Ford's Disaster: The Pinto

Summary

This video explores the history and controversy surrounding the Ford Pinto, a subcompact car released in the 1970s. It delves into the car's design flaws, particularly its dangerous fuel tank placement, which led to a reputation for exploding upon rear impact. The narrative also examines the broader context of automotive safety regulations and public perception at the time. Despite its notorious image, the video argues that the Pinto's dangers may have been overstated, comparing its safety record with other cars like the AMC Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega, and Volkswagen Beetle.

Takeaways

• 🚗 The Ford Pinto was a subcompact car produced by Ford in the 1970s, initially marketed as a 'little carefree car'.
• 🔥 The Pinto gained a notorious reputation for its design flaws, particularly the placement of the fuel tank, which made it prone to explosions in rear-end collisions.
• 🏁 The Pinto was released in 1970, and by 1974, more than half a million units had been sold, making it initially popular despite its later safety issues.
• 🏢 Ford's decision to produce the Pinto was influenced by Lee Iacocca, who argued that competing in the subcompact market would help Ford establish a stronger foothold against import brands.
• 📈 Ford rushed the Pinto into production, imposing a strict deadline of 25 months from approval to market, prioritizing cost and weight over safety.
• 💡 The Pinto's design was influenced by the need to meet the '2000 to 2000' rule – a weight of no more than 2000 pounds and a cost of no more than $2000.
• 📚 The Pinto's safety issues were highlighted by consumer advocate Ralph Nader in his book 'Unsafe at Any Speed', which led to increased public awareness and regulatory changes.
• 📉 Ford's internal cost-benefit analysis, which considered the costs of potential lawsuits versus safety improvements, was later criticized as placing a monetary value on human lives.
• 🚑 The Pinto was involved in numerous legal cases, with one notable case, Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company, resulting in a large punitive damage award for the plaintiffs.
• 🔍 Despite the Pinto's reputation, some argue that the car's safety record was not significantly worse than other subcompact cars of the era, and the public perception may have been overstated.

Q & A

What car did the narrator learn to drive in?

The narrator learned to drive in a 1976 Ford Pinto.

What was the public perception of the Ford Pinto due to its design flaws?

The public perception of the Ford Pinto was that it was one of the most dangerous cars ever built due to its design flaws, which could cause it to explode into flames if hit from behind or subjected to strong winds.

What was the significance of the 1970s small car market in the United States?

The 1970s small car market in the United States was significant because it saw the rise of imported small cars like the Volkswagen Beetle and the Nash Metropolitan, which found a niche in the American market dominated by larger automobiles.

Which American car manufacturer first released a small car model in response to the trend of imported small cars?

American Motors Corporation (AMC) was the first to release a small car model, the Gremlin, in April 1970.

What was the role of Lee Iacocca in the development of the Ford Pinto?

Lee Iacocca, then Executive Vice President of Ford Motor Company, championed the idea of Ford producing a sub-compact car, arguing that it would help Ford compete with imports and potentially lead to customer loyalty as they traded up to larger Ford models.

What was the '2000 to 2000' rule imposed by Lee Iacocca for the Ford Pinto?

The '2000 to 2000' rule imposed by Lee Iacocca stated that the Ford Pinto could weigh no more than 2,000 pounds and cost no more than $2,000.

What regulatory changes were happening in the automotive industry during the introduction of the Ford Pinto?

During the introduction of the Ford Pinto, the U.S. was undergoing regulatory changes with the creation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the proposal of new safety standards, including requirements for fuel system integrity.

Why did Ford decide not to address the safety issues found in their crash tests?

Ford decided not to address the safety issues found in their crash tests because the Pinto tooling machines were almost completely built, and the company had already invested heavily in the production process. They also believed that the proposed safety regulations were not yet in effect.

What was the outcome of the Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company lawsuit?

In the Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company lawsuit, the jury awarded compensatory damages to the victims and their families, and initially awarded a large sum in punitive damages. However, the judge reduced the punitive damages, and Ford appealed the judgment, which was ultimately upheld.

How has the reputation of the Ford Pinto evolved over time?

The reputation of the Ford Pinto has evolved from being seen as a dangerous 'fire trap' to a more nuanced understanding that its safety issues were overstated and that it was as safe, if not safer, than other cars of its time.

What was the role of the Mother Jones article and the CBS television show '60 Minutes' in shaping public perception of the Ford Pinto?

The Mother Jones article and the CBS television show '60 Minutes' played a significant role in shaping public perception of the Ford Pinto by highlighting the internal Ford documents and the company's alleged cost-benefit analysis, which contributed to the narrative that Ford knowingly produced a dangerous vehicle.

Outlines

00:00

🚗 The Ford Pinto: A Tale of Controversy and Innovation

The Ford Pinto, introduced in 1970, was a sub-compact car designed by Ford to compete in the small car market dominated by imports like the Volkswagen Beetle. Despite its initial success, the Pinto became infamous for its safety issues, particularly the placement of the fuel tank which increased the risk of fire in rear-end collisions. The car's development was marked by a rush to meet aggressive deadlines set by Lee Iacocca, who envisioned the Pinto as a gateway for Ford to capture a larger market share. The Pinto's legacy is a complex interplay of corporate strategy, consumer demand, and evolving safety regulations, culminating in a pivotal case study in automotive history.

05:01

🔥 The Pinto's Safety Controversy: A Turning Point in Automotive Safety

The Ford Pinto's safety controversy began with a series of accidents that highlighted the car's vulnerability to fuel tank fires upon rear-end collisions. This issue was further complicated by Ford's internal cost-benefit analysis, which was later misconstrued as placing a monetary value on human lives. The controversy led to significant legal battles, including the Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company case, which resulted in a landmark punitive damages award. The Pinto's safety issues also coincided with the establishment of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and new automotive safety standards, marking a critical juncture in the industry's approach to consumer safety.

10:02

📉 Public Perception and Legal Battles: The Pinto's Legacy Reexamined

The Ford Pinto's reputation suffered greatly from the public perception of it being a 'death trap' due to its safety issues. However, subsequent analysis and legal reviews have suggested that the Pinto's safety record may have been overstated. Legal cases, such as Grimshaw vs. Ford, resulted in substantial damages awarded to the plaintiffs, but also led to a deeper examination of the car's actual safety record compared to other vehicles of the era. The narrative surrounding the Pinto has been challenged, with some arguing that the car's portrayal in the media and legal circles was not entirely accurate, and that its safety issues were not unique among its contemporaries.

15:04

🔍 Reevaluating the Pinto: Separating Myth from Reality

The final paragraph delves into the reevaluation of the Ford Pinto's legacy, challenging the myths and misconceptions that have persisted since the 1970s and 1980s. It suggests that the Pinto's reputation as an unsafe vehicle may have been exaggerated, and that its safety record was not significantly worse than other cars of the time. The paragraph also touches on the role of media and public sentiment in shaping the Pinto's narrative, and the importance of historical revisionism in understanding the true impact and significance of the Pinto in automotive history.

Keywords

💡Ford Pinto

The Ford Pinto was a subcompact car produced by Ford in the 1970s. It is infamous for its design flaws, particularly concerning the placement of the fuel tank, which made it prone to catching fire in rear-end collisions. The Pinto is central to the video's theme of examining historical misconceptions and the reality behind the car's safety issues.

💡Safety Regulations

Safety regulations in the context of the video refer to the standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to ensure vehicles meet certain safety criteria. The Ford Pinto's history is tied to these regulations, as it was subject to scrutiny for not adhering to proposed fuel system integrity standards, leading to the car's notorious reputation.

💡Lee Iacocca

Lee Iacocca was an executive at Ford Motor Company who played a significant role in the development of the Ford Pinto. He is mentioned in the video as the champion for Ford's entry into the subcompact car market. His influence and decisions are key to understanding the Pinto's development and the corporate strategy behind it.

💡Sub-Compact Car

A sub-compact car is a classification for small-sized automobiles, smaller than a compact car. The video discusses the rise of sub-compact cars in the U.S. market, with the Ford Pinto being a notable example. The term is important for understanding the market trend that led to the Pinto's creation.

💡Product Liability

Product liability refers to the legal responsibility a manufacturer has for damages or injuries caused by a defective product. The Ford Pinto became a landmark case in product liability due to the numerous lawsuits filed against Ford for the car's safety issues, as highlighted in the video.

💡Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives by comparing their costs against their benefits. In the video, it is mentioned in relation to Ford's internal assessment of the financial implications of addressing the Pinto's fuel tank issue versus the potential cost of lawsuits, which became a controversial point in the public's perception of Ford's ethics.

💡Rear-End Collision

A rear-end collision occurs when one vehicle hits another from behind. The video emphasizes this type of collision in relation to the Ford Pinto, as it was discovered that the car's fuel tank design made it particularly susceptible to fire upon such impacts, leading to serious accidents and fatalities.

💡Corporate Ethics

Corporate ethics pertains to the moral principles that guide businesses in their dealings. The Ford Pinto case is presented in the video as a critical examination of corporate ethics, questioning Ford's decision-making process and the prioritization of cost-saving over consumer safety.

💡Pinto Madness

Pinto Madness is an article published by Mother Jones magazine that brought significant public attention to the Ford Pinto's safety issues. The video discusses the impact of this article on the public's perception of the Pinto and the subsequent legal and ethical debates it sparked.

💡Recalls

A recall is a request by the manufacturer to return a product due to safety concerns. The video mentions that Ford issued a voluntary recall for some Pintos to address the fuel system issues. However, the effectiveness and implications of this recall are part of the broader narrative on the Pinto's safety and Ford's corporate responsibility.

💡Historical Revisionism

Historical revisionism refers to the reinterpretation of historical events or figures. The video suggests that the Ford Pinto's reputation may have been a result of historical revisionism, as new insights and data have led to a reevaluation of the car's safety issues and Ford's actions.

Highlights

The Ford Pinto was introduced in 1970 as a subcompact car, initially marketed as a 'little carefree car'.

The Pinto was designed to be lightweight and cost-effective, with a focus on economy and style.

Controversy arose due to the Pinto's fuel tank design, which was prone to explosion in rear-end collisions.

Ford's decision to prioritize styling over safety led to significant engineering challenges and public backlash.

The Pinto's fuel tank was placed behind the rear axle, reducing its crush zone and increasing the risk of fire in accidents.

Ford conducted crash tests that revealed the vulnerability of the Pinto's fuel system, but chose not to implement changes.

The Pinto was rushed to production, with styling dictating engineering decisions, leading to safety compromises.

Ford's internal cost-benefit analysis, which considered the cost of potential lawsuits versus safety modifications, was later criticized.

The Pinto's reputation was tarnished by a series of high-profile legal cases, including the Grimshaw v. Ford case.

Ford was accused of knowingly producing a dangerous vehicle and was held liable for significant punitive damages in some cases.

Despite meeting safety regulations, Ford eventually recalled over a million Pintos to address the fuel tank issue.

The Pinto's safety issues became a major topic in discussions of corporate ethics and product liability.

Contrary to popular belief, the Pinto's safety record was not significantly worse than other subcompact cars of the time.

The Pinto's reputation as a 'fire trap' was largely a result of media sensationalism and may have been overstated.

Ford's management decisions regarding the Pinto have been re-evaluated, with some arguing that the company's actions were not as malicious as initially portrayed.

The Pinto case serves as a cautionary tale in the balance between corporate profits, consumer safety, and regulatory compliance.

The Pinto's legacy continues to influence discussions on automotive safety and the responsibilities of manufacturers.

Transcripts

foreign

I'm going to reveal a bit of the history

guy history that might surprise you I

Learned to Drive in a 1976 Ford Pinto I

know I know you're thinking you're way

too cool for that I mean surely a

Corvette at least but no it was an

orange Ford Pinto that had fake wood

paneling on the side for

Style

and if you were born prior to 1980 you

might be wondering but how did you

survive because we all well know the

fort Pinto head design flaws it meant

that if it got hit from behind by

another car or just a really strong wind

it would explode into flames and how the

car that Ford described as the little

Carefree car that was built to be as

indestructible as a Model T came to

regard it as one of the most dangerous

cars ever built is history that deserves

to be remembered

before the term Sub-Compact car was

coined there were small car

manufacturers in the United States the

Crosley Corporation for example produced

lightweight cars between 1939 and 1952

but as the big three automakers started

to mass produce larger cars the market

for Crossley collapsed and the company

folded

from the 1950s onward very small cars

like the Nash Metropolitan built in

England for the American market and

especially the Volkswagen Beetle were

imported

finding a niche in an American market

dominated by larger automobiles

Volkswagen even stressed its odd design

in its marketing campaign saying think

small

by 1970 Volkswagen's American subsidiary

Volkswagen group of America sold more

than a half million cars from more than

a thousand dealerships capturing seven

percent of the U.S car market

American manufacturers began to take

notice of the trend and develop their

own models the first to be released was

the American Motors Gremlin released in

April 1970 and described in marketing as

the first American built-in port

the auto review website Victory and

Reseda notes that the gremlin arrived in

1970 to the curious and the defying did

anyone notice that the gremlin was half

a hornet two-door yet the gremlin made

respectable sales in excess of 25 000 in

its first abbreviated model year a 1971

edition of Popular Mechanics noted that

there's a definite player about the

gremlin a unique personality owners say

but when surveyed the number one reason

given for purchasing the car was economy

Chevrolet under the market in the fall

with the Vega a highly touted Car Motor

Trend Magazine named the Vega the car of

the year in 1971 design that ran into

many difficulties the subject of another

episode of the history guy

writing in business ethics quarterly in

2005 John R Danley of Southern Illinois

University knows that it was not a

foregone conclusion that Ford would

produce a pinto the discussion was

because the small car market is rarely

profitable and American automakers were

debating whether to try to compete with

the small Imports or just to ignore that

space and focus on more profitable lines

but Lee Iacocca then Executive Vice

President of Ford Motor Company

championed the idea of Ford producing a

Sub-Compact a Coca had been at Ford

since 1946 and participated in the

design of several successful models

notably the Ford Mustang

iacocca's argument was not just

competition in the Sub-Compact car

market he reasoned that if Ford competed

with the Imports in that market it would

make it more difficult for those Imports

to gain a foothold in the United States

and build things like dealerships and

thus they wouldn't be able to compete as

much in more profitable markets two if a

person started out buying a Ford as

their first car then they might be more

likely to buy another Ford as they

traded up the pinto was considered to be

iacocca's project and it was a victory

for him when the board in January 1969

approved the production of the car

Danley explains given the extremely

competitive environment Iacocca imposed

the 2000 to 2000 rule I.E the pinto

could weigh no more than two thousand

pounds and cost no more than two

thousand dollars

knew that other American manufacturers

were producing their own models and thus

Popular Mechanics notes he required a

delivery deadline of just 25 months a

record at the time and still impressive

today

writing in the 1992 edition of the

general management decision authors

Marilyn Helms and Betty Hutchins

explained that when a decision was made

to produce the pinto it was given the

shortest production planning schedule in

history the directive came from the top

president Lee Iacocca who emphasized

that the pinto was not to weigh an ounce

over two thousand pounds and not Costa

Cent over two thousand dollars and that

safety was not a priority because safety

doesn't sell

a court would later determine that Pinto

however was a rush project so that

styling preceded engineering and

dictated engineering design to a greater

degree than usual among the engineering

decisions dictated by styling was the

placement of the fuel tank

named after the pony with bright spots

Victory and Rosita explained this was

Lee iacocca's idea though instead of

adapting a global platform the European

escort to be exact it decided to go

All-American the result was a unibody

construction with small Dimensions

lightweight a four-cylinder engine a

choice of manual or automatic with a

coupe and a wagon available

the design was also sold under Ford's

Mercury brand as the bobcat

the car's exterior design by Ford's

Robert eichen saw some controversy well

the June 1972 edition of the San

Bernardino County Sun offered a

compliment the pinto was a great example

that a small economy car doesn't have to

be ugly in 2009 edition of Business Week

listed the pinto as number eight on the

list of ugliest cars of the last 50

years although to be fair the gremlin

was ranked number six

the Ford Pinto debuted at the Chicago

Auto Show and went on sale September 11

1970. initially only the sedan version

was available but a hatchback version

went on sale the following February

Ford marketed the car as the little

Carefree car advertisements explained

that Pinto was one little car that can

free you from your car cares big and

little from cares about high price and

big gas bills from cares about

maintenance and repairs power and

stability roominess and quiet

the little Carefree car takes care of

all that

noting that it had more interior space

than the Volkswagen Beetle and was

priced like little economy Imports Ford

said that the pinto was a little better

idea from Ford

the initial reaction was positive

Victory and receda write that with the

gremlin receiving some giggles and the

Vega being slapped with recalls the

pinto seemed to be the winner amongst

the three

by 1974 more than a half million pintos

were sold but Victory and receipt to

continue

things seem to be going great until

someone got rear-ended in a pinto

the introduction of the pinto came at a

Crossroads in terms of Automotive

regulations in the United States in 1966

consumer Advocate Ralph Nader have

published the book unsafe at any speed

the designed in dangers of the American

Automobile

the book posted that American automobile

manufacturers were reluctant to spend

money on safety and resisted efforts to

regulate Automotive Safety the book

changed public attitudes and was the

best-selling non-fiction book of 1966.

the book and others spurred Senate

hearings that resulted in the creation

of the U.S Department of Transportation

and several agencies intended to

establish and force Highway and

Automotive Safety standards those

agencies would be combined in the

highway safety Act of 1970 which created

the national highway traffic safety

administration or nhtsa

Danley writes that in 1969 the new

agency released a proposal for new

regulations to address issues of

post-crash survivability these included

requirements for fuel system Integrity

these were at the time mere proposals

released for comment under the rules of

the 1946 administrative procedures Act

Ford and other U.S manufacturers

responded during the comments phase

Danley writes on September 19th 1973

Ford submitted petition for

reconsideration of Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety standard number 301. attachment 2

contained a cost-benefit analysis

conducted by two engineers at Ford the

report considered the costs and benefits

for society the proposed regulations

regarding fuel tank fires that

attachment would come back to haunt the

company

meanwhile Ford began testing in

anticipation of the new regulations

starting by testing modified Ford

Mavericks and then in 1970 the first

model of the pinto Danley notes that

while the testing demonstrated

vulnerability of fuel Integrity there

were no federal performance standards at

the time and proposed regulations

addressed only front-end collisions

moreover Helms and Hudson's right

tooling went on at the same time as

product development so when testing

revealed the series defect with the gas

tank the 200 million dollar Pinto

tooling machines were almost completely

built Ford decided not to address the

problems found in their crash tests

in 1974 decided that the model year 1973

Pinto would satisfy the proposed

standards from 1969 but no regulation

said yep and promulgated by then the

nhtsa was proposing stricter regulations

including requirements for rear-end

collisions and rollovers but the new

standards would be effective until the

1977 model year Stanley writes at the

1974 Pinto was already in production and

Ford decided against modifications in

the 1975 and 76 pintos notably Ford had

solutions to meet the new standards but

chose not to implement the changes prior

to the regulations coming into effect

Ford would come to regret these

decisions Stanley knows that by 1977

Ford was embroiled in a legal and public

relations nightmare

approximately 177 legal cases were filed

against four work based on death or

injury following failure of the fuel

tank in the event of a rear end

collision

among the most important of these cases

began in 1977 regarding an accident in

May 1972. Grimshaw versus Ford Motor

Company

Superior Court Judge Stephen K tamura

explains a 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback

automobile unexpectedly stalled on a

freeway erupting into flames when it was

rear-ended by a car proceeding in the

same direction

Mrs Gray the driver of the pinto

suffered fatal Burns and 13 year old

Richard Grimshaw a passenger in the

pinto suffered severe and permanently

disfiguring burns on his face and entire

body

Grimshaw and The Heirs of Mrs Gray sued

Ford Motor Company and others

the judge notes several issues in the

case that styling dictated design

placing the fuel tank behind the rear

axle where it had far less Crush base

than in any other American Automobile

that crash test during design

demonstrated that the pintos fuel system

is designed could not meet the 20 mile

per hour proposed in a TSA standard but

Ford produced and sold the pinto to the

public without doing anything to remedy

the defects disturbingly the judge noted

that Harley Copp a former Ford engineer

and executive in charge of the crash

testing program testified that the

highest level of Ford's management made

the decision to go forward with the

production of the pinto knowing that the

gas tank was vulnerable to puncture and

rupture at low rear impact speeds and a

significant risk of death or injury from

fire and knowing that fixes were

feasible at nominal cost

he testified that Management's decision

was based on the cost savings which

would endure from omitting or delaying

the fixes

following a six-month trial a jury

awarded Grimshaw two million 516

thousand dollars in compensatory damages

and the Grays 559 680 in compensatory

damages

most notably though the jury awarded

Grimshaw 125 million dollars in punitive

damages

punitive damages were thought at the

time to have been the largest award ever

in a U.S product liability and personal

injury case but the judge reduced the

punitive damages to three and a half

million dollars

still it was by far the largest punitive

damage award in the history of the state

of California at the time

Ford appealed the Judgment but it was

upheld after the Judgment Ford decided

to settle other cases out of court

as the trial was proceeding Mother Jones

magazine published an article called

Pinto Madness the article paid

particular attention to the attachment

to that have been included with Ford's

1973 appeal of the nhtsa regulations

Danley writes attachment 2 contained a

cost-benefit analysis conducted by two

engineers at Ford e s grush and C.S

zombie the report considered the cost

and benefits for Society of the proposed

regulations regarding fuel tank fires

Mother Jones interpretation of the

attachment was that Ford waited eight

years because its internal cost benefit

analysis which places a dollar value on

human life that it wasn't profitable to

make the changes sooner

according to Mother Jones Dr Leslie ball

who had worked at Nasa said that the

release to production of the pinto was

the most reprehensible decision in the

history of American engineering in Los

Angeles safety expert Byron blush opined

that Ford made an extremely

irresponsible decision when they placed

such a weak tank in such a ridiculous

location in such a software end it's

almost designed to blow up

premeditated Mother Jones estimated from

nhtsa data that between 500 and 900

fatalities resulted from Pinto fires the

article received a Pulitzer Prize many

of the claims made of the Mother Jones

article were repeated on an episode of

the CBS television show 60 minutes

in 1978 Ford agreed to a voluntary

recall of some one and a half million

pintos and bobcats despite the pinto

meeting relevant nhtsa regulations but a

year later about a third of the vehicles

recalled had not received the fuel

system modifications

while there were no significant issues

identified with the 1979 Pinto by then

the car had gained the reputation of

being unsafe

sales declined in 1980 was the last

production year in total more than 3.1

million units were produced between 1971

and 1980.

the pinto has long been regarded as a

keystone case in corporate ethics and

product liability Stanley writes that

with respect to moral reasoning and

blame the case is routinely viewed as a

slam dunk no-brainer

yet analysis safter leads to some

surprising conclusions

in a 1991 article in Rutgers law review

Gary Schwartz of UCLA law school

concludes that several significant

factual misconceptions surround the

Public's understanding of the case given

the cumulative force of these

misconceptions the case can probably be

referred to as

mythical

first attachment 2 often described as a

crass corporate calculation of the value

of human life has been entirely

misconstrued Professor Lee vinsel of

Virginia Tech University explained in

2021 that the document was not about

pintos it was not about rear end

collisions but about rollovers it was

not about lawsuits it was not aimed at

internal design decisions but external

regulatory rule-making ones

the attachment did not give a cost

calculation of the cost of lawsuits

versus the cost of addressing the pinto

fuel issue but rather used a standard

nhtsa value to consider the cost of the

new regulation across the industry

importantly not only did the attachment

not as Mother Jones suggested place a

dollar value in human life and decide it

wasn't profitable to make changes in

fact it did not reflect internal

decision making at all did not assist

potential deaths in the pinto due to the

field design and had no impact on

internal decisions regarding the Pinto's

design

further Mother Jones assessment of 500

to 900 fatal accidents was a result of

completely misunderstood nhtsa data that

represented not deaths due to Pinto

fires but industry-wide rollover

fatality data the actual number was not

500 to 900 but 27.

in August of 1978 the state of Indiana

filed a Criminal suit against Ford based

on the deaths of three teenage girls who

died when their Pinto was involved in a

rearing Collision the state argued that

Ford's actions amounted to Reckless

homicide according to an Associated

Press report defending forward Harold

McDonald Ford's vice president of

engineering argued that the decision to

place the fuel tank behind the rear axle

was sound because the gas tank should be

as far from the engine as possible

in the company's defense he offered a

startling statistic that challenges the

entire fire trap image

a federal study showed that in 1975 in

1976 1.9 percent of the nation's cars

were pintos

and 1.9 percent of the fatal accidents

involving fire an average of just 13 per

year occurred in a pinto

despite its fearsome reputation the

Pinto's record in fire fatalities was

average for subcompacts and in terms of

fatalities as a whole the pinto fared

approximately even with the Vega and

Gremlin and significantly better than

the VW Beetle

Stanley concludes that in light of the

facts as we know them there's little

evidence that there is even a kernel of

Truth to the myth of the Ford Pinto

writers Matthew Lee and David Ehrman

contend in a 1986 issue of presidential

studies quarterly that the pinto

narrative is largely the result of a

post-watergate journalistic fever in

which conspiracy and moral calculations

and organizational wrongdoing where

regularly being highlighted by reporters

people like to throw around the term

historical revisionism but in fact

history is being revised all the time as

we gather new data or gain new insights

based on the perspective of history that

is the discipline of history and perhaps

an overdue revision is to admit that all

the horrible things we heard about Ford

Motor Company and the pinto in the 70s

and 80s might well have been overstated

the monster might not have been as

monstrous as we once thought even if the

car's reputation

continues

thus the the great controversy of the

pinto yes four designers knew that it

had design flaws it might cost lives and

they didn't address those design flaws

but the reasons for those decisions

might not have been as malicious as we

were once told and the car's reputation

is a fire trap and a death Trappers

clearly overstated the fact is you were

just as safe in a pinto as you were in a

AMC Gremlin or a Chevy Vega and probably

safer than you would have been in a

Volkswagen Beetle

but exploding the myth of the pinto

might lead many of us Children of the

70s and 80s to wonder if our entire

childhood

was a lie

I hope you enjoyed this episode of the

history guide check out our community on

the

historyguyguild.locals.com our webpage

at thehistoryguy.com and our merchandise

at teespring.com or book a special

message from the history guy on Cameo

and if you'd like more episodes of

Forgotten history all you have to do is

subscribe

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]