The 20 Biggest Car Fails Of All Time
in [Technical]
|
From: cuhulin on 2 May 2010 00:17 http://cagematch.dvorak.org/index.php?topic=7372.0 I think those Edsels looked pretty good. cuhulin
From: cuhulin on 3 May 2010 10:33 My 1948 Willys Jeep has the gas tank mounted on top of the floor pan under the drivers seat.My 1914 Ford Model T has the gas tank mounted under the seat.Gravity feed, no fuel pump, Ford Model T. cuhulin
From: C. E. White on 3 May 2010 12:53 "Woodie" <knot(a)thebar.com> wrote in message news:iJzDn.119009$kj3.77872(a)newsfe08.iad... > View this page which offers a far superior analysis including > links to informative documentation. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Safety_problems_and_scandal I like Wikipedia also. However, they give far too much weight to the Mother Jones attack piece and not enough to what a sham job of reporting it was. There was no Ford analysis that claimed it was better to payoff Pinto lawsuits than fix the Pinto. There was a document written before the Pinto was designed that related the cost of certain safety improvement to the cost of a human life, but the cost used was provided by the Government and was not Ford's number and it wasn't even actually realted to the Pinto at all (despite the lies told in the MJ article). And while it might be true that 1971 Pinto's had light rear bumpers, the 1973 model had the Government mandatd 5 mph bumpers. I have always beleived that if Ford had settled the Pinto lawsuits out of court instead of fighting what they felt was an unjustified case, then no one would have called the Pinto a fire bomb. Chevrolet actually had similar problems with early Chevette (despite haveing a mid-mounted gas tank), but they settled all related suits out of court and therefore no one even remembers those problems. (the problem was a suspension bolt that was too long and could puncture the rear gas tank in a rear end collison. GM shortened / relocated the bolt to solve the problem. Ed
From: Scott Dorsey on 3 May 2010 13:07 C. E. White <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >I like Wikipedia also. However, they give far too much weight to the >Mother Jones attack piece and not enough to what a sham job of >reporting it was. There was no Ford analysis that claimed it was >better to payoff Pinto lawsuits than fix the Pinto. There was a >document written before the Pinto was designed that related the cost >of certain safety improvement to the cost of a human life, but the >cost used was provided by the Government and was not Ford's number and >it wasn't even actually realted to the Pinto at all (despite the lies >told in the MJ article). And while it might be true that 1971 Pinto's >had light rear bumpers, the 1973 model had the Government mandatd 5 >mph bumpers. As the owner of a Pinto that went through eleven... count them... eleven engine blocks under warranty (many of which arrived at the dealer obviously damaged or improperly machined and were sent back without being installed), I have to say that the Pinto had a lot of issues that were unrelated to the gas tank design. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Kevin Bottorff on 3 May 2010 14:56
kludge(a)panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:hrmvrq$d7v$1(a)panix2.panix.com: > C. E. White <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >>I like Wikipedia also. However, they give far too much weight to the >>Mother Jones attack piece and not enough to what a sham job of >>reporting it was. There was no Ford analysis that claimed it was >>better to payoff Pinto lawsuits than fix the Pinto. There was a >>document written before the Pinto was designed that related the cost >>of certain safety improvement to the cost of a human life, but the >>cost used was provided by the Government and was not Ford's number and >>it wasn't even actually realted to the Pinto at all (despite the lies >>told in the MJ article). And while it might be true that 1971 Pinto's >>had light rear bumpers, the 1973 model had the Government mandatd 5 >>mph bumpers. > > As the owner of a Pinto that went through eleven... count them... > eleven engine blocks under warranty (many of which arrived at the > dealer obviously damaged or improperly machined and were sent back > without being installed), I have to say that the Pinto had a lot of > issues that were unrelated to the gas tank design. > --scott > what year and mtr was that?????????????? I turned wrenches in ford dealerships all through the pinto run and we never had anything like that show up. (of course the non drilled oil holes in the rods on the 2300s in the north was a bad deal) almost all repaired under warrenty in 77. KB --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |