In 1978, there were six fatalities from pinto fires but try as I may, I cannot find any fire related death statistics for Pintos beyond 1978.   There would have been a period where unmodified Pintos were still in circulation and perhaps some fire deaths or injuries but it seems like after 1980, all the noise on those fire related deaths stopped..   Now if the fires had continued, wouldn’t the press have been all over Ford saying that the repair didn’t work?   The lack of significant Pinto cabin fire deaths after 1980 might be a form of evidence, that the statistics then settled down to no better no worse than other types of vehicles kinda suggests that the thing at fault was no longer an issue…      

No Corsair huh... sucks to be a Lincoln dealer    We got the program code now so we know that rumored Maverick CUV is in fact the new Escape EV. I'm really glad they are sticking with the Maverick and Escape names.    Still almost 18 months for Ford to change its mind and cancel P833 per standard operating procedure. I'm kidding... sort of. Not really.  🥸

My guess is Ford will assemble next gen Maverick and Territory there. Good news for Australia and other RHD markets. They will finally get some decent products to sell besides Ranger.

These are my sentiments exactly. I don’t think people are clamoring for a Bronco truck, especially if the Gladiator is any indication. This strikes me as an exercising futility, something that Ford has been good at as of late.

Again, there is no conclusive proof that recall changes prevented fires. The burden of proof is on the party making such a claim, and if there is no evidence to support it, one cannot say that the recall changes were effective.   The two main cases involved crashes that would have had a similar effect on other small cars of that era. The Pinto met applicable fuel-system safety standards, and its overall safety record was better than other small cars of that era, and its record of fire-related deaths was only slightly worse. It was hardly a death trap by the standards of that era. 

I understand your perspective and yes I don’t like to get involved in the politics too much on here either because I don’t want something I enjoy to get tainted.  I also recognize the potential impact on your livelihood so I’m hoping for the best for you and that a reasonable deal for both parties is reached.  I would like to get beyond the rhetoric because it’s tiresome.  

Agree for sure.  If affordability is the key,  all of those optional features can only be had I would imagine at significant cost. I would think they are working at scavenging a lot of components out of the "parts bin" to come up with a rock bottom utility vehicle that still remains compliant with all of the Federal mandates.

I think a full-size Bronco would work well. It would be a much better option than a Sequoia TRD Pro. 

I still don't see the reasoning to replace the Ranger in North America when the expense is covered by ROW, just to spend more money on another brand new product that costs even more in R&D on what is ultimately going to be a dead segment in 10-15 years (expecting replacement by an EV product)   It just doesn't make ANY sense to me from a business perspective, nor does a unibody product, that will be laughed at by perspective Ford truck buyers-the Maverick doesn't count because its was a cost leader and pointed at competing hatchback style products with its price.    It would be like Ford stop building the Fusion just to replace it with a wagon like product that really doesn't appeal to the market. 

Wondering if Ford is going to invest in a CE1 style production system there....interesting indeed.