The controversy surrounding the fuel tank was that it was located behind the rear axle, instead of above it. This was initially done in an effort to create more trunk space. The problem with this design, which later became evident, was that it made the Pinto more vulnerable to a rear-end collision. This weakness was enhanced by other features of the car. The

I believe that with the correct safety standards in place, and the compliance of Ford Motor Company, I believe Lee Iacocca, and Ford’s duty to comply would have been met with society. Again, it’s crucial, when putting out a product, to protect the best interests of the consumer, which is safety, reliability, maintainability, and service life. These areas will help to meet the overall expectations of the consumer. It’s also very important to conform to the duty of disclosure, and not to misrepresent. Ford has a duty with the consumer to disclose the defect of the gas tank and any other defects the car might have, because they can pose a risk to the consumer’s health and safety. This allows the consumer buying the Pinto to make the decision based on the facts presented by Ford, to either buy the Pinto or not.

I feel that any manufacturer of a good, especially one which can pose hazardous or unsafe conditions toward the consumer, should complete a cost/benefit analysis. This should be done in the best interest of the consumer, but also, in the best interest of the manufacturer. In Ford’s case, they did a cost/benefit analysis, which told them what it was going to take to make the changes materialize, and the costs embedded behind these changes. The cost/benefit analysis told them not to make the changes, however, just because it’s legal doesn't necessarily mean that it was ethical. It is difficult to understand how a price can be put on saving a human life. It seems unethical to determine that people should be allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would cost too much to prevent it. Some things just can't be measured in terms of dollars, and that includes human life. I believe that enduring safety rules and regulations should be put into place, and maintained by the government. These regulations need to be enforced, along with checks and balances in place to make certain the manufacturer follows through with either correcting defects, or improving a product, regardless of the price. If they want to provide a product to society, then they should make it as safe as possible. If a defect causes one death, then it needs to be addressed. A manufacturer can’t put a price on one life. I feel if these laws and regulations are not abided by, then they should be subject to serious fines, which could potentially lead up to being shut down. Yes, an organization can always cut corners, and cut costs, and then lie about their knowledge of it, but I just feel that the government needs to step in to help protect the innocent victims who managed to get into the path of an unethical manufacturer. Products need to be safe, and again, not even one life is worth the millions of dollars it might cost to overhaul an already existing product. They need to be held accountable for their actions, whether it’s after the product is on the market, or even if it’s still in production. The consumer should be what’s important here, and I feel the only standard an organization should aim for is of the paramount of standards. The consumer has to be treated like a person would minister to his/her own child. I would never give my child a pair of scissors and tell him/her to go play in the street.

Some of the problems with developing an economy car is the fact that the manufacturer is developing an “economy” car. This car is to be made both inexpensively, as well as efficient. In the days of the Pinto, the words inexpensive and efficient in the car manufacturing world probably would have represented an oxy moron well. With this in mind, you can imagine what manufacturers would do to bring both cost savings and efficiency into a finished product.

Some topics in this essay:
Ford Pinto, Iacocca Ford’s, Lee Iacocca, Theory Rawls, Rawls Rawls, Motor Company’s, Pinto Ford, Automotive Company, Administration NHTSA, Analysis Pinto, gas tank, ford pinto, fuel system, feel ford, ford held, don’t feel, feel consumer, held accountable, safety features, economy car, ford held accountable, feel ford held, ford motor company, due care theory, it’s stated velasquez,