Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-opus.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!gcc-opus!alien
From: alien@gcc-opus.ARPA (Alien Wells)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: American cars: how safe
Message-ID: <138@gcc-opus.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 16:54:18 EST
Article-I.D.: gcc-opus.138
Posted: Mon Nov 12 16:54:18 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Nov-84 01:19:18 EST
References: <681@hound.UUCP> <557@rayssd.UUCP>
Reply-To: alien@gcc-opus.UUCP (Alien Wells)
Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (creators of Ms. Pacman)
Lines: 59
Summary: 

In article <557@rayssd.UUCP> hxe@rayssd.UUCP writes:
>In reference to the Pinto (or the "Ford Flambee") ...

I used to own a Pinto, and so I followed the story pretty closely for a while.
To tell you the truth, I think Ford doesn't deserve most of the bad publicity
they got over it.

Let's look at the market as it existed.  The Pinto was Ford's entry into the
small, cheap, starter car market.  It's principal competition was the Vega.
The market for these cars was incredibly price sensative, and surprisingly
'style-oriented'.

Let's examine the Vega.  The Vega sold about the same number of cars as the
Pinto.  When I got my Pinto (about 5 years used), there were about 4-5 Pintos
on the road for every Vega.  The Vega suffered from:
	- high repair costs due to stupid engineering (like having to remove
the gas tank to replace the fuel pump)
	- steering problems (the steering would just lock up)
	- brake problems (the brakes would just stop working)
	- fuel line problems (causing fires and explosions)
and a great number of other problems.

The Pinto was a much more reliable, better designed car.  It had one problem,
the gas tank placement.  Now, not that many people died in Pintos considering
the number of miles that people drove in them (very few cars in history can
compare) due to the gas tank.  The Vega clearly killed more people due to
defects.  Furthermore, many cars (both Ford and GM) had the same 'defect' in
their gas tank placement.  Why was Ford singled out?

Two reasons:
	1)  Ford leaked the information that they knew about the problem and
didn't correct it since it would add cost or hurt the styling.  Note that it
is not the safety factor that really hurt them here, probably most cars that
goes out has many 'defects' which are much worse.  Face it, very few people
are willing to pay the price that real safety costs (what is the market share
of Volvos?).  The problem is that Ford indirectly admitted there was something
they could have done to increase the safety.
	2)  Ford kept virtually the same model of car for the entire life-span
of the model.  GM did a major overhaul (can you spell planned obsolescence?)
on the Vega about every 2 years.  Thus, the myriad faults of the Vega kept
CHANGING, and the chance of finding a statistical correlation of a design
fault with people dying is drastically reduced.  What would you think
of someone complaining about two accidents in the country in the last 5 years
when a 1973 or 1974 Vega was totalled in a rear end accident and the gas tank
blew up.

So, indirectly, this amounts to a direct governmental incentive to planned
obsolescence.  Somehow, the idea that a company can produce a product with
impunity as long as it changes the models fast enough or doesn't sell enough
bothers me.  Another case in point, the case brought against VW.  It seems
that the hood of VW Beetles is slightly more prone to coming unhinged in
front end collisions and coming through the windshield.  In another case, it
is claimed that the seats too often came unbolted in front end collisions.\
Again, the longevity of the VW Beetle in a single model is coming back to
haunt VW.

Oh, well.  Flame off.

					Alien