Management

Ford Pinto Fish Seder

In the late 1960’s, to combat an increasing number of foreign imports, Ford motor company set out to create a car that was cheap and light.  An everyman’s car.  The solution was the Ford Pinto.  Because the Pinto was so lightweight and inexpensive, there were obvious overlooked and underplayed safety concerns.  Along with this, Ford actually did a Cost versus Benefit analysis, which seemingly and unethically, put a value on human life ($200,000).   Incorrect part placement would prove to be the driving issue behind why the car was such a failure, with the incorrect and slightly awkward placement of the gas tank, which was put in the rear of the car.  Ford made the inexpensive Pinto to stand up to foreign manufacturers, but ultimately ended up creating more issues for themselves and the name of Ford.

The main issue with the Pinto was the rear placement of the gas tank.  This was made apparent after numerous crash tests done by Ford, and ultimately brought into public light after the infamous crash of the woman and her child on a busy highway in Los Angeles.  The woman’s car was struck from behind as it stalled out after pulling onto the highway.  Subsequently another issue arose when the car caught on fire due to the gas tank being struck.  Ford knew of all these problems and issues, but for profit and benefit sake, still decided to mass produce the Pinto.  With their Cost and Benefit analysis in pre-production, they even figured that they would make more money than they would shell out for lawsuits.  This, understandably, did not go over well with the jury, which was involved in many lawsuits against Ford.  Ford did shell out a lot of money, but even though their Cost and Benefit analysis seemed unethical, it wasn’t unconstitutional.

Stakeholders

After evaluating all of the issues that are involved in the Ford Pinto case, it’s important to see who will be directly affected by the production of the vehicle. In this case, many people were likely to be involved being that each car wreck where a Ford Pinto was involved, affected both driver of the Ford, and whoever had impacted the Ford vehicle. As the Ford Pinto was mass produced, increasing numbers of people reported they had been injured due to car accidents with Ford. As a result, Ford was given a heavy responsibility of creating a car that was not only dangerous, but potentially deadly. Many angry customers flooded back demanding some sort of justice from the Ford company. As the article explains, this became an issue not only for the Ford company and their consumers, but everyone who could potentially be involved in a car accident with a Ford Pinto, no matter what vehicle it may be.

Quickly, reports from all over the country notified Ford of the destruction their vehicle had caused. One hundred and eighty deaths caused by fire had resulted from wrecks with the Ford Pinto. An equal amount of people had serious burns but still survived. In total, two thousand one hundred Ford Pinto’s had been engulfed in flames completely destroying the car. Ford now faced a costly decision on what they were going to do as a result of the failed production. They faced huge lawsuits of those who had been injured, as many questioned the future reliability of Ford’s future productions.

After considering the current situation with Ford, there are several credible  solutions that Ford could decide to use. It’s important to weigh these solutions  in order to please both consumers and citizens involved with the case. Until this point, General Ford Motors had a respectable and valuable reputation.  It is no secret that Ford customers would be furious with the results of this seemingly “new and improved” version of the lightweight Ford Pinto.  As we read the article, it becomes very apparent how buyers feel about the Ford product. In fact, thousands of lives were lost due to this costly mistake made by Ford.

By considering the situation, one plausible solution would be to announce a mandatory recall of all Ford Pinto cars and grant an in-store credit of equal value to be put towards other Ford products or vehicles.  The safety regulations were instituted for a reason. Any vehicle that violates the regulations is considered a hazard to all others on the road and must be removed from the equation. Another option could include allowing Ford Pinto Owners to maintain ownership of the cars but to allow them to have the option of keeping the car or trading it in for a different Ford vehicle of equal or lesser value. A third possible solution could be to allow the buyers to retain possession of their Pinto vehicles but also give them an instore credit of one thousand dollars.

Each of these solutions would have consequences both good and bad depending on the manner they are handled. If the first solution is selected, it is probable that Ford Pinto owners would be upset with the inconvenience, yet grateful to have the opportunity to trade their car in for a safer, approved car. If the second solution is chosen, it would give Pinto owners more freedom and opportunity to choose what they prefer. However, it could be detrimental to other drivers if Ford Pinto cars are allowed to remain on the road.  With faulty cars on the road, others’ lives would be at risk as well.  The third option would have similar consequences to the second. By allowing buyers to retain possession of their vehicles, the risk still exists for possible car crashes and more importantly car fires. If Ford were to give them credit as well, the company would essentially lose double the amount of money to the buyers.

Evaluation

Decide

Explain

Reflect

Ford decided to not fix the car because it ended up costing far more to alter the vehicle's design, than to deal with the crashes and victims.  Ford did face a lot of lawsuits, however, but still holds to the idea that they profited more on selling cars that were essentially moving ‘deathtraps’ than they spent on paying lawsuits, hospital bills, and loss of life.