I'll await your reference that documents your very limited experience as the major cause of all Vega block failures.
At least I do have experience working on cars…you have ZERO. You keep coming back to this forum with different names…I wonder why Little Mouse…or little drivel…what ever name you’re using now.
I failed to comment on the Six Sigma posts earlier. I’d like to take the liberty of doing so now.
Six sigma is actually just a bag of tools that can be applied to implement statistics to control the production processes such that only “natural” variation occurs, and it also includes tools to recognize variation in the process that is not natural and help identify its cause for correction. It additionally is a way of applying statistics to determine if the production process, once brought into a controlled status, is capable of producing output that stays within the optimum parameters and provides a starting point to begin to reduce the variation in the process to eliminate those outputs that might wander out of the desired range. And, as part of that, it provides the data to determine if the process is producing output centered around the optimum output… or if the process needs work to “move” the “mean” of the output curve to ensure that it’s where you want it. Used properly, it’s a manufacturing engineer’s dream as an analytical tool.
All of this (and more) comes from simply applying statistics to critical production parameters and using statistics as an analytical tool rather than just using “sampling” to attempt to ensure good process output. It’s far, far more powerful IMHO than the old way of simply relying on inspection, which really doesn’t work well.
Deming, the guy who taught the Japanese to do this post-WWII, was a mathematician rather than an engineer. And his idea was IMHO brilliant. Combined with Design For Manufacturing (DFM) and a few other tools unknown before WWII, manufacturing has changed dramatically.
Re: ISO9000; I led the development of a 9001 program in the '80s that resulted in ISO9001 certification by Det Noske Veritas (the Dutch group). IMHO it has some good tools in it that, if a company actually is serious about improving, can help a company become better. Sadly, a company can become certified and still make junk… very consistent junk, well controlled such that it’s consistently junk. The military refused to accept it as a substitute for their required systems because it has too little in it that ensures that the product is good… only consistent. The company defines the requirements… good or not. One other problem with ISO9000 is that the company being certified is a CLIENT of the certifying agency! Certifying the company and keeping it certified is the very business of the certifying agency, and both parties know it. It’s an incestuous system. I agree with the statement that it’s a marketing program at its heart. Companies may buy from you the first time because of ISO9000 certification, but they won’t buy a second time if the product is junk… some companies assumed wrongly that ISO9000 would keep them in business no matter what they shipped. The company was in trouble so they went for ISO9000 certification. Those companies had a learning curve… or went out of business.
It should be stated that the International Organization of Standardization, the keepers of the flame, is a legitimate body with many, many very valid standards similar and equal to many of our national standards bodies. But IMHO ISO9000 is a farce.
Agreed, mtnbike. Managers get no better engineering than they pay for. But in some cases they got worse than they pay for because of constant changes in direction, building of personal fiefdoms, unwillingness of managers to hold their buddies accountable for bad decisions, etc. The US makers had engineers with world class credentials, then didn’t let them do their jobs. Ford had some good cars a few years ago, but guess what? They were largely engineered by Mazda, a company Ford owned a big stake in and who were quite willing to share whatever they had with Ford.
So what does Ford do but dump their stake in Mazda and hand off those small car lines to their European division, who were already making much less reliable small cars than the Mazda based models being sold in the US. The old Fusion wasn’t anywhere near as pretty as the current one, but it was exceptionally well made and easy to recommend. The new one is just pretty. The old Focus hadn’t been through a major update in a ridiculously long time, but the new one, a better car to drive, had serious initial quality problems. The old one was dull, but solid.
Ford’s relationship with Mazda went from close to adversarial and now Mazda is selling their expertise to whomever is willing to pay for it, where before Ford got it for essentially nothing. Ford didn’t even handle the sale of their share of Mazda properly, as they didn’t keep Mazda informed of their intentions. The Mazda management were apparently deeply insulted that the Ford managers they had given so much to treated them with such a lack of professional courtesy. They’ve had very little to do with Ford since (except in cases where products were already far advanced, as with the Fiesta & Mazda2), forming partnerships with others instead. I hope they succeed, as I have enormous respect for Mazda. They’ve always made surprisingly advanced cars for such a small company.
Instead of dumping Mazda like a bad investment Ford should have turned over even more of their car lines to Mazda’s engineering staff and cut most of their European engineers, except those needed to ensure the cars met European regs and those needed to improve the European plants. Oh, and maybe a few stylists to work with Mazda to make their cars a little less Japanese and more European.
In many cases management hires the best engineers and then refuses to let them do their job properly. Many engineers fight for what they know is right, and simply get overruled… and if they fight too hard they get canned.
Nobody will ever convince me that the original designers of the Vega designed a POS. Or that the engineers that designed the Cimarron didn’t fight “tooth and nail” to prevent such a cheezy platform from being glitzed up and wearing the “Cadillac” badge.
At GM the accountants and styling/marketing folks have always ruled the roost! The engineers were told what the budget was for any part. The substandard designs are the results of engineers not being allowed to do their job. That included Mary Barra who is now the chief.
She was in engineering when those crappy ignition switches were designed.
It’s considered unfair in some circles to comment on Mary Barra, but she is by choice a public figure now, so I’ll take the liberty. Dealing with the publics’ opinions is part of making millions a year as the top executive of GM.
My impression of her so far is that she has far more politician in her than engineer. I hope time proves me wrong, however her decisions so far regarding trying to avoid responsibility for problems in cars sold before the bankruptcy by claiming it’s a “new company” now don’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling. I’m just not seeing the company ship changing direction at all. Not even one second of one degree.
I couldn’t agree more about ISO 9000. I’ve seen companies spend an enormous amount to get the certification and their products are no better. Good companies already use many of these practices without any certification at all. Bad companies do, too, but have plenty of bad habits, too.
It cost the company many thousands, not counting the admittedly substantial sum they paid me for 3-1/2 years to develop the program and get the company certified. But I can tell you that the product didn’t change one iota… whatever an iota is. Don’t misunderstand me, I greatly appreciate and remain grateful the job and the compensation I received, and I accomplished the task I was paid to accomplish, but I did learn the truth about ISO9000.
There’s an old saying in industry: “ultimately a company will build exactly the quality of product its senior manager demands.” There’s a great deal of truth to the saying. The tools to produce great product are all well known, and instinctive to any good and experienced engineer. It all comes down to senior management. The engineers that built my '76 Corolla didn’t know anything that the engineers that built my '72 Vega didn’t know. But the culture was different. As a matter of fact I’d bet that a great many workers at all levels that build Toyotas, Hondas, and Hyundais now used to build Cavaliers and Citations… and even Cimarrons… but the company culture is different.
In regards to this legally new GM, which appeared a few years ago . . .
I feel that they should be legally barred from talking about their . . . to some degree . . . glorious automotive heritage. After all, they’ve only existed for a few years
So they shouldn’t be allowed to talk about all those muscle cars, the first generation Corvette, the 55-57 Chevys, GTO, etc.
Because that wasn’t them . . . that was another company
They should only be allowed to talk about cars that were produced since this legally new company came into existence
They’re trying to have it both ways, and that makes them hypocritical and untrustworthy, to name a few traits
“Extremely high craftsmanship” isn’t necessarily a good thing, if the associated price tag puts it out of reach of those who could benefit from the product. “Over-engineered” is an insult to an engineer, and the money spent on making a 500,000 mile engine (to put into a 200,000 mile car) is money wasted.
Seem to recall that more than one auto MFR met their end that way: perfectionist engineers in charge, insisted on making ever more perfect, and ever more expensive cars that ever fewer could afford, esp. post 1929.
Interesting points, db.
Joe, I understand your point, and that was the argument used decades ago, but back in the ‘70s Toyota and Honda proved that high quality can be achieved without outrageous costs. Others such as Hyundai have since proved that they can do it too. Lexus’ first “flagship” sedan leap-frogged the quality of the “gold standard” marque at a fraction of its cost. The Acura NSX proved that even a supercar could be reliable… for a fraction of the cost of the other “supercars” of its day. It used to be believed that “quality costs”, but that has long since been disproven. Poor quality costs even more. Trying to achieve high quality levels using the old-fashioned methods drives the cost skyward, but techniques and systems developed in the past 30 or 40 years to achieve high quality actually save money.
I can’t personally think of a single car manufacturer that went under due to the cost of high quality. Every one I’m aware of went under due to bad management.
I recall reading a short story in a high school literature book called"Quality" by a chap named Galesworthy,the person in the story produced such a high quality item,it actually cost Him dearly,but even so,people took Him for granted.
We as a nation most not be too quality oriented,look at all the 24hr Wal-Marts that exist and look at the bottom end cars produced by the “native” manufacturers.
I agree with mountainbike. The only thing I disagree with in this discussion is that corner cutting is proprietary to General Motors. Every car maker does it.
When Subaru first offered an automatic transmission and they started catching on back in the 80s the govenor drive gear was plastic. Nylon actually. This meant a nylon drive gear was driving a steel gear against fluid pressure.
Eventually the nylon gear would strip out and the transmission would have to come out and be completely disassembled to replace that gear.
I would strongly imagine a steel gear was the original intent and some bean counters stepped in to change the material used. This of course made production faster and cheaper. The nylon gears would generally last through the warranty period before giving up.
Eventually someone got the message and steel govenor drive gears were used in production. Unfortunately, someone decided to now make the govenor DRIVEN gears out of nylon so now the driven gear stripped instead of the DRIVE gear.
I have a book called “Quality is Free”. It’s interesting that Motorola would have nothing to do with those highly touted quality ISO9000 programs. Their internal quality control, similar to Toyota’s delivered quality at an affordable price.
Good engineering and testing together with manufacturing quality delivers the best value for money.
I have owned 7 watches since age 16. The Swiss ones all lasted about 10 years. Others, mostly electronic lasted from 3 to 9 years. The longest lasting so far (12 years) has been a Timex Triathlon made in the Philippines and cost only $65!
Quality does not have to be expensive. A German study some years back found the Mazda 323 and Toyota Tercel to be the most reliable cars on German roads, much to the consternation of the brainwashed local population that only Germans could build quality cars.
I guess its a fine needle these carmakers have to thread. If they build it with too much quality, people will keep it a lo-o-o-ong time** and they lose business; if they build it with not enough quality, people will be P-O’d and go buy from their competitor and they lose business.
I like the way comedian Chris Rock put it, “They can build space shuttle tiles that can withstand the earth’s atmosphere at 17,000 mph and not burn up, you think they can’t build an Eldorado where the bumper don’t fall off? They not gonna do nuthin’ THAT stupid!”
(**Notwithstanding all the advertising that convinces people they have to trade up to the latest and greatest every few years.)
ISO 9000 is an attempt to package good practices that will improve an organization. This occurs every so often, and some organizations take it to heart and really do improve.
Mary Barra is no longer an engineer and shouldn’t be expected to act like one. As the CEO, politics is job #1, and she should behave that way. Also, just because she was in the GM engineering organization is not a reason to believe she had anything to do with or knowledge of the faulty ignition issue. That is like saying anyone from Los Angeles is a gang member, a clearly incorrect assertion.
Well not to sound like a broken record again but beginning in the 70’s there was a big movement to put finance people or bean counters high in organizations reporting to CEOs and managers with Harvard MBA’s where they were taught maximum cost effectiveness. How’s that for a run on sentence? So really TQM was not a big seller and it will take some time before a new breed begins to make an impact. Might take a while though, business schools are just starting to wake up but the holding companies continue to push back.
I’m not a big fan of regulation but I believe a start would be to require labeling of who the parent companies actually are along with the brands. Like Burger King and Kentucky Fried would also say Yum brands. What a sickening name. They have drive throughs so that’s car related. I could have used Black and Decker and Dewalt instead. Not to mention Kraft owning the Oscar Mayer wienermobils. Time for a little break up of the conglomerates in my view.
I attended the Six Sigma program at Motorola’s University in Schaumberg, Illinois in the 80’s! They also took me on a tour of their manufacturing facility there. We did lots of business with Motorola. I thought it was a good program. For me it was a good working vacation, since I’d also studied SPC at GE and at Pratt & Whitney.
Jt, you’ve made some good points. However, Mary Barra is the CEO now, so it all falls on her lap. Comes with the fat paycheck. 
GM using its heritage doesn’t bother me. The people working making cars are the same as ever. The one that embarrassed me were those stupid Saab ads suggesting their cars were awesome because they had made military jets. By then Saab was a GM subsidiary selling rebranded Chevy SUVs and a Subaru in addition to their Swedish cars, which were essentially Opels. The jets were made by a different company entirely, though before selling the car division to GM decades ago they had been part of the same parent company. It isn’t as if the factory made cars one week and planes the next. If they had shown aircraft and cars of the fifties or even sixtiez it would have made a kind of sense as engineers from the aircraft company had a lot to with the design of the streamlined lightweight cars they made then. The later GM cars were born from GM badge engineering, not jets.
“Burger King and Kentucky Fried would also say Yum brands”
???
KFC, along with Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and a few smaller chains are all owned by Yum Brands.
Burger King is owned by an investment group, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Yum Corp.
I have held stock in the company since the '80s, and I liked its earlier name–Tricon Global Restaurants–much better than the “Yum” name.