Talk:Ford Pinto: Difference between revisions

Line 83: Line 83:

:::::Gioia used the word “stud”. It is my guess from looking at photos he means the axle tabs, but I may be wrong. Or, it could be that “stud” was Ford lingo at the time. Or, it could be he is not familiar with technical terms — on one hand, he is an MBA, on the other hand I would think somebody around him would have corrected him if used the wrong term. I think for this discussion the important thing is there was a sharp feature on the axle which sometimes caused fuel leaks. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|talk]]) 01:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:::::As to “pay for welding on two stampings that could be left off”, maybe it was due to early production: re-use existing parts as much as possible, only switch to model-specific parts if it turns out the new model sells well. A family friend has a Ford Mustang from the first 6 months of production, he says lots of interior trim parts are from some other car they made at the time. Once Ford saw good sales, they did a mid-year switch to Mustang-specific trim. The Pinto axle is not visible to most people, so there would be less “brand” reason to switch. Whatever the reasons, Gioia says they used the axle from a Ford of Europe Capri, and it had suspension mounts not used in the Pinto. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|talk]]) 02:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

::::::I should have written that Gioia said in the podcast: the axle had four suspension mounts not used in the Pinto and those punctured the tank. He specifically said there were four studs, they were not used, and they caused the puncture. In contrast, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) [below] attributes it to bolt heads or a flange, maybe by “flange” they mean the same thing as Gioia when he says “stud” (which I am guessing is the same as the clevis, but I don’t know). [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|talk]]) 02:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:::https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/119/757.html Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) “According to plaintiffs’ expert, the impact of the Galaxie had driven the Pinto’s gas tank forward and caused it to be punctured by the flange or one of the bolts on the differential housing so that fuel sprayed from the punctured tank and entered the passenger compartment […]”. “Finally, the differential housing selected for the Pinto had an exposed flange and a line of exposed bolt heads. These protrusions were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward against the differential upon rear impact.” “A production Pinto crash tested at 21 miles per hour into a fixed barrier caused […] the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing.” “[C]rash test No. 1616, as Ford conceded, resulted in a puncture of the fuel tank from the exposed bolt heads on the differential housing. Thus, the exhibits showed the defect in the Pinto’s gas tank location and design, the hazard created by the protrusions on the differential housing” This is somewhat different than Gioia’s comment, as it allows for damage either by a “flange” or by bolt head; but seems generally in agreement. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72|talk]]) 02:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ford Pinto has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 26, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia’s Main Page in the “On this day…“ column on August 11, 2017, August 11, 2020, and August 11, 2025.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

The description of the Mother Jones article is incorrect in that the current version (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/) does not contain a video or any text refering to the video. I briefly went to archive.org, and found versions promising the video, but again could not see it. It seems to me that, rather than sending readers to the Mother Jones web site to find this important article, it needs to be cited and referenced properly so interested readers can see the one the authors of the secondary citations saw.Robert P. O’Shea (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I’m not sure what you mean by video. I think you are referring to citation 85 (Lee and Ermann). In that instance the text is a direct quote from the Lee and Ermann source. Perhaps we could replace the sentence with a “…”? Springee (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was the radio-spot: “Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling.” The acutal strange thing: Even in 1971 this slogan was used, also in 1971 already unusual cases of burning Pintos were reported. This reference suggests that the radio spot was kept and was dropped only years later. If this is true, it would be very dark cynicism…Max schwalbe (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not accept simple deletions. The existence of this slogan can be verified from many different sources. Even in Germany, Die Zeit wrote about it in 1971. i think this should be mentioned / discussed at least.–Max schwalbe (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source here. However, it is not mentioned in which year the spot was dropped.–Max schwalbe (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of your English sources are reliable. The second one is just a posting of the original, discredited Mother Jones article. Nothing from that article should be assumed true. Even if it is true the material isn’t due in the article. Springee (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged discrediting of the Mother Jones article seems to be entirely based on one source, which is referred to repeatedly as if that is sufficient. Is it? This entry reads to me like a company-driven revisionist account by a reputation manager. 158.51.81.23 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MJ’s claims are in conflict with scholarly sources on the subject (not just one). Not sure what to do about your second concern. Is there something specific you can point to as an example? Springee (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this reads like a company driven revisionist account.

The facts are in the 1970s, 38 fire related accidents occurred and were reported to the NHTSA (founded 1970). These were reported with enough information they could then investigate. Of those, according to that same report, moderate speed impacts caused fires and in those cases 27 people died. There was no other “scholarly source” that did any actual scientific investigation, searching state accident records for actual car fires and how many involved Pintos, for example. Instead, the “scholarly sources” are equivalent to Mother Jones’ article–they are opinions based on hypotheticals without any real research.

We read that even though the numbers of reported fires to the NHTSA drastically increased over a two-year period this was, again hypothetically, because there were more cars on the roads. Really? All the new cars on the roads had better bumpers on them that had to be so good they could survive a 5-mph impact without taking any damage. That alone should have lowered the numbers of fires in all vehicles produced after 1975. Further, half of all the Ford Pintos ever made were made before 1975. Production dropped drastically after that to about 250,000 per year. Here’s my hypothetical that the article does not mention: very few fires were initially reported to the newly formed NHTSA and at no point during the 1970s was reporting ever mandatory. When the new system, that theoretically should have made reporting easier, was started, more numbers were reported. However, considering it was all new and looking at, for example, VAERS, where an estimated 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are ever reported today, that would give us hypothetically 3500 actual fires.

There is, unfortunately, no way to know how many people died or were injured from Pinto fires or any other car fires in the 1970s because most of the reporting systems we have are not all that reliable today and were completely unreliable back then or not in existence. Mother Jones, at the time, said there were 500-900, which I as a reader can look at and feel it is fishy because of the wide range–especially without knowing how they determined that number. However, when this Wikipedia article then lambasts that number by saying it was completely wrong based on what all these “experts” came up with years later (instead of just saying these experts disagreed on these grounds and letting the reader decide who to believe)–especially in light of the fact that Nader has won at least one lawsuit where GM admitted to defaming him–that makes the article slanted toward Ford. That it seems to be well known Ford settled at least 117 lawsuits out of court and spent millions of dollars fighting others in small town courts where the prosecutors had little money or staff to compete, I really do not see 500 deaths as a far-fetched number. From all cars, there were about 400,000 deaths in car accidents from 1970-1977: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

The cost-benefit analysis is real. This article makes it seem like it was not. In fact, any evidence supporting that Ford knew and was responsible is brushed off.

If Ford Pintos prior to 1977 could withstand a 30 mph impact without leaking fuel, then when the NHTSA made that a required standard, why did Ford have to change the Pinto’s design? https://www.motortrend.com/features/ford-pinto/

Unbiased articles do not draw conclusions. They present both sides equally and let the reader draw the conclusions. This article and almost every citation, paints Ford as the wronged party. I mean at one point it uses a quote that says people writing in to the NHTSA to complain about the pinto “guaranteed” that the NHTSA “would be under a microscope.” Huh? Man, shame on those people for making the NHTSA do its job, but I don’t think that conclusion can be drawn from the evidence presented. 2601:245:C101:96D0:8E0:6ABB:8EE9:8603 (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a good picture of what was really happening: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/

The Wiki should include the picture that shows the gas tank was literally on the other side of a bumper that could not survive a 5 mph impact. 2601:245:C101:96D0:8E0:6ABB:8EE9:8603 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my copy and paste failed: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/21/904660038/the-halo-effect-why-its-so-difficult-to-understand-the-past 2601:245:C101:96D0:8E0:6ABB:8EE9:8603 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As title, here’s a photo, where’s the studs? https://www.k-bid.com/auction/50381/item/1053 Greglocock (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the edit. I don’t think it was a strong source for the detail being claimed. Springee (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast has an extensive interview with the guy at Ford in charge of whether or not to recall the Pinto. He talks more than briefly about the studs as one of several important causes. I would say the interview is a strong source. He also mentions one lawyer called them “can openers”, suggesting others at the time also viewed them as important. I looked briefly on the web and did not find a better reference, but it seems like an important contribution to fuel leaks so is worth noting. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were several Pinto axle models, only earlier Pintos have the “studs”. The podcast says the axle was used in the “Ford of Europe Capri” which was higher performance and had more suspension features. I believe the axle is like this https://www.classic-ford.org/cfp/download.axd?file=0;82285&filename=2017-02-03%2015.15.24.jpg (via https://www.classic-ford.org/cfp/tm.aspx?m=82225) and https://www.ford-capri.ch/pictures/foto-galerie/technik/hinterachse-capri-I-69-73.pdf (via https://www.ford-capri.ch/technik/technische-daten/autotechnik-capri-I.html) I believe the “studs” are the vertical “ears” with transverse holes which are close to the differential housing. My guess: in the Capri they are attached to the red “dogbone” links shown in the photo, and are used to resist leaf spring windup in hard acceleration; and the links were simply left off in the lower-performance Pinto. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need something stronger before we put this content in. Additionally, I would not rely on the characterizations made by a trial attorney as their job is to sway people to their side. Springee (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case I was unclear: most things I mentioned above are from an interview with somebody at Ford who was in charge of deciding whether to do a recall, not a trial attorney. The trial attorney’s comment was only about it being “a can opener”. I agree their job is to sway people. My thinking was it shows a range of people thought the studs/ears were one of the significant causes of fuel leakage (there were several causes). 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed around more and found a transcript of the podcast/show: https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/904660038/the-halo-effect-why-it-s-so-difficult-to-understand-the-past . A few notes cut and paste: “Denny Gioia was [the] recall coordinator at Ford Motor Company”. Gioia: “[T]he Pinto’s rear axle was an off-the-shelf component, which is to say it was used in some other application by the Ford Motor Company. That application was the Ford of Europe Capri. That car was more complicated. It had anchor points called studs on the rear axle to which suspension arms were attached. But when it was used in the Pinto, they didn’t need those suspension arms, so they deleted them. But they did not delete the studs to which the suspension arms were attached.” Gioia: “So what happened when the car was hit from behind at the federally mandated speed of 50 kilometers or 31 mph? The fuel tank got pushed and got punctured by these four studs that were protruding.” 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit more info: a student paper: https://web.archive.org/web/20181014022009/http://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html, 1999, Christopher Leggett. Section III.F: “The tank was positioned according to the industry standard at the time (between the rear bumper and the rear axle), but studs protruding from the rear axle would puncture the gas tank.” I do not know what is the source, but the paper is from 1999, while the podcast interview with Gioia is from 2020, so whatever the source it is not the podcast. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same Ford person from the podcast, less detail, but maybe a better citation:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300210628_Pinto_Fires_and_Personal_Ethics_A_Script_Analysis_of_Missed_Opportunities Gioia, Dennis. (2013). Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_34. In book: Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp.675-689). The original article may be from 1992, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00870550#citeas Gioia, D.A. Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. J Bus Ethics 11, 379–389 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00870550 — however I did not find text online for the 1992 paper, so I cannot check whether it is the same.

From the URL above for the 2013 cite: (pg. 380) “During impact, however, several studs protruding from the rear of the axle housing would puncture holes in the tank […]”. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:615D:9B75:4911:F757 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears the 2013 and 1992 are the same: https://www.studocu.com/en-gb/document/swansea-university/energy-and-low-carbon-technologies/gioia-1992-pinto-fires-and-personal-ethics/10430027 has text of the 1992 paper and it reads the same to me. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff, curious terminology. A stud is a headless bolt, those are clevisses. And yes, they are not a good thing to stick into a fuel tank. Gioia was the subject of the Gladwell article. I am in some disbelief that Ford would pay for welding on two stampings when they could just as easily be left off for a massive cost save! Greglocock (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gioia used the word “stud”. It is my guess from looking at photos he means the axle tabs, but I may be wrong. Or, it could be that “stud” was Ford lingo at the time. Or, it could be he is not familiar with technical terms — on one hand, he is an MBA, on the other hand I would think somebody around him would have corrected him if used the wrong term. I think for this discussion the important thing is there was a sharp feature on the axle which sometimes caused fuel leaks. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to “pay for welding on two stampings that could be left off”, maybe it was due to early production: re-use existing parts as much as possible, only switch to model-specific parts if it turns out the new model sells well. A family friend has a Ford Mustang from the first 6 months of production, he says lots of interior trim parts are from some other car they made at the time. Once Ford saw good sales, they did a mid-year switch to Mustang-specific trim. The Pinto axle is not visible to most people, so there would be less “brand” reason to switch. Whatever the reasons, Gioia says they used the axle from a Ford of Europe Capri, and it had suspension mounts not used in the Pinto. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should have written that Gioia said in the podcast: the axle had four suspension mounts not used in the Pinto and those punctured the tank. He specifically said there were four studs, they were not used, and they caused the puncture. In contrast, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) [below] attributes it to bolt heads or a flange, maybe by “flange” they mean the same thing as Gioia when he says “stud” (which I am guessing is the same as the clevis, but I don’t know). 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/119/757.html Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) “According to plaintiffs’ expert, the impact of the Galaxie had driven the Pinto’s gas tank forward and caused it to be punctured by the flange or one of the bolts on the differential housing so that fuel sprayed from the punctured tank and entered the passenger compartment […]”. “Finally, the differential housing selected for the Pinto had an exposed flange and a line of exposed bolt heads. These protrusions were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward against the differential upon rear impact.” “A production Pinto crash tested at 21 miles per hour into a fixed barrier caused […] the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing.” “[C]rash test No. 1616, as Ford conceded, resulted in a puncture of the fuel tank from the exposed bolt heads on the differential housing. Thus, the exhibits showed the defect in the Pinto’s gas tank location and design, the hazard created by the protrusions on the differential housing” This is somewhat different than Gioia’s comment, as it allows for damage either by a “flange” or by bolt head; but seems generally in agreement. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:1EE9:E2BC:F89:7A72 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply