Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
TDRComm
Staff Member
Just last week I gave an overly simplistic review of the 1.675-billion dollar fine that was imposed on Cummins back in December 2023 for emissions violations. The title: “And So the Story Goes.”
As I was writing the story, an email blast from the Hagerty folks (great website and collector car insurance, www.hagerty.com) found its way into my inbox. A captivating article, “7 of the Worst Automotive Myths, According to You” was offered and I took the clickbait. Written by Kyle Smith, it was an entertaining read.
Read it here: 7 of the Worst Automotive Myths, According to You
In “The Explosive Pinto” portion Smith noted “The design was, in fact, found to be faulty during testing. A rear end collision at moderate speed would force the tank forward into the rear axle, which could mean, but not necessarily guarantee, a puncture in the gas tank.”
Smith continues, “Soon, the urban legend that the cars just straight-up exploded was born, though no Pintos have been documented as blowing up in this way. The risk of fire in a collision is present when considering many vehicle designs (including the Beetle, where the fuel tank is up front), yet the Pinto is the butt of this explosive myth.”
What, Mister Editor-Dude, does this have to do with the 1.675-billion dollar fine for emissions violations at Cummins?
Let me see if I can draw a correlation.
Like my review of the 1.675-billion story, the Smith article is an overly simplistic summary.
The previous title, “And So the Story Goes,” implies that there are so many more details (try a 10+ year time span from the 2013 trucks’ introduction to the December 2023 violation) to which we currently do not have access.
So, given time, just like in our Issue 120 and 121 magazines and the book reviews of the VW Diesel Emissions Scandal “Faster, Higher, Farther,” there will be additional chapters to the 1.675-billion story.
Here is a further correlation. In the comments section of Hagerty’s “7 of the Worst” a reader offered a further look at the Pinto story. He linked to an 11-page story from Mother Jones titled “Pinto Madness” from October 1977 (wow, 47 years ago).
Read it here: Pinto Madness
If you take a minute to download the Mother Jones link, I promise you’ll be fascinated by writer Mark Dowie’s review of the dollars-and-cents versus life-and-death; engineering implementation versus corporate time dictates; and government regulators versus the manufacturer’s lobbying efforts. Although not safety-related, I’m sure those inter-corporate and inter-government agency struggles happened in the Cummins 1.675-billion story.
Likewise, for some further lessons in industry versus government (much longer than the 11-page Mother Jones article):
In Your Face – An insiders explosive account of the Takata airbag scandal, by Kevin Fitzgerald and David Schumann
Cobalt Cover-Up – The inside story of a deadly conspiracy, by Lance Cooper
There you go: Just some light reading for you to consider.
Robert Patton
As I was writing the story, an email blast from the Hagerty folks (great website and collector car insurance, www.hagerty.com) found its way into my inbox. A captivating article, “7 of the Worst Automotive Myths, According to You” was offered and I took the clickbait. Written by Kyle Smith, it was an entertaining read.
Read it here: 7 of the Worst Automotive Myths, According to You
In “The Explosive Pinto” portion Smith noted “The design was, in fact, found to be faulty during testing. A rear end collision at moderate speed would force the tank forward into the rear axle, which could mean, but not necessarily guarantee, a puncture in the gas tank.”
Smith continues, “Soon, the urban legend that the cars just straight-up exploded was born, though no Pintos have been documented as blowing up in this way. The risk of fire in a collision is present when considering many vehicle designs (including the Beetle, where the fuel tank is up front), yet the Pinto is the butt of this explosive myth.”
What, Mister Editor-Dude, does this have to do with the 1.675-billion dollar fine for emissions violations at Cummins?
Let me see if I can draw a correlation.
Like my review of the 1.675-billion story, the Smith article is an overly simplistic summary.
The previous title, “And So the Story Goes,” implies that there are so many more details (try a 10+ year time span from the 2013 trucks’ introduction to the December 2023 violation) to which we currently do not have access.
So, given time, just like in our Issue 120 and 121 magazines and the book reviews of the VW Diesel Emissions Scandal “Faster, Higher, Farther,” there will be additional chapters to the 1.675-billion story.
Here is a further correlation. In the comments section of Hagerty’s “7 of the Worst” a reader offered a further look at the Pinto story. He linked to an 11-page story from Mother Jones titled “Pinto Madness” from October 1977 (wow, 47 years ago).
Read it here: Pinto Madness
If you take a minute to download the Mother Jones link, I promise you’ll be fascinated by writer Mark Dowie’s review of the dollars-and-cents versus life-and-death; engineering implementation versus corporate time dictates; and government regulators versus the manufacturer’s lobbying efforts. Although not safety-related, I’m sure those inter-corporate and inter-government agency struggles happened in the Cummins 1.675-billion story.
Likewise, for some further lessons in industry versus government (much longer than the 11-page Mother Jones article):
In Your Face – An insiders explosive account of the Takata airbag scandal, by Kevin Fitzgerald and David Schumann
Cobalt Cover-Up – The inside story of a deadly conspiracy, by Lance Cooper
There you go: Just some light reading for you to consider.
Robert Patton
