|
Close but different.
Originally Posted by Vector
(Post 1399842)
+1000! A secure metal cover!
Ford Pintos and early Mustangs were known to push fuel from the tank into the passenger compartment in a rear end collision, frying the occupants because there was not a sufficient barrier (firewall) in place to keep it from happening. Most classic Mustang owners install a safety kit that keeps this from happening. Most Pinto owners are "grilled and gone" by now. :-) There were a lot of lawsuits over these issues in the 70's. Vector The early Mustangs were just Falcon chassis with a sporty body bolted to the frame and as such they inherited the Falcons fuel tank which also served as the floor to the trunk itself. In effect the fuel tank was an integral part of the trunk and subject to rupture in a severe rear-end collision. The Pinto continued that brilliant piece of engineering wizardry and has now become the norm the media picked-up on that in a story involving a terrible accident in which several people were killed and the lawsuits began pouring in. What the media didn't report was that the folks involved had a full tank of gas, had left off or lost the gas cap, and were stopped dead in the road with no lights on when they were rear-ended by a truck going over 50 mph. You know, some minor facts that they felt weren't important. |
Originally Posted by RDMinor
(Post 1434406)
What the media didn't report was that the folks involved had a full tank of gas, had left off or lost the gas cap, and were stopped dead in the road with no lights on when they were rear-ended by a truck going over 50 mph. You know, some minor facts that they felt weren't important.
And it was not the owners fault! Cars should not spew flaming gasoline on their occupants in a collision, if at all possible. "Accident investigations in many of the cases revealed that victims had few, if any, trauma injuries as a result of the impacts, but had burned to death when the cars exploded into flames. Some had been trapped inside the cars due to the body buckling and doors becoming jammed shut. " Vector |
I think this thread deserves a STICKY.
|
Risks & rewards & life's nasty reality
It is easy in the 20/20 vision of hindsight to place blame in the case of Ford and their engineering of the Pinto but the reality was much different from that pushed by the media. Keep in mind that this was the dawn of the entire safety issue, save the whales, and Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed crusade that was primarily based on highly suspect and inflammatory rhetoric.
Ford was using government and industry accepted cost benefit analysis based on the governments own data not only in the Pinto but across the product line as was every other manufacturer. In hindsight it's easy for us seating in our living rooms with only the media's take on any major issue to arrive at a decision, but it's more often an entirely different thing to be personally involved and have access to all the facts surrounding a particular case. I've followed lawsuits dealing with the misuse of 50-60 year old machinery that attempts to blame the manufacturer for not including features not available until 30 or more years AFTER that particular machinery was first built. For several years after the advent of airbags there were lawsuits being filed by those injured in cars that had been built years before airbags were engineered and mandated by the federal government. In any accident there are almost always many factors aside from those pushed by the plaintiff that bore directly on the accident and its outcome but for most of us we have to dig pretty deeply to find out what they were. Years ago when I was still a dealer Chrysler was found guilty of in a product liability case involving the death of a child in a minivan accident where the child was ejected from the rear of a minivan in a roll over accident.. The minivan had been t-boned at an intersection and in the subsequent roll over the child had been ejected through the rear door. The jury originally fined Chrysler over $250 MILLION. That's 1/4 of a-billion dollars!! The jury was forced to reach a verdict without knowing the minivan's driver ran a red light and Sergio would have lived had he worn a seat belt, Cooney said. But Hawkins said failure to wear seat belts cannot be introduced to establish fault in South Carolina. As for Ford's experiences with the Pinto shows a case against big corporations (and today even not so big ones) can be won on the basis of sympathy and the extent of injuries in isolated cases even when the reality is that in the real world and the totality of the evidence show that accidents are a fact of life and more often than not there are multiple reasons for the severity of those accidents. The link is to a dispassionate description of the most widely publicized case and the various evidence used in the trial. I want to point out in case some won't notice it in the article that the 'value of a life' as used by Ford in their exhibit was not Ford's estimate but was in fact a number arrived at by the NHTSA and given to and other manufacturers in 1972. I understand the response of "How can you place a value on a human life?", but the reality is that we must when deciding to what extent societies as whole can be expected to bear the cost of trying to insure in every case under every set of circumstance the dream of no injuries and no deaths. And finally, subsequent analysis of the Pinto's overall safety indicated its safety was comparable to other cars of its class. The difference was in the details and the media's coverage. Are cars and trucks safer today? Absolutely, but they are also considerably more expensive with a 1971 Pinto retail of just under $2100 and a 2016 Focus retailing for $17,000+ over 800% more. https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&V...ett-pinto.html A. Incident Facts On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls stopped to refuel the 1973 Ford Pinto sedan they were driving. After filling up, the driver loosely reapplied the gas cap which subsequently fell off as they headed down U. S. Highway 33. Trying to retrieve the cap, the girls stopped in the right lane of the highway shoulder since there was no space on the highway for cars to safely pull off the roadway. Shortly thereafter, a van weighing over 4000 pounds and modified with a rigid plank for a front bumper was traveling at fifty five miles an hour and stuck the stopped Pinto. The two passengers died at the scene when the car burst into flames. The driver was ejected and died shortly thereafter in the hospital. Inspecting the van shortly after the accident, the police found open beer bottles, marijuana and caffeine pills inside.6 The subsequent proceedings were rather surprising. Based on the facts of the case, it seemed that any one of a number of parties could be liable in a civil action or prosecuted criminally. The obvious target seemed to be the driver of the van. It seems he could have been prosecuted for criminal homicide or the families of the victims could have pursued a civil action, in light of the fact the driver possessed several controlled substances at the time of the accident. A second potential party open to a civil suit was the Indiana Highway department. It was their design which left no safe stopping place along Highway 33 where cars could pull over for emergencies. In fact, the road was so dangerous that the Elkart County Citizens' Safety Committee had previously written a letter to the department asking that the road design be modified to provide safe stopping place for emergencies.7 It is also conceivable, the driver of the Pinto could have been found negligent for stopping a car in the middle of the highway. The first surprise of the resulting litigation carne when Indiana state prosecutor filed suit against Ford Motor Company for criminal recklessness and reckless homicide.8 The famous and highly publicized legal battle was underway. Some have argued the prosecution acted unethically from day one, gathering and hiding evidence from the defendant and concealing information about the condition of the van driver.9 Whether true or not, the following litigation caused damage that would take Ford years to recover from. B. Questionable Design The controversy surrounding the Ford Pinto concerned the placement of the automobile's fuel tank. 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 vulnerability was enhanced by other features of the car. The gas tank and the rear axle were separated by only nine inches. There were also bolts that were positioned in a manner that threatened the gas tank. Finally, the fuel filler pipe design resulted in a higher probability that it would to disconnect from the tank in the event of an accident than usual, causing gas spillage that could lead to dangerous fires. Because of these numerous design flaws, the Pinto became the center of public debate. These design problems were first brought to the public's attention in an August 1977 article in Mother Jones magazine. This article condemned the Ford Motor Company and the author was later given a Pulitzer Prize.10 This article originated the public debate over the risk/benefit analysis used by the Ford Motor Company in their determination as to whether or, not the design of the Pinto fuel tank be altered to reduce the risk of fire as the result of a collision. The crux of the public debate about The Ford Motor Company was the decision not to make improvements to the gas tank of the Pinto after completion of the risk/benefit analysis. Internal Ford documents revealed Ford had developed the technology to make improvements to the design of the Pinto that would dramatically decrease the chance of a Pinto "igniting" after a rear-end collision.11This technology would have greatly reduced the chances of burn injuries and deaths after a collision. Ford estimated the cost to make this production adjustment to the Pinto would have been $11 per vehicle.12 Most people found it reprehensible that Ford determined that the $11 cost per automobile was too high and opted not to make the production change to the Pinto model. C. Risk/Benefit Analysis In determining whether or not to make the production change, the Ford Motor Company defended itself by contending that it used a risk/benefit analysis. Ford stated that its reason for using a risk/benefit analysis was that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required them to do so.13 The risk/benefit approach excuses a defendant if the monetary costs of making a production change are greater than the "societal benefit" of that change. This analysis follows the same line of reasoning as the negligence standard developed by Judge Learned Hand in United States vs. Carroll Towing in 1947 (to be discussed later). The philosophy behind risk/benefit analysis promotes the goal of allocative efficiency. The problem that arose in the Ford Pinto and many other similar cases highlights the human and emotional circumstances behind the numbers which are not factored in the risk/benefit analysis. The Ford Motor Company contended that by strictly following the typical approach to risk,/benefit analysis, they were justified in not making the production change to the Pinto model. Assuming the numbers employed in their analysis were correct, Ford seemed to be justified. The estimated cost for the production change was $11 per vehicle. This $11 per unit cost applied to 11 million cars and 1.5 million trucks results in an overall cost of $137 million. The controversial numbers were those Ford used for the "benefit" half of the equation. It was estimated that making the change would result in a total of 180 less burn deaths, 180 less serious burn injuries, and 2,100 less burned vehicles. These estimates were multiplied by the unit cost figured by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These figures were $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle equating to the total "societal benefit" is $49.5 million. Since the benefit of $49.5 million was much less than the cost of $137 million, Ford felt justified in its decision not to alter the product design. The risk,/benefit results indicate that it is acceptable for 180 people to die and 180 people to burn if it costs $11 per vehicle to prevent such casualty rates. On a case by case basis, the argument seems unjustifiable, but looking at the bigger picture complicates the issue and strengthens the risk/benefit analysis logic. Exhibit One: Ford's Cost/Benefit Analysis Benefits and Costs Relating to Fuel Leakage Associated with the Static Rollover Test Portion of FMVSS 208 Benefits Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100 burned vehicles Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle Total Benefit: 180 x ($200,000) + 180 x ($67,000) + 2100 x ($700) = $49.5 Million Costs Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck Total Cost: 11,000,000 x ($11) + 1,500,000 x ($ I 1) = $137 Million From Ford Motor Company internal memorandum: "Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires." Source: Douglas Birsch and John H. Fielder, THE FORD PINTO CASE: A STUDY IN APPLIED ETHICS. BUSINESS, AND TECHNOLOGY. p. 28.1994. |
Originally Posted by RDMinor
(Post 1435346)
It is easy in the 20/20 vision of hindsight to place blame in the case of Ford and their engineering of the Pinto but the reality.......
Cost analysis goes on to this day, just look at the recent ignition switch fiasco which cost some 30-60 (I don't know the exact number) people their lives all for $30 (or less) part? Vector |
Getting back to the fuel pumps (sorry), ... Has anyone done this "cut-a-hole" technique to a Coupe yet? (Especially a single pump, '03 and later XKR coupe.) Would we go in through the Sub-Woofer opening? Is that too far aft? Can you really wedge yourself in under the rear window? - lol.
|
I just did the fuel pumps on my 01 XKR. I did it by the traditional pull the tank method. It is not that hard and I'm not sure this would have saved much time on mine.
Even with the tank out on a bench it is still a gymnastics exercise getting the valve assembly off the top and getting the float and pumps properly situated through that small hole. The hole method would save time on the tank R&R but I think it would be a wash overall. Getting the valves and pumps in and out would be a substantially harder for me with 2 holes and bent over the back seat especially since you will have to be extra careful to avoid getting fuel into the interior. One piece of advice if you do take the tank out - bend the corners of the tank parting line up with a pair of pliers before reinstall. That makes it less likely that you will cut a wire on the reinstall and makes it easier to fit the tank back in. Just my 2 cents. |
Thanks for giving us experiences, Auburn. Did you need to disconnect the hoses from under the car? I've read that can be quite difficult (and is the part I'd most like to avoid).
|
Originally Posted by scardini1
(Post 1438509)
Thanks for giving us experiences, Auburn. Did you need to disconnect the hoses from under the car? I've read that can be quite difficult (and is the part I'd most like to avoid).
1. Disconnect the parking brake linkage and move it to the side. It is one bolt but gives you a lot more room to maneuver your hands. 2. Tie a string or fishing line around the fuel line tool. This helps a lot in case you drop it as it will fall into the nooks and crannys of the subframe. 3. Once you get the tool on the pipe push it with a long screwdriver to release the clip. I got both sets of the tools from advance auto, one of the white ones that come on the black plastic mount worked the best |
I've done it both ways, both convertibles. Took the tank out on mine, cut a access hole on a friends, by far the access hole was easier. I did made a tool to release the fuel lines from the tank out of conduit (I believe Rev Sam may have a video on this.) I could not get my tank drained, So I was prepared and plugged the tank opening with a Allen screw and a couple of O rings on it. still lost a small amount of fuel. I supported the body and let the rear axle hang to get to the fuel lines and it is a very cramped space. I also dinged the quarter panel with a small ding trying to get the tank out of the trunk it must come out perfectly square and on no angle, straight back. With the access hole I probably saved three to four hours time and never got under the car. If I ever have to redo mine I will do the access hole.
|
Doug,
That cinches it for me. If I ever have to do the pump, I'm drilling the access hole, no doubt about it. Thanks! John |
I'm think along the same lines, but I'd still like to hear from one or two "Coupe" owners that did the hole thing. It is really tight back there, between the rear deck and window. I'll still want to formulate a reasonable solution for restoring the firewall's rigidity and fume/flame barrier. The rigidity thing might not be as big a deal on a coupe, as the roof provides a tremendous amount of stiffness to the body, but the fume/flame barrier is mandatory.
Auburn: Can you put up a photo of the fuel connector tool you recommend (and the part number)? Thanks! |
Jim
I read the coupe has an access hole from the speaker. The hole is already there just remove the speaker. |
Here's a thought
[QUOTE=scardini1;1439759]I'm think along the same lines, but I'd still like to hear from one or two "Coupe" owners that did the hole thing. It is really tight back there, between the rear deck and window. I'll still want to formulate a reasonable solution for restoring the firewall's rigidity and fume/flame barrier. The rigidity thing might not be as big a deal on a coupe, as the roof provides a tremendous amount of stiffness to the body, but the fume/flame barrier is mandatory.
Would a circular piece of metal properly sealed/gasketed so as to not leak any fumes pop riveted around its circumference do what you want? As you say rigidity in a coupe is not a problem as the roof and back glass add plenty as it is, and a metal 'plug' would keep fumes and any flames at bay long enough to get out of the car. |
RDMinor
Here's a a post where the owner of a coupe took his rear subwoofer out and gained access to the fuel pump no cutting involved. https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...bwoofer-70631/ |
[QUOTE=RDMinor;1440471]
Originally Posted by scardini1
(Post 1439759)
I'm think along the same lines, but I'd still like to hear from one or two "Coupe" owners that did the hole thing. It is really tight back there, between the rear deck and window. I'll still want to formulate a reasonable solution for restoring the firewall's rigidity and fume/flame barrier. The rigidity thing might not be as big a deal on a coupe, as the roof provides a tremendous amount of stiffness to the body, but the fume/flame barrier is mandatory.
Would a circular piece of metal properly sealed/gasketed so as to not leak any fumes pop riveted around its circumference do what you want? As you say rigidity in a coupe is not a problem as the roof and back glass add plenty as it is, and a metal 'plug' would keep fumes and any flames at bay long enough to get out of the car. BUT, I was ready to CUT THAT HOLE!!! ;) Glad it worked out the other way! hope you're doing fine R.D, frank |
Hey guys I just want to say thanks for everyone for the great input into this wonderful website I have a 2001 XKR with the dual fuel pump that more likely have been running on one fuel pump, the car's been getting hard to start and cutting off lately the codes are showing the 1st fuel pump relay in the second fuel pump relay. So I just thought I'd go ahead and just change them. I purchase the fuel pumps over at Napa for about a hundred and five bucks a piece, along with the strainer for another 10 bucks a piece. Removing the speaker and working through that hole was a challenge but definitely did the trick and look like it was easier then crawling underneath the car. I would tell you taking off the vapor lines were difficult so I decided just to cut the hoses and replace them with new it was a lot easier doing it that way for me. So I can tell you that the codes for the fuel relays disappeared and for the power of both fuel pumps now working I can burn the tires off from one end of the block to the next what a huge difference my next challenge will be working on the O2 sensor code. Again thank you everyone.
|
Originally Posted by RCSign
(Post 1440692)
RDMinor
Here's a a post where the owner of a coupe took his rear subwoofer out and gained access to the fuel pump no cutting involved. https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...bwoofer-70631/ |
I don't know, you would have the speaker in there to absorb any fuel that may leak and also in the convertible there would be the upholstery. If you were trapped for any period of time It definitely could burn through.In the one we cut the access hole in I fabricated a sheet metal cover and installed with sheet metal screws. This week end I'll try to get a photo.
|
Originally Posted by RCSign
(Post 1573894)
I don't know, you would have the speaker in there to absorb any fuel that may leak and also in the convertible there would be the upholstery. If you were trapped for any period of time It definitely could burn through.In the one we cut the access hole in I fabricated a sheet metal cover and installed with sheet metal screws. This week end I'll try to get a photo.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands