Transcript Engineering Disaster: Ford Pinto Explosions

Engineering Disaster:
Ford Pinto Explosions
Walter Crickmer, Philip Peters II, Ben
Pitzer,
Presented to: Dr. Reddy
EE 481
March 19, 2014
Background
• Created in the late 60’s
• Competition with Volkswagen
• “…not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a
cent over $2,000.” Lee Iacocca, President of Ford Motor Co.
• Given only 25 months from initial design to production.
• During initial crash tests over 25 miles per hour, the gas tank
always ruptured.
• At 40 miles per hour, the gas tank would rupture, and the
doors could jam.
• No government standard for rear impact collisions
Ford Pinto Specifications
• Stated in the Pinto "green book“
• Details the metallurgy, weight, strength and quality of every part in the
car.
• Summed up as:
– True Sub Compact
Size
Weight
– Low Cost of Ownership
Initial price
Fuel consumption
Reliability
Serviceability
– Clear Product Superiority
Appearance
Comfort
Features
Ride and Handling
Performance
Design Flaws

Fuel tank positioned behind rear axle differential

Rear-end collision caused bolts on differential to damage
fuel tank

Spark ignited leaking fuel
Ethical Conflicts

Violated Fundamental Canons – 1, 4, 5, 6




Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of public
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustee
Avoid deceptive acts
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness
of the profession
Who is to Blame

President pushed production to enter subcompact market

“Safety does not sell.” Lee Iacocca, President of Ford Motor Co.

Engineers chose to not tell the executives about their findings

$1 to fix cars to be safe
What Really Happened




Easy to blame Ford Motor Co.
Lawsuits resulted, record breaking $126 million awarded
to plaintiff in California
Public information biased against Ford
Balance of:




Profit
Ethics
Trusting your materials are graded appropriately
Meeting deadlines
Possible Corrections

More time for tooling

“Saddle-Style” fuel tank

Rubber or plastic fuel tank coating

Analysis proved rubber coating to be too expensive
Our Project

Ethical considerations:

Heating beds are 100°C

Nozzle is 250°C to thermoform plastic

Moving parts

Electrical shock, electrical fire

Other hazards
Resources
•
•
Holtzapple & Reece. Concepts in Engineering. McGraw-Hill, 2008. Pages 57-84,
274-279.
http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleVie
w/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx
•
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics#sthash.V7PvkjBn.dpuf
•
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_165
7866,00.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1977/09/dowie.html
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=qIlPURPTx30C&dq=ford+pinto&printse
c=frontcover&source=web&ots=z_RtCt5rmg&sig=0u6PcHbprm5auFIcGMWDVWy7
Ad4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPR11,M1
http://www.autosafety.org/ford-pinto-fuel-fed-fires
http://themidatlanticlounge.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/fight-club/edward-infight-club-edward-norton-562360_1600_900/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes
•
•
•
•
•