The 10 least safe cars of all time

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
.. .


> Are you saying the conclusions that Ed expressed don't exist? Or what
> facts are you claiming I got wrong? I never claimed Nader intended for
> Ed to draw the conclusions he did. What I am saying is it is pretty
> clearly a fact that both GM and Ford benefited from the conclusions that
> many Americans arrived at - that small economy cars were unsafe to
> drive.

It was not just GM and Ford (and Chrysler) that promoted the idea that small
cars were unsafe comapred to the larger cars sold at that time. NHTSA and
IIHS both promoted the idea, mostly becasue it was true.

It is hard to find good data on injury losses fromt he early 70's. IIHS does
include some collision coverage claim data for small cars. Essentially the
VW Bettle and US competitors (Pinto and Vega) had very similar collision
loss data (similar number of claims and cost per claim). Japanese cars were
sold in too few numbers to be included in the data back then.

I was able to find one old IIHS document that included the results of
various crash tests (trial lawyer sponsored) designed to show that certain
cars had failure prone gas tanks. Naturally the Pinto failed the particuarl
test shown (a Datus 610 crashed into the rear of the Pinto - the tank
leaked, but there was no fire), but so did a Toyota Cornona (tank leaked and
there was a fire). Interestingly the VW's tank did not fail in a test where
it was rear ended into a Plymouth Fury. See
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr0811.pdf .

Ed

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> Portnoy wrote:
>>
>> "Portnoy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "C. E. White" wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>> > http://www.autoshippers.org/blog/201...rs-of-all-time
>> >>> > cuhulin
>> >>>
>> >>> Another ridiculous slap at the Pinto. As usual the person who wrote
>> >>> this
>> >>> article is repeating a bunch of trial lawyer created hype that was
>> >>> unreleated to reality. Pinto were not particualry dangerous and in
>> >>> fact
>> >>> among contemporary small cars had one of the better safety records.
>> >>> The
>> >>> whole notion that they would burst into flames at the drop of a hat
>> >>> was
>> >>> totally bogus. Ford made the mistake of fighting a lawsuit related to
>> >>> a
>> >>> Pinto that caught on fire in an accident and lost big time. This
>> >>> turned
>> >>> on
>> >>> the trial lawyer hype machine. If you don't know what I mean, look at
>> >>> what
>> >>> is happening today with regards to Toyota and supposed unintended
>> >>> acceleration.
>> >>>
>> >>> I also disagree witht he Corvair being in the list. It may not have
>> >>> been
>> >>> the
>> >>> safest car ever sold, but I can think of dozens that were far worse.
>> >>>
>> >>> And for sure the list, does not include one of the most dangerous
>> >>> vehicles
>> >>> ever sold - the original VW Beetle.
>> >>
>> >> I think you pretty clearly received the message that GM and Ford were
>> >> trying to deliver. GM paid Ralph Nader something like a million
>> >> dollars
>> >> to deliver the message that the basic VW bug design was unsafe at any
>> >> speed. In GM's eyes it was money well spent ...
>> >
>> >> -jim
>> >
>> > Ahh, no, that isn't remotely close to an assessment of Ralph Nader's
>> > involvement. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the
>> > American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book
>> > detailing resistance by car manufacturers to the introduction of safety
>> > features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money
>> > on improving safety. It was a pioneering work of attack journalism.
>>
>> Correction: While is IS an assessment, I of course should have said
>> that it is not an accurate one and bears no resemblance whatsoever
>> to the actual facts of the matter..
>
> Are you saying the conclusions that Ed expressed don't exist? Or what
> facts are you claiming I got wrong? I never claimed Nader intended for
> Ed to draw the conclusions he did. What I am saying is it is pretty
> clearly a fact that both GM and Ford benefited from the conclusions that
> many Americans arrived at - that small economy cars were unsafe to
> drive.
>
> Besides GM and Ford are more than happy to manufacture and sell safety
> features to the car purchasing public. The problem was getting the
> public to be generally inclined to purchase safety features. Caddilac
> and Lincoln buyers were willing to pay but not the rest. And yes Nader
> had a lot to do with getting the public to pay for those features one
> way or the other.

In addition to my other comments, including stating the book's title which
alone conspicuously negates and gives lie to your argument, I'm quite
CLEARLY saying that "GM paid Ralph Nader something like a million
dollars to deliver the message that the basic VW bug design was unsafe
at any speed" bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the facts
of the matter.

Regarding your other ridiculous comments, perhaps you should simply
read the book and/or research the entirety of the story to provide proof
positive documention of how the auto industry not only fought tooth and
nail, with legion excuses, against providing safety features but also GM's
illegal tactics (for which they justifiably paid handsomely) and desperate
attempts to injure Ralph and besmirch his, continuing to date, deservedly
thoroughly unsullied reputation.

Thank Nader for the Corvair being on the list.. I've owned several
Corvair and they are one of the best handling cars.. The 60-63 models
had issues but they were corrected in '64.

>
> I also disagree witht he Corvair being in the list. It may not have been the
> safest car ever sold, but I can think of dozens that were far worse.
>
> And for sure the list, does not include one of the most dangerous vehicles
> ever sold - the original VW Beetle.
>
> Ed

On 2010-12-07, C. E. White > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.autoshippers.org/blog/201...rs-of-all-time
>> cuhulin
>
> Another ridiculous slap at the Pinto. As usual the person who wrote this
> article is repeating a bunch of trial lawyer created hype that was
> unreleated to reality. Pinto were not particualry dangerous and in fact
> among contemporary small cars had one of the better safety records. The
> whole notion that they would burst into flames at the drop of a hat was
> totally bogus. Ford made the mistake of fighting a lawsuit related to a
> Pinto that caught on fire in an accident and lost big time. This turned on
> the trial lawyer hype machine. If you don't know what I mean, look at what
> is happening today with regards to Toyota and supposed unintended
> acceleration.
>
> I also disagree witht he Corvair being in the list. It may not have been the
> safest car ever sold, but I can think of dozens that were far worse.
>
> And for sure the list, does not include one of the most dangerous vehicles
> ever sold - the original VW Beetle.

Perception is reality in a technically ignorant society. Those who can
and are willing to shape perception for their own profit have a lasting
determintal effect on society, the economy, and technical advancement.

The Corvair is constantly slammed, but it's major fault was that it was
different. Which is also it's major strength. But the american control
freaks need to make everything the same, and so the corvair became the
target. IMO The lesson american automakers learned was not to be
innovative beyond certain fixed boundries or someone will get the more
than willing to get the government to stomp on them.

With the Pinto perception became clouded because ford did a heartless
calculation of lawsuit cost vs. product improvement and settling
lawsuits was cheaper so they didn't improve the product. So the pinto
gets an undeserved bad rap when even with the problem was safer than
at least much of its competition.

And then look at what else the author included, 80s mustangs and
corvettes that drivers simply crashed by being boneheads. That doesn't
make the car unsafe, it's just that boneheads more often chose those two
over early 70s big block station wagons or something.

On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>>
>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > http://www.autoshippers.org/blog/201...rs-of-all-time
>>> > cuhulin
>>>
>>> Another ridiculous slap at the Pinto. As usual the person who wrote this
>>> article is repeating a bunch of trial lawyer created hype that was
>>> unreleated to reality. Pinto were not particualry dangerous and in fact
>>> among contemporary small cars had one of the better safety records. The
>>> whole notion that they would burst into flames at the drop of a hat was
>>> totally bogus. Ford made the mistake of fighting a lawsuit related to a
>>> Pinto that caught on fire in an accident and lost big time. This turned
>>> on
>>> the trial lawyer hype machine. If you don't know what I mean, look at
>>> what
>>> is happening today with regards to Toyota and supposed unintended
>>> acceleration.
>>>
>>> I also disagree witht he Corvair being in the list. It may not have been
>>> the
>>> safest car ever sold, but I can think of dozens that were far worse.
>>>
>>> And for sure the list, does not include one of the most dangerous
>>> vehicles
>>> ever sold - the original VW Beetle.
>>
>> I think you pretty clearly received the message that GM and Ford were
>> trying to deliver. GM paid Ralph Nader something like a million dollars
>> to deliver the message that the basic VW bug design was unsafe at any
>> speed. In GM's eyes it was money well spent ...
>
>> -jim
>
> Ahh, no, that isn't remotely close to an assessment of Ralph Nader's
> involvement. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the
> American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book
> detailing resistance by car manufacturers to the introduction of safety
> features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money
> on improving safety. It was a pioneering work of attack journalism.

Not to mention false since Ford had tried to sell safety in the late
1950s. The american public wouldn't buy. Automakers started trying to
sell safety in the 20s and 30s too... It was one of those attempts at
marketing that just kept not working out so well. Now people buy safety
so the automakers bend over backwards to provide it.

In article >,
m6onz5a > wrote:
>Thank Nader for the Corvair being on the list.. I've owned several
>Corvair and they are one of the best handling cars.. The 60-63 models
>had issues but they were corrected in '64.

Yes, they were not bad at all.

On the other hand, my father had a Pinto and it cracked the block within a
month of buying it new... then the dealer kept getting replacements in that
were bad. It took several months before it was back on the road. Then the
transmission failed. He got rid of it with about 20,000 miles on it.

You can argue that this was the safest possible vehicle; nobody ever got into
an accident in a car that was sitting at the dealership all of the time.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"C. E. White" wrote:

>
> Anything bad you can say about the Corvair applied to the VW Bug as well in
> spades. I once saw a guy roll a Bug just doing circle in a parking lot.

I saw a VW bug slide sideways at maybe 45 mph and hit a 6" high curb
sideways and not roll over. That bent the wheel rims, but that was
about it.

But it matters very little what I think. Many other people arrived at
the same conclusions about the VW bug by inference as you did.


>
> Answer this - in 1972 would you have rather been a collision riding in a VW
> Bug or in a Pinto? My choice would have been a Pinto. More stable, better
> structure, more reliable.

The question that Ford would have liked most people to ask was would
they rather be in a Pinto or a full sized Ford.


>
> Ed
>
> > Both GM and Ford could have delivered the message that economy cars are
> > unsafe and shouldn't be allowed on the road through advertising
> > campaigns but it would have cost a lot more money and wouldn't have been
> > as convincing.
> > The idea was brilliant. Build a small car that was a knock off of the
> > most serious economy car competition and then shoot it down in flames
> > (literally) and thus by inference destroy the competitions credibility.
> > Well it worked with some of the population who became thoroughly
> > convinced they needed big heavy Detroit iron, but it backfired with a
> > good portion of the population that missed the intended message and just
> > saw it as Detroit building crummy cars.
> >
> > -jim

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2010-12-07, Portnoy > wrote:
>>
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
>> .. .
>>>
>>>
>>> "C. E. White" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > http://www.autoshippers.org/blog/201...rs-of-all-time
>>>> > cuhulin
>>>>
>>>> Another ridiculous slap at the Pinto. As usual the person who wrote
>>>> this
>>>> article is repeating a bunch of trial lawyer created hype that was
>>>> unreleated to reality. Pinto were not particualry dangerous and in fact
>>>> among contemporary small cars had one of the better safety records. The
>>>> whole notion that they would burst into flames at the drop of a hat was
>>>> totally bogus. Ford made the mistake of fighting a lawsuit related to a
>>>> Pinto that caught on fire in an accident and lost big time. This turned
>>>> on
>>>> the trial lawyer hype machine. If you don't know what I mean, look at
>>>> what
>>>> is happening today with regards to Toyota and supposed unintended
>>>> acceleration.
>>>>
>>>> I also disagree witht he Corvair being in the list. It may not have
>>>> been
>>>> the
>>>> safest car ever sold, but I can think of dozens that were far worse.
>>>>
>>>> And for sure the list, does not include one of the most dangerous
>>>> vehicles
>>>> ever sold - the original VW Beetle.
>>>
>>> I think you pretty clearly received the message that GM and Ford were
>>> trying to deliver. GM paid Ralph Nader something like a million dollars
>>> to deliver the message that the basic VW bug design was unsafe at any
>>> speed. In GM's eyes it was money well spent ...
>>
>>> -jim
>>
>> Ahh, no, that isn't remotely close to an assessment of Ralph Nader's
>> involvement. Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the
>> American Automobile by Ralph Nader, published in 1965, is a book
>> detailing resistance by car manufacturers to the introduction of safety
>> features, like seat belts, and their general reluctance to spend money
>> on improving safety. It was a pioneering work of attack journalism.
>
> Not to mention false ...

I think Paul (Marlon Brando) said it best in 'Last
Tango in Paris': "What a steaming pile of horse****!"

"Brent" > wrote in message
...

> With the Pinto perception became clouded because ford did a heartless
> calculation of lawsuit cost vs. product improvement and settling
> lawsuits was cheaper so they didn't improve the product. So the pinto
> gets an undeserved bad rap when even with the problem was safer than
> at least much of its competition.

This is another flase preception regarding the Pinto. There was no heartless
calcualtion directly related to the Pinto. At the famous Pinto fire related
lawsuit, the plantiff's attorneys presented an older Ford document that was
unrealted to the case. Furthermore, the document was written using NHTSA
(Government) figures for the value of a life. Back then the Government was
heavily into cost benefit analysis. All Ford did was make the calcualtions
requested by NHTSA using the value of a life provided by NHTSA.

The problem is everbody remembers the lies and half truths in a Mother Jones
article that attacked the Pinto. Nobody cares about the truth. People treat
half truths on trail lawyer sponsored web sites as gospel and dispell any
counter statements from the manufacturer or even NHTSA as cover-ups. Ask
Toyota how it feels to get trashed by a bunch of scum sucking bottom
feeders......

Ed

http://www.devilfinder.com
1956 Ford safety features

I remember very well back in 1956 when Ford was pushing safety
features.I can still see the padded dashboard, the deep dish steering
wheel.

Pinto and Corvair did not deserve all the bad hype that was thrown at
them.
cuhulin