The Infographics Show

[Ted23Lightning]

Well… this isn’t great. The YouTube channel “The Infographics Show” posted a video labeled “REAL Reason Why FORD Is Failing”

Sponsored

 

[AI_Speed]

Way past due to fire-CEO-Farley.

 

[Whammy Bar]

We doing click bait here now?

 

[BSEE SPARKY]

This is mostly a distorted story. Nothing was a complete lie, but nothing was not just the facts either.

 

[Ted23Lightning]

Just wanted to share with everyone.
I already know people are gonna be talking about it at work tomorrow lol

Yeah, I believe the recalls show Ford actually cares, but definitely looks bad.
in regards to the tariff's, I think Ford is best suited of the big 3.

 

[watts/up]

Just zeroed in on this one Pinto stat: can anybody find anything to support this? Closest I can find is this article by Snopes which says no. I know it's not the point of this video but if they got this is so wrong should I believe any of this analysis?

Edit: It looks like the 9000 comes from all vehicular deaths attributed to fire (over four years!). Click bait indeed.

 

[Ted23Lightning]

Just zeroed in on this one Pinto stat: can anybody find anything to support this? Closest I can find is this article by Snopes which says no. I know it's not the point of this video but if they got this is so wrong should I believe any of this analysis?

Edit: It looks like the 9000 comes from all vehicular deaths attributed to fire (over four years!). Click bait indeed.

Thank u for checking that. When I saw 9K I was shocked.
Definitely have lost respect for this channel.

 

[Scorpio3d]

This is basically a semi factual slam video on Ford!
Many of the auto makers have made many missteps over their history, just to mention one Chevy tried to sell the Nova in Mexico and could not figure out why it would not sell…
No va translates into Spanish roughly meaning “it does not go” a big marketing misstep. That was discussed in marketing 101 I took in college 30 something years ago. There are many other examples not just for Ford and/or Chevy.
What passes for journalism nowadays makes me cringe!

 

[Athrun88]

Infographics Show, Real Life Lore, etc.. are all just drama/theatric channels imo. They rely on high impact or current drama issues to garner clicks and views. They do the minimum amount of research and present it as fact. Infographics Show in particular had to issue a specific video, a non-apology, addressing accusations of misleading information.

 

[Ted23Lightning]

Infographics Show, Real Life Lore, etc.. are all just drama/theatric channels imo. They rely on high impact or current drama issues to garner clicks and views. They do the minimum amount of research and present it as fact. Infographics Show in particular had to issue a specific video, a non-apology, addressing accusations of misleading information.

Yeah, just sucks that it gets spread to such a wide audience.

 

[AI_Speed]

The video to its credit - at the end - featured the recent $10b+ Ford profit - and Ford come back potential. However - investors are avoiding the stock like it's a Pinto-Yugo.

Some Ford owners - are getting push back from dealers on fixing warranty items - as a cost savings for Ford corporate. CEO Farley could forego most of his $25m compensation package or resign.

Ford: Suspending Guidance Is Not The Only Issue For Shareholders (F) | Seeking Alpha

Ford Collapses, CEO Needs to Be Fired - 24/7 Wall St.

 

[Ted23Lightning]

The video to its credit - at the end - featured the recent $10b+ Ford profit - and Ford come back potential. However - investors are avoiding the stock like it's a Pinto-Yugo.

Some Ford owners - are getting push back from dealers on fixing warranty items - as a cost savings for Ford corporate. CEO Farley could forego most of his $25m compensation package or resign.

Ford: Suspending Guidance Is Not The Only Issue For Shareholders (F) | Seeking Alpha

Ford Collapses, CEO Needs to Be Fired - 24/7 Wall St.

I agree. I also think with how much Ford is pouring $ in places like Blue Oval City, it makes it look like Ford is bleeding $.
Could definitely take a salary cut lol

 

[chl]

Just zeroed in on this one Pinto stat: can anybody find anything to support this? Closest I can find is this article by Snopes which says no. I know it's not the point of this video but if they got this is so wrong should I believe any of this analysis?

Edit: It looks like the 9000 comes from all vehicular deaths attributed to fire (over four years!). Click bait indeed.

It was in the hundreds based on the number of suits anyway, maybe some were settled out of court though?

I actually knew someone who ALMOST died in a Pinto after a rear end crash, he was in a coma for weeks and needed a lot of rehab.

His Pinto gas tank ruptured but did not catch fire, maybe he was running on empty?

The controversy was Ford knew about the danger of the fuel tank rupturing when a Pinto was rear ended due to a design flaw from their crash tests, and knew of potential remedies, but did nothing to protect against it, or fix it, or recall the cars because the cost would hurt their bottom line, so essentially put profits over safety. The cost of a fix that could have prevented the loss of life and bodily injury would have cost as little as $10 per car.

They were sued multiple/over 100 times, and they lost a big case, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company which was one of the most widely publicized of the lawsuits brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto , then they appealed saying among other things there was no intention to harm anyone, i.e., 'malice' but lost on appeal in 1981 in part because 'malice' as used in the relevant law was meant to include a reckless disregard for the safety of the consumer.

As a result, Ford had to pay out the largest product liability personal injury judgement of its time: over $120 million.

In Grimshaw, the accident resulted in the death of the driver Lilly Gray and severe injury to passenger Richard Grimshaw. Gray's family and Grimshaw filed separate suits against Ford, the actions were consolidated for trial.

We read the case in law school in a class relating to product liability cases. It had been decided a few years before I started law school, so was still topical.

---- For some more detail if interested, below is a description of the case I copy/pasted from Wiki, the facts and procedure are how I remember them so apparently an accurate rendition as far as I can tell----

"A 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback stalled on a freeway, erupting into flames when it was rear-ended by a Ford Galaxie proceeding in the same direction. Lilly Gray, the driver of the Pinto, suffered severe burns to her entire body and resulted in her death by congestive heart failure on her way to the hospital. 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, a passenger, suffered severe, permanently disfiguring burns to his entire body. Grimshaw underwent numerous skin grafts and extensive surgeries, but still lost portions of the fingers on his left hand and his left ear in the accident. Doctors estimated that Grimshaw would require many more surgeries within the next 10 years.

The plaintiff's expert testified that the Pinto's gas tank was pushed forward upon impact and punctured by a flange or bolt on the differential housing. Fuel sprayed from the tank and entered the passenger compartment through the gaps between the rear wheel wells and the floor."

"The court found that the Pinto's styling required the gas tank to be placed behind the rear axle, instead of over the rear axle as was "the preferred practice in Europe and Japan" and that the Pinto had "only 9 or 10 inches" of "crush space," "far less than in any other American automobile or Ford overseas subcompact." The court found that the Pinto's bumper "was little more than a chrome strip, less substantial than the bumper of any other American car produced then or later."The court found that the Pinto's rear structure lacked reinforcement "found in all automobiles produced by Ford's overseas operations," rendering the Pinto "less crush resistant than other vehicles." The court found that a flange and a line of bolts on the Pinto's differential housing "were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward upon rear impact. "

Ford tested two production models of the Pinto and prototypes, some of which "were true duplicates of the design car," "to determine, among other things, the integrity of the fuel system in rear-end accidents." Proposed federal regulations required impacts "without significant fuel spillage," up to 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) impacts by 1972 and 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) by 1973.

Crash tests proved that the Pinto could not meet the proposed regulations. A collision from the rear "caused the fuel tank to be driven forward and to be punctured, causing fuel leakage." A collision of a production Pinto "caused the fuel neck to be torn from the gas tank and the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing." In at least one test collision "spilled fuel entered the driver's compartment through gaps resulting from the separation of the seams joining the rear wheel wells to the floor pan," separations due in part to "the lack of reinforcement in the rear structure."

The courts found that, while "the standard of care for engineers in the industry" after a failed safety test was to "redesign and retest," and although fixes were inexpensive, "Ford produced and sold the Pinto to the public without doing anything to remedy the defects."[19]

Design changes that would have enhanced the fuel system at very little cost included:

• Longitudinal side members: $2.40 ea.
• Cross members: $1.80 ea.
• Shock absorbing "flak suit" for the fuel tank: $4.00
• Tank within a tank and placement of the tank over the rear axle: $5.08 to $5.79
• Nylon bladder within the tank: $5.25 to $8.00
• Placement of the tank over the rear axle with a protective barrier: $9.95
• Substitution of rear axle with a smooth differential housing: $2.10
• Protective shield between differential housing and fuel tank: $2.35
• Improvement and reinforcement of rear bumper: $2.60
• Additional 8 inches (200 mm) crush space: $6.40

Equipping the car with a reinforced rear structure, smooth axle, improved bumper and additional crush space at a total cost of $15.30 would have made the fuel tank safe in a 34 to 38-mile-per-hour rear-end collision by a vehicle the size of the Ford Galaxie. If, in addition to the foregoing, a bladder or tank within a tank were used or if the tank were protected with a shield, it would have been safe in a 40 to 45-mile-per-hour rear impact. If the tank had been located over the rear axle, it would have been safe in a rear impact at 50 miles per hour or more.

The Pinto project team held regular product review meetings chaired and attended by Ford vice presidents. The Pinto was approved by Ford's Product Planning Committee, which included Iacocca and other Ford vice presidents. At an April, 1971 product review meeting, a report prepared by Ford engineers entitled "Fuel System Integrity Program Financial Review" was distributed and discussed, which referred to the crash tests of Ford vehicles and estimated the financial impact of design changes to comply with the proposed federal fuel system integrity standards. The report recommended deferring fixes in order to accrue cost savings.

On appeal, Ford contended that the trial court erroneously admitted Ford's "Fuel System Integrity Program Financial Review" report as irrelevant and prejudicial. In the document, Ford engineers recommending deferring the installation of "flak suits" or "bladders," available at a cost of $4 to $8 per car, in all Ford cars to 1976, which allowed the company to realize a savings of $20.9 million. The court and the appeals court disagreed.

 

[chl]

Well… this isn’t great. The YouTube channel “The Infographics Show” posted a video labeled “REAL Reason Why FORD Is Failing”

Mine didn't come with that big wind up spring dangling from the bottom of the bed!
Any time I see something like that, I know it must be factual...in an alternate universe where tariffs are a good economic policy! (sarcasm)

Sponsored