I have no idea why Ford replaced your Pinto with a Bobcat (I suspect you are not telling us the whole story). And the gas tank wasn't moved at all. The only thing that changed was they added huge bumpers becasue of the 5 mph bumper rules. My family owned two Pintos (a '72 and a '73). Neither was replaced for free. We did get the recall parts (polyethelene shield, long filler neck and filler neck reinforcement ring) for "free."
Where are you gertting this 500 number? It smacks of total BS and I suspect is from the wildly inaccurate Mother Jones article ( a hatchet job full of lies and half truths). In fact your whole response smacks of the same sort of half truths that plauged the Pinto. Compared to other contemporary samll cars, Pintos were not particualrly dangerous or fireprone. They were not the safest small car in the early 70's, but they were not the most dangerous either. From "The Ford Pinto case: a study in applied ethics, business, and technology" By Douglas Birsch, John H. Fielder:
"PINTO CONTROVERSIES: FATALITIES
"Another dispute in this case involved the number people who were actually killed in low speed, rear-end collisions involving Pintos. Dowie [the Mother Jones Article author] charged that there were somewhere between 600 and 900 fire-related deaths. Prior to the recall in 1978, Ford claimed that Pintos had been involved in 35 cases of rear-impact, fuel leakage fires; producing
23 burn injuries and 21 non-impact fatalities. Of the 29 resulting lawsuits,
8 cases had been settled out of court, 19 were pending, and 2 trials had been decided in favor of Ford. (These statistics were included in the NH'ISA report in Part I.) The NHTSA's Investigation Report noted that the agency was aware of 38 cases of rear-end collisions and fires in Pintos that resulted in 27 fatalities and 24 cases of non-fatal burns. These 27 fatalities presumably included the 17 fatalities documented by the NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) over a two and a half year period from 1975 to the middle of 1977. Based on these FARS statistics, it would mean that there were about seven unnecessary deaths a year during that period. If the Ford numbers were accurate, there would have been an average of three and one half......"
It was not just Mustangs that were built this way - Falcons, Comet, Fairlanes, Mavericks - most intermediate Fords from the 60's and earl 70's - used this technie, as did some American Motors vehicles from that period.
From time to time people make a big deal about this, but I don't think there are any statistics to bear out the idea that these vehicles were significantly more dangerous than other contemporary cars. Sort of the same idea as was the case with Chevy trucks and side saddle fuel tanks. Some people like to take issue with the design, but there is no basis to the claim that this design is significantly more dangerous than other designs where the fuel tanks are under the bed between the frame rails.
For sure people have been killed in Mustang fires that started after a rear end collision, but the same is true for almost any vehicle ever built in significant numbers, no matter where the fuel tank is located. I am sure the probability of fire after a rear end collision is higher for a 1970 Mustang than it is for a 2010 Mustang, but we are talking about very samll differences. Fires after a collision are rare for most cars, even old Mustangs and old Chvy trucks.
I am old enough to have riden around in new pick-up trucks were the gas tank was behind the seat and the filler neck was out the side behind the drivers door. What do you suppose happen to those in a side impact collision......
Nader was a trained trial lawyer and acknowledge socialist. He has consistently played the part of a civic minded good guy and likes to pretend he is just an average middle class citizen. In fact he is a very wealthy individual who has been the tool of trial lawyers for decades. He is a snake. I wouldn't trust anything he says.
As for GM having him investigated after the Corvair book...if someone attaked you with a bunch of half truths and outright lies, wouldn't you want to find out why they were doing it?
And many others. CBS did a hatchet job on Ford a few years ago because some teenager had his '67 Mustang stall on the interstate and instead of doing the correct thing and coast to the shoulder he came to a stop in the traffic lane and was rear ended by another vehicle that was traveling at 70mph. There was a small fire from a leaking fuel tank and the kid got some minor burns but walked away. That sounds like a damn fine crash performance for a 40 year old car to me but CBS was wanting ford to recall all the old mustangs etc... They found some tiny number of fires (double digits) over millions of mustangs in 40+ years of service. what a crock of crap.
Or the crown vic, which may leak fuel after a SEVERE impact. Even modern FWD drive cars with the tank under the seat can leak fuel when hit by something moving at 70mph while parked.
"C. E. White" wrote in message news:idqqmv$ils$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org...
Ralph Naber graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton University with a degree in politics. Afterward he attended Harvard Law School and graduated with distinction. As his immigrant parents who owned a bakery and restaurant before him, he is not now nor has he ever been a socialist, despite the fact that and as a matter of clear public record, he either donates to charity or grants to civic minded institutions well more than 90% of his income.
He formed Public Citizen, a non-profit activist group dedicated to consumer protection, the U.S. Public Interest Group (PIRG), an umbrella group of state PIRGs fighting corporations and politicians over issues from prescription drug costs to polluted waterways to the economic lunacy of building tax-funded ballparks for billionaire sports team owners. Nader also founded the Center for Study of Responsive Law, Center for Auto Safety, the Disability Rights Center, the Pension Rights Center, the Project for Corporate Responsibility, and the Clean Water Action Project. Without the work of Nader, his followers, and the groups he's organized, there would probably be no Safe Drinking Water Act, no Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), no Environment Protection Agency (EPA), no Consumer Product Safety Administration, and no Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1974.
In addition, throughout his career, Nader has started or inspired a variety of nonprofit organizations, most of which he has maintained close associations with, including: Citizen Advocacy Center Citizens Utility Boards Congress Accountability Project Consumer Task Force For Automotive Issues Corporate Accountability Research Project Disability Rights Center Equal Justice Foundation Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights Georgia Legal Watch National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest Pension Rights Center PROD (truck safety) Retired Professionals Action Group The Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest Center for the Study of Responsive Law Public Interest Research Groups Center for Auto Safety Connecticut Citizen Action Group Aviation Consumer Action Project Clean Water Action Project Center for Women's Policy Studies Capitol Hill News Service Multinational Monitor (magazine covering multinational corporations) Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Essential Information (encourage citizen activism and do investigative journalism) Telecommunications Research and Action Center National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest Taxpayer Assets Project Princeton Project 55 (alumni public service) Appleseed Foundation (local change) Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) Center for Insurance Research Consumer Project on Technology Government Purchasing Project (encourage purchase of safe products) Center for Justice and Democracy Organization for Competitive Markets American Antitrust Institute (ensure fair competition) Commercial Alert (protect family, community, and democracy from corporations) Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest Congressional Accountability Project (fight corruption in Congress) Citizen Works (promote NGO cooperation, build grassroots support, and start new groups) Democracy Rising (hold rallies to educate and empower citizens)
In 1999, an NYU panel of eminent journalists ranked Nader's book Unsafe At Any Speed 38th among the top 100 pieces of journalism of the 20th century (He is also the author of numerous other well received books). In 1990, Life magazine named Nader one of the
100 most influential Americans of the 20th century.
The same year, Ralph Nader was inducted into the Academy of Achievement, which writes that "Ralph Nader is American's most renowned and effective crusader for the rights of consumers and the general public." Quoting Nader in interview, "A good citizen is not just a person who votes all the time. A good citizen works between elections to take on an injustice, or participate in a local, state, or national institutions." Former judge, libertarian, legal analyst and author of Lies the Government Told You, Andrew Napolitano, hails Ralph Nader as "a hero". And I could go on and on and on ...
Whereas you on the other hand are nothing more than a simple minded, misinformed (or is it just uninformed), myth disseminating, dissembling, talking points parroting "useful idiot" at best, or more likely an egregious, pathological liar and hapless, thoroughly failed bullshit artist.
Should you not have noticed, he took on the enormous weath and power of America's largest corporation and they lost big time (it wasn't a close call); the justice system determined that their intentional, purposeful, repeated actions were indisputably illegal. And despite an enormous headstart on every other car company, the "geniuses" at GM went on to further continue to fail by every other metric imaginable as well.
It's interesting how these big government control freaks seem to so often come out of harvard, princeton, and yale.
Well, it's a slight error that americans often make. Because nader is for government control of corporations, but not small businesses. But he does not seem to be against private ownership. While socialist is government control and ownership. Of course the democrats and republicans are corporatist, Corporate control of government. corporatist and fascist are effectively the same for the masses given the way people move from favored corporations to government and vice-versa.
The problem with Nader is he doesn't seem to understand that government control is ultimately exploited by large corporations against small businesses. That fascism and corporatism are much the same, that simply the two groups get together no matter how noble the regulation aims to be.
The kind of regulation he has demanded government create for "consumer protection" has ultimately locked the consumer into the products of big business, because all that regulation makes it nearly impossible for new small businesses to get started and puts existing small businesses under extreme cost pressures. Big business can ultimately comply with all this "consumer protection" at a small cost per unit made, but the guy who makes wood toys in his basement can't pass on the cost of independent lead testing to his customers when he's making tens of toys in a batch. Meanwhile mattel can easily afford in house testing for batches of hundreds of thousands of toys.
The same is true of cars. The regulatory scheme that is as much the creation of Mr. Nader as anyone else makes it very very difficult for someone to get into the car manufacturing business. Everything is regulated right down to the arm rests.
Via our dear leaders in government, giving government control. Who protects us from government?
Ok, so Nadere is not a "Socialist" with a capital "S". I should have said Nader is a radical populist and a lying snake. He, and many of the "non-profit" groups he is associated with are little more than tools supported by trial lawyers.
As for GM vs Nader, see:
formatting link
. GM tried to pay off Nader not becasue they (GM) violated a law, but becasue of the bad publicity. I agree the GM brass was stupid for gogin after Nader, but that doesn't mean Nader was right.
My comments were mostly based on rumor and what everybody believes - I have no stats to back me up but heck, it's what everybody believes! Doesn't that count for anything??!!
If there was no truth to the data Mark Dowrey uncovered than the investigation would not have been reopened by government, and Ford would have gotten off free of any liability in Pinto deaths. Instead the investigation was reopened (based on the data you claim is false), and Ford ended up paying settlements and replacing cars. They replaced my Pinto with a fixed Mercury Bobcat. I didn't even know at the time that there was anything wrong with my Pinto. One of my sons is an MBA and the Ford Pinto case was in the texts for the Business Ethics course. At that time it was reported that Ford was fined 1 dollar for each person the Pinto killed for a total of $500 dollars, and the head designer was to be fired. He was later rehired in Management.
Also the Dowrey evidence includes Fords admitted (look at the actual trial documents for the trial after the case was reopened, I couldn't find a link for you online.) 50 deaths IN THE PINTO fires, but also the deaths that were directly tied to people being badly burned. Those who perished in burn units sometimes weeks after the actual fire, those who died of infections, those who committed suicides etc..Oddly enough it only appeared to be Americans, but the Pinto was also sold in Canada. Maybe they don't rear-end as much as Americans do, who knows.
I got the 500 figures from one of my Sons who back when showed me a text from his Business Ethics course. The text definitely said that Ford was basically fined $500 dollars which worked out to $1 per human life taken in a Pinto fire. That was the first case, not the reopening due to the Dowrey investigations. Ford paid a lot more after that.
When Ford sent notice that it would replace my recently purchased Pinto with a Mercury Bobcat I didn't know anything about the Pinto fires, and that was long before I was online. All I was advised of is that I would be getting the exact same car, with the exception of design changes to the placement of the fuel tank and a reinforcement bar. Oh and I had to take maroon for the exterior and interior color, which took some getting used to. I've never bought a maroon colored car since.
I had 3 (2 drinking and 1 just not paying attention) people drive up on the hood of that thing, it was a tank. Each time I made a killing off of insurance because it was during the time when insurance would write the car off (repairs more than the resale value of car) and give me the resale value only. I went to junkyards, bought cheap parts and had a friend help me put them on for a 24 of beer or bottle of whiskey. By the 3rd accident I had made enough from insurance buy outs to pay for another car (used, but pretty new). I gave the Bobcat 'as is' to a 16 yr whose father worked at the company I was employed for, and that kid went on to drive it for another
15yrs. That Bobcat was as tough as my Honda Civic Hatchback, both were built like tanks, and both went on to live long lives after I gave them away.
I had a Ford Mustang (not GT I think it was GL or some such), but I think Ford probably had a better tank placement at the time than the earlier models you're referring to. It seemed to be a good car, but had too little clearance (maybe 3") so it hit bottom too much on an old secondary highway I had to travel once a week to a satellite office. Traded it in for a Ford Ranger Custom cab.
I've also owned a Zephyr, Marquee Grand, Marquee wagon, Taurus (my favorite Ford), Pinto, Bobcat, Gremlin (:eeks), Comet, Aero star (piece of hydroplaning crap which Ford reimbursed my completely on after it flew off the road for no reason other than a small puddle on a slight curved section of road), Renault wagon, Triumph Spitfire (sold for a bundle) Focus SE wagon, Mini Austin (original model) Civic HB, Camry, Corolla, Yaris HB, and Yaris sedan. I also owned a 1977 Corvette but that was only for 1 week. I couldn't see over the nose if it, terrified driving it so took it back.
One day I get a first class notice (with certificate) came in the mail from Ford that my recently purchased Ford Pinto will be replaced with a Mercury Bob at no cost to me. It assured the cars are exact with only a safer placement of fuel tank and reinforcement bar. I was to take the certificate to the dealership of original sale, who would handle the exchange. The only downer was that the dealership only had maroon color Bobcats left. If I wanted another color the wait would have been several months. I took maroon that day. Unlike you I never received a recall notice, didn't even realize there was a recall until a few years later when one of my sons showed me a Business Ethics course text that used the Ford Pinto case as a prime example of shady ethics in business.
That's nothing. I purchased a Ford Aero Star van. Approximately 3 months into ownership it hydroplanes on a small puddle on a slightly curved road, sending me into a post. The van is wrecked, the engine comes through the dash onto my lap, police investigation shows I've done nothing wrong, they are stumped. Long story short I'm in hospital on Sunday, by Tuesday morning someone arrives at the house with certified mail which a family member signs for. It is a a reimbursement for the full purchase price of the van, and a letter stating that the the van can be found at the original dealership if we wanted to clear anything out of it. Unfortunately I found out later that Ford had become aware that the Aero Star vans had a design flaw that made them hydroplane easily. Because the reimbursement was signed for it stopped me from being able to go after Ford legally for other costs such as hospital expenses (grand total was 25k for stay and meds + another 12k in physio when all was said and done) and 14 months off of work, but my employer helped out there anyway so I only lost about 30% of my wages over that time period.
I think either your son's course made up some BS, or you mis-remembered. See my other post with the a reference to correct information......
So you are saying, you bought a Pinto, and after you owned it, Ford came to you and said they were going to repalce it with a Bobcat? You are the only person I have ever heard make this claim. Whay did Ford say they were replacing the Pinto? I am 100% certain that they did not move the fuel tank. They did add a polyethelne shield and a longer filler neck. And the later models had much larger and heavier bumbers. But the Pintos and Bobcats all got the same fixes. I can see no credible reason they would take away your Pinto and replace it with a Bobcat from the same year unless you happened to have some sort of engineering prototype Pinto or one that had problems other than the fuel tank....
What year was your Pinto...and the repalcement Bobcat? The cost to do the recall was far less than the cost of giving you a replacement car, so something is wrong with your story....
Early Pintos and Bobcats were recalled and the fuel tank fixes were applied, but they did not involve moving the tank. They just added the polyethelene shield and improved filler neck (longer and a re-enforcement to the mount).
Here is the NHTSA summary of the recall:
Vehicle Make / Model: Model Year(s): FORD / PINTO 1971-1976
MERCURY / BOBCAT 1975-1976
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 78V143000 Summary: IN THE EVENT THE VEHICLE IS STRUCK FROM THE REAR, THE FUEL FILLER PIPE COULD DISCONNECT FROM THE TANK OR THE TANK COULD BE PUNCTURED IN THE FORWARD FACE. THIS WOULD RESULT IN FUEL LEAKAGE. Consequence: There is no summary currently available Remedy: THE DEALER WILL INSTALL A LONGER FUEL FILLER PIPE HAVING AN IMPROVED SEAL. ALSO, A POLYETHYLENE SHIELD WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FRONT OF THE FUEL TANK. Notes: VEHICLE DESCRIPTON: PASSENGER VEHICLES.SYSTEM: FUEL; FUEL TANK.CONSEQUENCES OF DEFECT: FUEL LEAKAGE, IN THE PRESENCE OF A SOURCE OF IGNITION,COULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE FIRE AND SERIOUS INJURY TO PASSENGERS.
You're wrong because even Ford said 50 Americans died IN THE PINTO FIRES, during their second trial. Go to a library and look at copies of the actual court documents. You won't find them online. Also the Dowrey evidence was accurate enough to force the goverment to reopen the investigation, and they say more than 500, something like as many as 900 Americans. 500 is what the text said. I know what I read, you don't.
I don't care what you think, because as you've indicated before you don't know why. I may not know the truth behind why Ford did what they did, but I do know what happened, I was there. Also the Bobcat WAS NOT exactly like the Pinto in body style or gas tank placement and reinforcement, unless you think Ford lied in writing? I don't think they would be that stupid. Even the grill was different on the Bobcat I was given, and the interior on the inside was much nicer than the Pinto they replaced. My Pinto was a bought late in 1975, and it was replaced in early 1976 with a 1976 Bobcat. Nuff said.
I think I share with several r.a.t. readers a respect for guys who make and build. Which is why Nader is so loathed; a man who has broken many things, some of them once beautiful and useful, but built nothing.
You can rest assured in the most certain knowledge conceivable that a week alone in his life far surpasses the "accomplishments" in the entire ancestry of your heritage.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.