Download - Ford Pinto by Reflection
Quality Management System Failure of all time: Ford Pinto Prepared By: Reflection
Md.Mostakim Sobhan Raihan Id no.091406
Company History of Ford Pinto
In the 1970s, the Ford Pinto is most well-known and the worst disaster
Ford Motor Company is an American
automaker and the world’s 5th largest
automaker
Henry Ford started the Ford Motor
Company,
Continued....
• Ford launched PINTO in 1971 to compete with German and Japanese compact cars
• PINTO was introduced
by President Lee Iacocca succeeding an internal struggle
Safety doesn’t sell?
There was a corporate belief, attributed to Lee
Iacocca himself, which stated "safety doesn't sell.”
“This became a corporate belief what we can see where it led the
Ford motor company, i.e. towards a hasty design of Ford Pinto
which eventually came out as being hugely defected”.
5
Counterparts
Volkswagen Beetle
Ford Pinto
6
Chevrolet Vega
AMC Gremlin
Continued..
Masfi Rahman Id no.104880
• We Go Further at Ford to meet the needs of our customers, the challenges of our industry and the issues confronting our world.
Vision
• Go Further Mission
Vision and Mission
Quality Failure
Quality is ensured by Quality Management System.
Customers might be upset
Management and employees both might be unhappy
Sustaining Quality: Underlying Causes for Failure
Lack of leadership for quality
Lack of planning for quality
Inadequate resources for quality
Inadequate human resources development and management
Lack of customer focus
Faujia Mollick Id no.10488
Quality Failure of Ford Pinto
Causes of Ford Pinto top list of Quality failure :
•Design flaws
•Questionable ethics decisions by top management
resulting in dangerous vehicle
•Many were considered ugly
•40-50,000 miles was not unusual for major breakdowns
The Pinto Fire Controversy As early as 1972, there reports of explosions in low-speed collisions involving Pintos.
Accident investigations revealed reports of trauma injuries and deaths.
Results were; 11 crashes, 8 gas tanks ruptured, burst into flames.
Ford had first conducted rear-end collision tests on the Pinto in December 1970, months after it was already in production.
Nasrin Nahar Id no 104996
Causes of the explosions
Filler neck breaking off and allowing fuel to pour out
Tank being penetrated by contact with differential mounting bolts and right shock absorber.
Continued…..
Engineers found that the majority of the ruptures were caused
by two factors:
Gas Tank Configurations
• Behind Rear-Axle
• Over-the-Axle Tank
Behind Rear-Axle Tank
Pros:
More Luggage space
Industry standard – felt it was safer
Cons:
Not as safe in rear-end collisions
Continued….
Continued….
Over-the-axle-tank
Pro: Performed well in rear-end collisions
Cons:
Long “round-about” filler pipe
Closer to passengers in back seat
Higher center of gravity
Reduced trunk space
Khan Rashel Rahman Id. No 105034
The design of Pinto was questionable. The design problems first came into public attention in August,1977 in an article of “Mother Jones Magazine”. This article condemned the Ford Motor Company and the author was later given a “Pulitzer Prize”
Questionable design
Toufiqul Islam Id no.104856
Other Causes of Quality Failure
Fighting strong competition from Volkswagen
Assembly-line machinery was already tooled.
Ford successfully lobbied, with extraordinary vigor and some blatant lies, against a key government safety standard.
Fixing the explosion problem
Use of a rubber bladder/liner
• Most effective • Exterior of the
tank was ruptured
• Unit cost of bladders would have amounted to $5.08 per car.
Attaching extra steel plate
• An extra steel plate attached to the rear of the car just behind the bumper.
• Successfully warded off a blow at 30 mph.
• Could have cost up to $11 per car to install.
Simple Plastic Insulator
• Simple plastic insulator kept the bolts from ever making contact with the fuel tank.
• Cost of this item was less than $1.
Compensation
A serious burn injury was worth about $67,000.
Experts calculated the value of a human life at around $200,000
In 1978, three girls died in a Pinto collision fire.
It was a real wake-up call for Ford
The driver of the car had died from her injuries a few days after the accident.
California jury awarded a boy who had been severely burned and disfigured a total of $126 million.
Nabiha Binte Manjur id no104904
Why Ford did it
Continued…..
Knew Pinto was a firetrap, yet paid out millions to settle damage suits.
Ford has crash-tested Pinto more than 40 times at over 25 mph and all of them resulted in ruptured tank.
Waited eight years because cost benefit analysis showed changes were not profitable.
Ford marketing team dropped the line “Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling “.
Reports conclusively reveal that if anyone ran into Pinto at over 30 miles
per hour,
Continued…..
Rear end of the car would buckle right up to the back
seat.
Spark from a cigarette, ignition, or scraping metal, and both cars
would be engulfed in flames.
Tube would be ripped away and gas would slosh onto the
road.
Buckled gas tank would be jammed up.
Kamrul Hasan Id no.091343
Pinto Green Book Ford executive F.G. Olsen published Pinto Green Book by the Society of Automotive
Engineers. He listed these product objectives as follows:
• Size
• Weight True
Subcompact
• Initial price
• Fuel consumption
• Reliability
• Serviceability
Low Cost of Ownership
•Appearance
•Comfort
•Features
•Ride and handling
•Performance
Clear Product Superiority
Risk-Benefit Analysis
Burn Deaths
Burn Injuries
Burn Vehicles
Savings
180
180
2100
Unit-costs
$200000
$67000
$700
Sub-Totals
$36000000
$12060000
$1470000
Total Cost
$49 Million
Figure : Benefit
Continued…..
Car Sales Light Truck Sales
Sales 11000000 15000000
Unit Costs $11 $11
Sub-totals $121000000 $16500000
Total Cost $137 Million
Figure : Risks
Daud Al Shams Id no.105038
Evidence indicated that cost of making
improvements to gas tank could have been as low
as $5.08 per vehicle.
If the costs were around $5.08 per vehicle, the
Ford motor company would not have had as strong
a risk/benefit argument as with the $11 figure
provided.
39
Ethical issues
Ethical issues
Ford made decision not to make improvements to the gas tank after completion of the risk/benefit analysis.
Ford did not make adjustments to the Pinto design because the $11 cost was too high
Ford did not consider the lives which would be saved if the adjustment was made.
40
Shadi Mohammad Id no.104980
The company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car (according to Ford) even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths.
The company defended itself by saying that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit.
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS VS ETHICS
42
• Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have
been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put
on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford
felt justified not implementing the design change.
• It is unethical to determine that people should be
allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would
cost too much to prevent it .
Continued….
Some things just can't be measured in terms of dollars, and that includes human life.
Abu Bakker khokon Id no.091267
The Ford Pinto Myth
Constantly brought up as an example of poor business ethics
Use of emotional terms such as "firetrap", "death trap", and "lethal car"
Documents were used to show Ford's lack of concern for safety.
Case was blown out of proportion by media
Recommendations
Effective design reviews
Design and process FEMAs
Measurement-based corrective action (including
customer satisfaction)
Conclusion
Cheap subcompact car released in 1970 under the tagline “the little carefree car”.
Time frame for getting Pinto from conception to
production was 25 months.
Tried to get market share faster than others.
THE END