Takes me back to my ford pinto....
Another case where mass hysteria and perception was at odds with the facts.
The truth was that most American small and mid-sized cars of that era had the fuel tanks under the boot ("trunk" to Americans).
In any severe rear-end collision, the chances were high that the fuel tank could leak or rupture - making a bad situation worse.
I remember that one of the Pinto lawsuits was about an accident where the Pinto pulled onto the highway in the path of a truck going 100 ("66" to Americans). Big fire, everyone in the car died.
The outcome would have been the same with most other cars of the era - a truck hitting the rear at high speed would rupture the fuel tank.
______________________
The Pinto's flaw, and what was fixed in the recall, was that there was a bolt in the suspension near the fuel tank. In a modest low speed collision, the tank could move on its mounts and hit the bolt, which could puncture the tank and could cause a minor problem to be a major problem.
The fix was to put a larger disk on the bolt - so if the tank hit the bolt it would merely dent the tank, but not puncture it.
But, in the public's eye, "Ford Pinto" means "exploding car" - regardless of the facts.
I just hope that I'm never on an airplane with an Ipod Nano on it somewhere....
Leaving your iPod (or whatever) in your car is one thing, but your dog? No, not a brilliant move if you ask me.
It's Sweden - that's the one weekend of the year without snow everywhere!
</joke> </kidding> </love you anuba, I'm blond and my mother's maiden name was Carlsen>
