Pinto Fire Case Analysis

Main issue

Pinto’s fuel tank ruptured and the car exploded that caused passengers injured and even died. Three teenage girls named Lynn Marie Ulrich, Donna Ulrich, Judy Ann, who died in 1978 because of the Pinto was hit by the following car and the fuel tank burned. After that it also talked about another ruptured fuel tank accident happened in 1972, which result in Richard Grimshaw was burned 90% of his body.

Secondary issue

Defective Pinto’s fuel system design caused many issues. The design of the vehicle expanded the possibility of a crack in the fuel tank and the vehicle blasted in flames. And the problematic design lead to people who took or drove this car to suffer a different degree of injury or even death. Furthermore, the case has called attention to the problems that the administration has faced about the production of Pinto, which related to the dilemma of reducing cost and keeping production appearance and clarified management’s attitude toward to this situation.

Internal analysis

Iacocca, who became the president of Ford after the two-year internal struggle, who believe Ford should occupy more small car market. He expected the Pinto could be showed in 1971, which forced that production period of Pinto must be compressed to two years instead of normal three years. The shortened production time led to quality defects of the car. During the following crash testing, the back impact created fracture of the fuel tank easily. Thus, the result of this crash test indicated that Ford and Iacocca have known the fault of Pinto clearly and completely. But Iacocca firmly believed that “safety doesn’t sell”, and because the redesign costs a lot of money and time, which would delay the introduction of Pinto, the Ford did not solve the hidden trouble on time.

 Besides, Ford tried to move gas tank into different places, but on the one hand there was no feasible adjustment could guarantee both safety problem and offer enough trunk space, and on the other hand, the Ford engineer said, “Safety isn’t the issue, trunk space is.”, the adjustment of the gas trunk was not important and was not considered anymore.

External analysis

The competition pressure from foreign companies, such as the development of Japanese and Germans limited and threatened Ford to occupied more market shares. So, Ford wanted to introduce the new product as soon as possible which was another reason that why Iacocca tried to shorten Pinto’s production time and then caused quality defects.

Meanwhile, when Pinto finished the crash test, although the result did not pass the standard 301, standard 301 just be established but not approved yet, thus, Iacocca seems had a reasonable excuse to publish Pinto instead of perfect Pinto’s gas tank. Moreover, to satisfy customers’ buying demand and to be competitive, Iacocca set an objective that not allowed Pinto weight more than 2000 pounds and cost more than $2000, which restricted Pinto to make any improvement about the safety problem.

Alternative 1: Ford does not recall the cars.

If Ford does not recall Pinto, Iacocca’s own interest can be satisfied because he did not care about safety problem but only cost. (Egoism)Ford can save money from recalling the Pinto. (Discourse Ethics) More people could be dead or injured by using Pinto, which will cause a negative influence on the whole society. (Utilitarianism, Ethics of Duty and Rights) The victims’ families will be suffered. (Postmodern Ethics)More and more negative report about Pinto be published and customers start losing confidence and loyalty to Ford, they may stop buying Pinto or even other Ford production.(Feminist Ethics) If in the future, the problem of Pinto is exposed instead Ford admits it automatically, Ford will face a bigger reputation problem and larger financial compensation. And if Ford causes more injuries, it may be considered as murder or negligence which will have legal liability.(Virtue Ethics)

Alternative 2: Ford recalls the cars.

Ford will cost more to fix the gas tank which is $137.5 million but can reduce death and injury.(Feminist Ethics)Company improve the quality problem (Virtue and Discourse Ethics)and be responsible to both the company and the public(Utilitarianism, Duty, and right).Ford will present a positive attitude to solve the problem.Recalling the car recognizes that Ford made mistakes and caused people injured, the company may be censured by victims’ families and the public which will influence Ford’s reputation and sales in short term. (Postmodern Ethics)