Ford Pinto Case Brief

cross Pinto Case Brief There was strong contender for Ford in the American small- simple machine market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest auto the Pinto into production in ofttimes less time than it usually required to develop a car. The secureness time to produce an automobile is 43 months Ford took 25 months. in the first place production however, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the cars design. In nearly all rear-end crash test collisions, the Pintos go off system would rupture extremely easily. The technology was available to cave in the Pinto a safer vehicle.The best method for improving the safety of the Pinto was to line the gas army tank with a rubber bladder. Ford alleged that it would cost $11 per car to add any sort of gas tank fire taproom device. Lee Iacocca, who was in charge of the development of the Pinto, had specifications for the design of the car that were uncompromisab le. These specifications were that the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a centime over $2,000. Any modifications, even if it did provided extra safety for the customer that brought the car closer to the Iacoccas specifys were rejected.A story was prepared for NHTSA by adviser Eugene Trisko entitled A National Survey of Motor Vehicle Fires. His report indicates that the Ford Motor Company makes 24 percent of the cars on the American road, yet these cars account for 42 percent of the collision-ruptured fuel tanks. Another dumfounding fact that was discovered was that a large and growing number of corpses interpreted from burned cars involved in rear-end crashes contained no cuts, bruises or tough bones. They clearly would have survived the accident unharmed if the cars had not caught fire.There was no single event that caused all of the deaths and injuries related to Pintos. Ford had many opportunities to limit the damage done by the faulty design of the Pinto. Engineers bowed to closet from superiors to keep quiet about the unsafe cars. Was it ethical for Ford to make Ford Pinto? Question No. 1 Marks 10 How Ford management used Cost Benefit Approach in firmness of purpose the case? Is it right decisions? Question No. 2 Marks 10 What is the best ethical solution that Ford company management has to conform to? Case Study