In the summer of 1967, Ford Motor Company began the development of a new car that would place it in the small-car market (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 1). This automobile was named the Ford Pinto and would grow to become its biggest-selling subcompact vehicle (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 2). Back in the mid-1960s, Ford’s then president had been involved in a collision that resulted in his car’s fuel tank bursting into flames (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 1). With this occurrence, one would have imagined that the company would become aware of the fuel tank danger associated with collisions, however the reverse was the case. The new Pinto had been fitted with a fuel tank that was just 9 inches from its rear axle (Gary T. Schwartz, 1990, p. 1013) and in the event of
At the time, German car manufacturer, Volkswagen, held the largest share in the American subcompact car market therefore; Lee Iacocca insisted that Ford put out its own alternative to the Volkswagen Beetle (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 4). Lee Iacocca was the instigator of the Pinto’s production, and later became the president of Ford Motor Company. He wanted the Pinto out in the market and he wanted it done quickly. This gave rise to the value of time in the production of the car. The Mother Jones article written by Mark Dowie reported that the production-planning period of the Pinto was probably the shortest in modern automotive history (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 4). The Pinto had a period of just twenty-five months compared to the traditional forty-three months period (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 4). The value of profit was also at play and perhaps Ford’s strongest one. It would have been a taboo to do anything that potentially compromised this financial value, and this led to the company prioritizing cost over the safety of its customers. In the Mother Jones article, the writer stated that if the benefit of a modification such as one that would promote safety, cost greater than such benefit, the project was not worth it to Ford — no matter the benefit (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 8). This gave rise to the cost-benefit analysis Ford abided by. Iacocca was popularly known for saying “Safety doesn’t
5). He should have decided to give this limit adequate flexibility to make room for design alterations such as the rubber bladder for the gas tank that could potentially exceed the two thousand limits. That way, not only would the vehicle effectively compete against cars that had similar safeties in place, he would have promoted a value for safety, which in turn would promote the vehicle’s reliability. Iacocca and other top officials should have also decided to own up to the fuel tank’s design error in the wake of the casualties it caused. It was wrong of them to blame it on the drivers and highway conditions (Mark Dowie, 1977, p. 8), rather than take full responsibilities for the rupture-prone tanks. Iacocca should have decided to recall the fire prone Pintos that were in service, and had the rubber bladders installed to remedy the dangers it presented. This would have promoted values of accountability and integrity for the vehicles Ford put out in the
Fords president wanted to make a car that fitted the American demands, so he made the Pinto which had the price of 12,000 dollars in todays capital measurement. Everything was set, and Ford made some tests, and that is when the company realized that the design placed the gas tank in a vulnerable place. Now, we all know that no car is one hundred percent safe, but the Pinto unwillingly raised public awareness when a
By 1927, Ford was a very successful industrialist, who had made a fortune out of manufacturing cars and displayed a new model of industrial production. He paid his workers much higher than average wages and offered various other incentives to encourage them to live the lives he thought they should. However, he was not a totally honest employer. He was violently anti-union and employed thugs to intimidate anyone who tried to organize and represent his workforce. Ford's generosity as a boss was dependent on letting the company make decisions for the workers, not just in the factories but in the way employees lived their lives, spies were actively out and about observing workers' off duty lives. Ford thought he could create a vast rubber plantation in Brazil, thus ensuring a reliable supply of latex for his new Model A as well as for his Ford trucks and tractors. In the process, he intended to show the world that his system of production would also elevate the lives of his workers.
Flink’s Three stages of American automobile consciousness fully express the progress of the whole automobile industry. From the first model T to the automatic production, it gives me an intuitive feeling of the automobile history from a big picture. On the other hand, Kline and Pinch focus more on a certain group of people--farmers or people who live in the rural area, they use it as an entry point to talk about automobile, alone with the role and duty transition between male and
Henry Ford is responsible for “perhaps the most revolutionary development in industrial history.” (Watts 2005,
Henry Ford wanted to build a high-quality automobile that would be affordable to everyday people. He believed the way to do this was to manufacture one model in huge quantities. Henry Ford searched the world for the best materials he could find at the cheapest cost. During a car race in Florida , Ford examined the wreckage of a French car and noticed that many of its parts were made of a metal that was lighter but stronger than what was being used in American cars. No one in the U.S. knew how to make this French steel a vanadium alloy. As part of the preproduction process for the Model T, Ford imported an expert who helped him build a steel mill. As a result, the only cars in the world to utilize vanadium steel in the next five years would be French luxury cars and the Model T. Ford realizes he needs another efficient way to produce the cars in lower prices. Ford saw what he was missing was 4 principles that would help with the Model T which was interchangeable parts, continuous flow, division of labor, and reducing wasted
The 1920’s was a time of great social, political, and economic change. The early automobile industry was no exclusion. It appears that throughout history, the figures that stand out the most are either worshipped or despised, and there is very rarely an in-between. Henry Ford, an icon of the 1920’s and the early automobile industry is no exemption. Many people love Ford for his innovative and entrepreneurial skills, while on the other hand, Ford is disliked by many due to his association with Anti-Semitism. Regardless of how Ford is viewed, many decisions he made significantly impacted the automobile industry. These decisions included installing the moving assembly line in his plant, and introducing the Five-Dollar Day. Through the implementation of the Five-Dollar Day, Ford was able to drastically change how the Ford Motor Company company operated, and how business would operate for years to come.
To some, proper maintenance of a vehicle is mundane, but in the fire service it is the pinnacle of consequence if left abandoned. All tasks are performed to foster confidence that the trucks crew will be able to perform their job with the utmost of safety. A unified effort in the proper inspection and upkeep of all fire apparatus allows for the knowledge that all fire personnel will be safe in the case of an emergency. A high standard of excellence encourages confidence in trustworthy driver engineers. As driver engineers make every effort to ensure the safety of the family of fire fighters inside the fire apparatus and the patrons that they have sworn to serve, this is the testament to true selflessness.
The majority of people, especially in America, cannot go about their daily lives without a car. Automobiles have instilled themselves in peoples’ lives and shown their usefulness since their debut in 1769. Since then, humans have redesigned and refined the automobile thousands of times, each time making the vehicle more efficient and economical than before. Now as the world approaches an ethical decision to dwarf all others, many people look toward automotives for yet another change. The emergence of the hypercar due to ecological turmoil exemplifies the change the world has demanded. Hypercars alter everything people know about automotives, modern ecology, and fuel efficiency. Not only do hypercars offer a solution to many ecological problems humans are faced with now, they also represent the only logical area for the automotive industry, and by some stretch American society, to expand.
Foreign markets were beginning to show promise with the vehicles that were going to put out on the market. The Ford Motor Company began to feel the pressure and felt that it needed to be in the limelight of the competition. Lee Iococca, the CEO of Ford, decided that it was time for a change and thus the Ford Pinto was introduced. However, the Pinto had numerous flaws that cost the Ford Company more than ever anticipated.
The estimated risk to consumers, along with the potential financial cost of loss of life is deemed lower than the financial burden of making the modification to the cars in question. If Ford were to add the extra part to the Pinto, there would have been an added cost in production, which would then have been passed on to the consumers by way of the purchase price for the vehicle; nevertheless, the risk would have been greatly diminished or eliminated. Using this approach, Ford did the right thing. The company was happy because they saved money on production, consumers could purchase what they considered to be a quality vehicle at a reasonable price. This course of action led to a greater yield of happiness than the alternative. Adding the extra part would have resulted in
Sorensen, Charles E. My Forty Years with Ford. New York: Wayne State University Press, 1956. Accessed March 9, 2014. http://books.google.com/books/about/My_Forty_Years_with_Ford.html?id=fv9WPvAXpGMC.
This paper takes a look at the ways in which the ideas of Fordism and Taylorism helped the success of the U.S motor vehicle industry. The motor vehicle industry has changed the fundamental ideas on the process of manufacturing and probably more expressively on how humans work together to create value.
We will start with the fuel tank. A fuel tank comes in many different sizes depending on how much space is available. Most cars and trucks have only one tank but some trucks have two. Fuel tanks can be made of 3 different things. These are pressed corrosion-resistant steel, aluminum, or molded reinforced polyethylene plastic. The fuel tank has internal baffles or surge plates to prevent the fuel from sloshing back and forth. If you hear splashing in the tank on acceleration or deceleration, this means that the baffles could be broken. All tanks have a fuel filler pipe, a fuel outlet line to the engine and a vent system. All catalytic converter cars are equipped with a filler pipe restrictor so that leaded fuel, which is dispensed from a thicker nozzle, cannot be introduced into the fuel system. All modern fuel tanks include devices that prevent vapors from leaving the tank. All fuel tank designs provide some control of fuel height when the tank is filled. This is achieved by using vent lings within the filler tube or tank. With this design only 90% of the tank is ever full, leaving 10% for expansion. Some vehicles have a over filling limiting valve to prevent overfilling of the tank.
Ford’s production plants rely on very high-tech computers and automated assembly. It takes a significant financial investment and time to reconfigure a production plant after a vehicle model is setup for assembly. Ford has made this mistake in the past and surprisingly hasn’t learned the valuable lesson as evidence from the hybrid revolution their missing out on today. Between 1927 and 1928, Ford set in motion their “1928 Plan” of establishing worldwide operations. Unfortunately, the strategic plan didn’t account for economic factors in Europe driving the demand for smaller vehicles. Henry Ford established plants in Europe for the larger North American model A. Their market share in 1929 was 5.7% in England and 7.2% in France (Dassbach, 1988). Economic changes can wreak havoc on a corporation’s bottom line and profitability as well as their brand.
"Hey, be careful and don't do anything stupid," my dad said to me right before I hopped into Chase Miller's dark blue Chevy S-10 with a camper shell on the back. I looked at Chase and Tyler Becker and said, "Let's go camping." As Chase pushed down the gas pedal, a big cloud of black smoke shot out of the back of the truck and the smell of burning motor oil filled the cab.