Could Maverick be the next Pinto?

[hsinking1932]

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,

https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361...oes-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/

Thanks for posting this excellent article. However, it doesn't say there are 500 death or explosions. It says, "its critics say the figure is closer to 500."

I don't want to be rude, but 500 is a big number. It is almost 1/6 of the death toll in 911, and twice of the death toll in the Lockerbie bombing. This is a serious allegation and deserves to be discussed seriously. At the very least, we should have a list of the victims before starting the air raid on Ford.

Sponsored

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361...oes-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/

Thanks for posting this excellent article. However, it doesn't say there are 500 death or explosions. It says, "its critics say the figure is closer to 500."

I don't want to be rude, but 500 is a big number. It is almost 1/6 of the death doll in 911, and twice of the death doll in the Lockerbie bombing. This is a serious allegation and deserves to be discussed seriously. At the very least, we should have a list of the victims before starting the air raid on Ford.

I am simply pointing out the is likely greater than 27 and less than 500. I am also saying it was a financial to ford in the day. I suspect the vas majority of Ford’s board has moved on and that corporate culture has likely changed it is an artifact of history and business ethics not ford today, else I would not consider buying let alone confirmed ordering a ford today.

 

[Rkbrumbelow]

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

Then thats your position. I think you are dead wrong and have poor reasoning skills, but that and 7.15$ at starbucks will buy my SO’s favourite drink (heres a clue it costs the same regardless of my opinion, thus my opinion holds a 0 value) except when I teach ethics and then, only to my students

 

[Morgan33]

My humble opinion is this mav, is not particularly groundbreaking.
Ford has made smaller trucks before.
Most of the tech looks to be from an escape or fusion.
And it appears to be just a unibody suv with a bed.
Don't get me wrong though i cant wait for mine.
Its the price and hybrid that got me.
I just don't see them blowing up like the pintos .
The xl trim screams 86 escort. I like it

 

[Barracuda340]

The pinto was a clean sheet of paper design in 1971. Ford had nothing else other than door handles and the instrument cluster and taillights from the maverick car of the time to parts bin off of to make that car. Ditto for the chevy Vegas of that era that was clean sheet design as well. This being said, everything that's designed and built by people can have flaws or design errors.

I work in aviation heavy maintenance. Specifically structural repair. After TWA flight 800 blew up on takeoff over long island killing 400 people, the aircraft I work on required a design change to the fuel tanks, and grounding straps for them. This was driven by the flight 800 tragedy. This was a 25 plus year old Boeing 747-400 when this happened. It took that long for this flaw to cause this, driving design changes and FAA driven Airworthiness Directives or ADs on ALL USA flown commercial airliners already built, and on the drawing board. Engineers are smart folks, but they are also human.

The maverick is not really a complete ground up vehicle as its underpinnings and drivetrain and likely powertrain control computer are lifted from the ford escape. The driveshaft and exhaust center of vehicle pipe are likely longer because of the maverick having a longer wheelbase than the escape. Those 2 changes are a minor thing.

Heck it may even share the front floor pan sheetmetal stamping, cowl and firewall sheetmetal stampings, and framerail stampings with the bronco sport. Sort of an extended wheelbase version of the bronco sport/escape. Being both vehicles are being made in the same factory some of that could be possible keeping the cost down. Most customers only look at the outer sheetmetal and interior, however I am only guessing at what extent of the bronco sport and or escape under body structure will be used on the maverick.

Does parts bin raiding for a new vehicle mean it's going to be perfect? Of course not, but it betters the odds that it will, and it does keep the development costs down and speeds development time of a new vehicle using a tried and true proven drivetrain design already in use.

The 1964 1/2 mustang was essentially a ford falcon underneath. I think the engineers today are a bit more smarter because of lessons learned in the past. For instance, ford used drop in fuel tanks in their passenger cars through 1969. Meaning, the tank went in through the top of the trunk, and the top of the gas tank was the trunk floor. Plus the gas cap was in the center between the taillights. Mustang , falcon, and Torino were like this. Nobody does this anymore. It's a bad design.

1976 Chrysler came out with the Plymouth Volare and Dodge Aspen. These cars were rushed into production, and were not adequately tested to correct pre production flaws. It ended up that the end purchaser was like a tester. These were cars that people actually wanted to buy, but ended up getting tricked because of all the problems and recalls.

The front fenders rusted off them within 2 years. Chrysler was obligated to repair these cars under warranty. The rusted fender program alone cost that company millions of dollars when it could ill afford it. It damaged that companies image for close to 25 years because of that.

Wifes Dodge grand caravan had a recall for the rear window vent switches to be replaced. Why, because a partially open window could allow water to drip on them and short them out.

My 2007 mustang GT was subject to the takata airbag recall. Again manufactures try to get it right, but sometimes they dont. The good part is their willingness to recall the product to correct the these defects for their customer.

There was a time when the car makers did not do this back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Read Ralph Naders book "unsafe at any speed" if you want to see what carmakers did back then in regards to faulty products.

Point is all car makers these days test, and test, and test some more, putting equivalents of millions of miles on pre production test "mules" then dissassemble them and inspect the parts and vehicle structure to find the flaws in the design and correct them before we the consumer buy the vehicles so we are not the vehicle testers.

Bad publicity from a deadly vehicle flaw or a vehicle with lots of problems because of a bad design will hurt any automaker in their bottom line. It creates doubts in the quality of the brand. Sometimes they miss something. Its human error.

I have no doubt the maverick will be a fine vehicle to own. If it has a recall, just take it back. No biggie.

Pic below is the right way to paint flames on a pinto.

 

[NewBernWolf]

Preface: This is meant to be a "fun, thought-provoking" thread to pass time while we all wait for our trucks.

There are some eerily similar details between the development of the new Maverick and the Ford Pinto produced through 1980.

For those of us who have been around a while, recall that the Pinto (codenamed Lee's Car) went from sketch pad to showroom in a remarkable 24 months. It also set the standard for lightweight cars among domestic manufacturers at the time. It was first to market ahead of AMC's Gremlin and Chevrolet's Vega. Lastly, it carried a shockingly low price. Sound familiar?

It did not take long for the Pinto's shortcomings to become apparent. The explosive fuel tanks were the main problem which has been well documented over the years.

This might beg the question: Could the Maverick be the next Pinto? Having been developed in just 22 months, relatively lightweight in its construction, and sold at a low price, this could put hundreds of thousands of these vehicles on roadways in a very short period of time. Could a major design error could match or exceed the 500+ lives lost to the Pinto?

While manufacturing processes have no doubt gotten much better and modern safety systems are nothing short of amazing in most cases, it all starts with the engineering and requires strict quality control at all levels.

What do you think about these stark similarities?

No.
Stop.

 

[Barracuda340]

NewBernWolf are you in North Carolina ? If so My older brother lives there. Nice place to live. Lots of revolutionary war history.

 

[Benson]

My humble opinion is this mav, is not particularly groundbreaking.
Ford has made smaller trucks before.
Most of the tech looks to be from an escape or fusion.
And it appears to be just a unibody suv with a bed.
Don't get me wrong though i cant wait for mine.
Its the price and hybrid that got me.
I just don't see them blowing up like the pintos .
The xl trim screams 86 escort. I like it

You are quite the 'TROLL" of this forum.

 

[IPunchCholla]

 

[maggie06]

Whoops! I was stuck in the 70s

I bet many people Over 60 are.

 

[Elduchey]

I learned how to drive stick in an absolute perfect condition dark green Pinto back in the day. Despite it's reputation, they were pretty decent little cars and in my opinion, looked way better than the Escort that replaced them.

 

[NNJGUY]

Hard to believe Ford was able to survive during the Pinto era. In today's litigious world, 500 fiery deaths would certainly spell ruin.

Beginning of the end of cars for ford.

 

[Smack]

Everything talks less time and safer when it can be modeled on a computer before production.
The Pinto error was the length of a screw used that would puncture the fuel tank when hit from behind spraying fuel and causing ignition (big ass fire).

 

[garnermike]

At least the Pinot was a better car than its main same-class competitor, the Chevy Vega. I bought a 1975 Vega, and within two years, all 4 quarter panels rusted through. Garbage!

Sponsored