The Ford Pinto: How Car's Problems Mimic those of the Tobacco Industry

What happened with Ford Motors and its Pinto vehicle is appalling. It is a disgusting example of the quest for profit regardless of consequences - even if those include human casualties. Although it is shocking, it is not surprising. Most companies are under enormous pressure to do whatever it takes to develop a cost efficient product on a rigid time schedule. This scenario plays out countless times within businesses, though it is not always of this magnitude.

In the late 1960's, there was a pressing need for an affordable compact car; thus, the Pinto was created in less than 25 months [with the standard being 43 months] by Ford to enter the competitive automotive market. "During design and production, however, crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank. In crashes over 25 miles per hour, the gas tank always ruptured. To correct it would have required changing and strengthening the design" (Pinto). Nobody dared tell the president of the company who was pushing a 1971 showroom release. Despite the deficiency, the car was released to the public and caused numerous deaths and injuries. Perhaps the most unsettling fact of this entire case is that for a mere $5.08 a part could have been added that would have made the gas tank fully functional.

Those who were involved with the car used a popular business method referred to as the Cost-Benefit Analysis when deciding whether or not to alter the fuel tank. According to their logic:

BENEFITS
Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle.
Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2100 X ($700) = $49.5 million.
COSTS
Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks
Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck
Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million

Based on their calculations, it was cheaper for the company to risk deaths of innocent consumers than to correct the flaw.

As callous as this sounds, it is not uncommon. The president of the company frequently said "safety doesn't sell" (Pinto). Even an engineer who worked on the vehicles said that safety was not at the forefront of the agenda. "This company is run by salesmen, not engineers; so the priority is styling, not safety" (Pinto). Furthermore, anyone who challenged the regulations or deadlines was likely to be fired on the spot. One engineer who asked to have a presentation about gas tank safety wasn't given an audience and those who worked for the company said that the problems "weren't a popular subject and not discussed" (Pinto).

There can be parallels drawn to the tobacco industry. Both Ford Motors with the Pinto and Big Tobacco with the cigarette were aware that they were selling a product that was dangerous and could ultimately cause death. Each has been involved with lawsuits that cost millions of dollars and have come under scrutiny for the media glamorizing their merchandise. However, there are some major differences that make this an apples and oranges comparison. Ford issued a recall for the Pinto and later models were corrected. The same can't be said for cigarettes. There is no possible way to make a cigarette safe. Consumers assume their vehicle is safe and has gone through rigorous testing procedures. Everyone knows cigarettes possess numerous health risks. If you had a defective Pinto, there's always the chance that you would never know of the problem if the vehicle was never in an accident. Smokers have a chance that they will escape cancer, emphysema, and other smoking related illnesses or death. Unlike a car, Big Tobacco sells something that is physically addictive and can cause a lifelong dependency. Their argument is that smoking is a choice and people have the right to make that decision. Initially that may be the case, but what happens when somebody switches from a casual smoker to somebody who can't go without a pack a day? It is also much easier for youths to obtain cigarettes than it is for them to drive around in cars, so by the time they have reached the legal age of consent, there could already be an addiction.

Works Cited:

http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx