era>

I posted an academic ethics class on the issue above. It is a well studied case. 27 is the legal number, the actual number as many as 500,

 

[jimmy fitzwell]

I studied the Pinto case in college (30 years ago). If I remember correctly it was a $10 part that would have prevented the fires caused by a rear end collisions. There was company documentation showing the cost analysis of adding the part vs what they would have to payout in lawsuits. A human life at the time was worth a few hundred thousand (don’t remember the exact figure).
Basically they decided it was cheaper not to make the fix.

It was an $11 part as I remember.
The cost/benefit ratio was and is done by probably every automobile manufacturer in the world. At least it is in the U.S.
Your study of the case probably revealed that the NTSB (or whatever it was called then) requested these cost/benefit analyses in safety cases.

I think it was Mother Earth News that made the stink about the Pinto. Some Ralph Nader wannabe trying to make a name for himself.

 

[jimmy fitzwell]

I posted an academic ethics class on the issue above. It is a well studied case. 27 is the legal number, the actual number as many as 500,

I took a quick look at that and there is no reason for me to regard it as the truth. Sorry.

Sponsored