> Its not just ignitions, I've seen this with a variety of things.
>(Exaust, headers, etc) Why do the manufacturers use this obviously
>inferior stuff when, for just a little more money, they could put
>out a really quality product? I have this nagging thought sometimes
>that goes something like, "If this stuff was really good for the
>car/truck, the manufacturer would have done it that way to begin with."
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> -Jon-
>
I not sure why manufactures do as they do. It seems to be that way with
more than just the auto makers though. I used to work in the solar
industry, and the same question used to come to mind. We would get in a
brand new system, then before we installed it, replace the pumps, flanges,
and o-rings. We did this to keep from having to go back in a year and fix
it then. The price difference between the high quality pump and the shitty
one was about $80 bucks, and the flange and o-rings were just a couple of
dollars difference. Now when you consider the whole system went from $3000
to $5000, what the hell is $90??? Go Figure.
I found an article in the library when I doing a paper in college about the
Ford fiasco over the Pinto. You know, the one about exploding gas tanks and
jammed doors. During the National Highway & Transportation Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) investigation it was discoverd that just months
before the cars would start to roll off the line, Ford engineers warned of
several flaws in design. One of the flaws was the top of the gas tank was
exposed to the passenger compartment in the back of the car, and another was
that upon a rear impact the front doors tended to jam. Bad combination.
Now the engineers came up with a fix for these problems, but it was going to
cost some money. So Managment was called in together with the accountants
and (of course) the lawyers to discuss these problems. Based on the
forcasted sells of the pinto it was going to cost Ford an average of between
$15-$30 per car to make the neccessary changes in the production line. They
then used accident statistics from (NHTSA) to predict the number of rear end
collisions the Pinto would be involved in. From this info they were able to
come up with a dollar amount range that Ford would have to pay out in
settlements over the next ten years due to the known flaws in the car. Here
comes the shitty part. It was less than the production and loss time costs
that would be incurred. So they opted to let it ride.
Now Ford is certainly not alone in this type of decision making process. Of
course this particular decision came back to haunt Ford, NHTSA got after
them, and of course the bad press. But financially Ford was none to worse
for ware.
I'm sure the big three are not near as bad as that anymore, but I have a
feeling they do cut corners from time to time especially when safety is not
involved.
Makes you think..
Alan..
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:34 EDT