Sean`03///Zed4 said:Jeez 351 you and Route 666 should take a damn chill pill.. No need to get defensive here, remember the original point was to prove why BMW's costs higher, you guys think your Mustang is well priced fine by me. I am happy with the pricing factor of my Zed4, no gripes there.
Besides this not a competition to see who can make whom quit first, it's a forum to share knowledge and so far I don't see any pertinent information coming from either of you or disputing what I said.
Route 666: I brought up the V12 because it was an issue for 351 & for the same reason i brought up the V8 in the 545. Apparently reading & understanding the content of someone's posts is a trifle more important than trying to salvage an image of "know it all".
351: I never said anything about production costs when i mentioned Al etching process. The information was cited because you displayed doubts in the integrity of the information.
Also if you would know the proper term of reference is Al (that's a small 'l' not a capital one)
You guys want to know which books I refer to, well they are degree books, you want to know which books , go and do some research.
From what I have seen from you and Route 666, I think you guys have hands on experience on machining or rebuilding engine and related components. That's the reason you two are merging costs on machining/rebulding at a smaller scale (assuming garage level work) with high volume level production. The two process are different with different setups. In this case knowledge of the basics/theory would have helped but apparently not going to happen.
At the same time consistently saying I am wrong is just a biased opinion. If any one of you have to disprove what I am saying put your money where your mouth is post some links and then do it otherwise I have to opine both of you are blowing out a little more than just a little of smoke. Get it!
new22003 said:Perhaps its you that needs the chill pill?
Sean`03///Zed4 said:Jeez 351 you and Route 666 should take a damn chill pill.. No need to get defensive here, remember the original point was to prove why BMW's costs higher, you guys think your Mustang is well priced fine by me. I am happy with the pricing factor of my Zed4, no gripes there.
Sean`03///Zed4 said:Besides this not a competition to see who can make whom quit first, it's a forum to share knowledge and so far I don't see any pertinent information coming from either of you or disputing what I said.
Sean`03///Zed4 said:Route 666: I brought up the V12 because it was an issue for 351 & for the same reason i brought up the V8 in the 545. Apparently reading & understanding the content of someone's posts is a trifle more important than trying to salvage an image of "know it all".
Sean`03///Zed4 said:Also if you would know the proper term of reference is Al (that's a small 'l' not a capital one)
Sean`03///Zed4 said:You guys want to know which books I refer to, well they are degree books, you want to know which books , go and do some research.
Sean`03///Zed4 said:From what I have seen from you and Route 666, I think you guys have hands on experience on machining or rebuilding engine and related components. That's the reason you two are merging costs on machining/rebulding at a smaller scale (assuming garage level work) with high volume level production. The two process are different with different setups. In this case knowledge of the basics/theory would have helped but apparently not going to happen.
Sean`03///Zed4 said:At the same time consistently saying I am wrong is just a biased opinion. If any one of you have to disprove what I am saying put your money where your mouth is post some links and then do it otherwise I have to opine both of you are blowing out a little more than just a little of smoke. Get it!
Route666 said:I suppose I am being defensive, but defending a logical argument is rational.
No, it's not a comp, and I don't want you to quit, I enjoy a bit of intelligent conversation / argument. I'm not believing something that logically shouldn't be more expensive to manufacture apparently is.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Nit-picking much? You know what he was talking about, what does it matter?
I am researching what books, by asking you. You'd think that asking someone what books they read would be the smartest way of researching what books they have read. Is it so hard to type in what books they are, and by what authors, so that I might go and read them and agree with your argument? The only reason someone wouldn't post them is that the books that they supposedly read do not exist.
C'mon, help a fellow scholar out.
I did go one step further in my research though, I looked above my monitor to the collection I have, but I don't think it was Cheng's "Field and Wave Electromagnetics", 2nd Ed, nor Boas' "Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences", 2nd Ed. It probably wasn't in "Science, Technology and Society", as that was written by one of my lecturers, and so probably isn't so well known, nor is it automotive. I don't think any of these held any automotive-specific information actually.
Like I said in a previous post, if you had bothered to read it, as like you said "Apparently reading & understanding the content of someone's posts is a trifle more important than trying to salvage an image of "know it all"." I assure quality in a manufacturing plant, and I don't mean in the scale of hundreds of thousands of individual products per year, I mean millions per day, where stupidly tiny amounts of time wasted in the production of one item costs tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per day.
Of course producing so many items is possible when they are very simple, but more complex items are more expensive, so losing only a fraction of the simpler item's production still nets a substantial overall monetary loss.
There is nothing to disprove. Logically, what I am saying is correct, and until you substantiate your argument with proof as to why something more complex with more major components is cheaper to manufacture than something simpler with less major components, I'll continue to puff the stinky smoke of logic out of my butt for all to smell.
RandyB said:The front suspension on the new Mustang is nearly identical to what is used on the 3 series, although I believe it was originally designed by a Ford egineer(MacPherson strut). Progress!
Route666 said:Ok so I've asked you 3 times for the books you "read" and you haven't listed them.
As for the PDCA, I went through that in my Software Engineering major, it is the basics of what you need to do to solve any problem in a straightforward manner, and make it easier to do so in the future. Companies who want to get anywhere get themselves ISO9001 2000 accredited. To what level is usually low, (most companies are level two or three on a five scale, only a handful of companies fully utilise 9001 quality management techniques) and not as important as being accredited. This standard outlines how to perform the PDCA cycle to acheive quality in a process. (The processes a business may wish to consider include how they clean the floor, how they create one item, their process monitoring, how they manage investments, anything a business does)
The standard basically goes like this:
1) Identifying business processes
2) Implementating them
3) Monitoring them
4) Improving the processes
5) Implementing change control (document changes made to processes, approval of changes, rollout of changes, etc)
Each of the numbers also correlate to the level of adherance to the standard a company has acheived.
Also, implementing verification and validation on more processes (more processing done because of more components) will be more expensive, because more time will be used monitoring, and then implementing change. So yes, therein does lie some expense in manufacturing, especially when there are more processes.
Oh and BTW, "Field and Wave Electromagnetics" is not an electronics book, it did help with a couple of my maths subjects and Quantum Mechanics II.
I'll give an example of how I see it.
A company manufactures a product made of two pieces. These pieces are joined with two bolts.
Two amounts of material (in two pieces), two processes to create each peice, one process to put them together, one to package, and monitoring of those three processes.
Say they take the same product, but decide they want to split one peice in half and join those two to the other with one bolt each, for whatever reason.
Two amounts of material (in three pieces, extra work done to the material already), three processes to create the peices, two processes to put them together, one to package, and monitoring of those FIVE processes.
So for one extra component, the material required is worked more, therefore most likely more expensive, there are two more processes to do, and more monitoring and improvement is being done.
I can't see second item being cheaper to manufacture than the first.
65conv50 said:Actually, I have read that John MacPherson, a GM engineer, designed the strut that bears his name as a cost-saving measure for the 1949 Chevrolet Cadet. (Not Ford Corp) After the Cadet was shelved before production, GM let him have the patent, much to their later chagrin, when it turned out to have good handling characteristics, as well. Progress?? More like "nothing new under the sun". :o)
RandyB said:Hmmm. That's interesting. I didn't know that - thanks for posting that story. Progress relative to what we had previously is what I meant. No need to re-invent the wheel if it isn't needed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?