Piston Slap

Page 2 of 3  
wrote:


Automotive Design & Production, Nov, 2005 by Erkut Uludag, Stephen Weisenstein Intense price-based competition in the automotive market has led OEMs to launch various initiatives to reduce total costs in an effort to maintain profitability. A key cost element for the OEMs to address after direct material purchases is labor. Labor represents an average of 12 to 15 percent (1) of a vehicle's manufacturing cost in North America. A recent study that Roland Berger Strategy Consultants conducted for a major OEM determined that a 20 percent improvement in hours-per-vehicle (HPV) would save in excess of $800 million annually.
Hmmm.....I guess they should have consulted you before they wrote that. According to you, their 2005 figures are waaay off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hairy wrote:

Are you a Labor union Rep??
Yes Gm has LABOR cost of Building a Vehicle..which u Say is figure in the price of The AUTO..
You are forgetting that Gm Buys parts from other companies and in the price of EACH Part they Buy is The LABOR for that cost that Supplier paid to make that product..
Steel workers WAGES/Labor is included in the price of the Steel,, So now as an example, GM is ReimBursing the Steel industry for the labor to process the Steel, ( Let Not ForGet the Miners Labor also) So these labor cost need to be added to the Labor Cost that GM says it cost them!
With EVERY part Gm buys you need to ADD labor to the Cost.. Even the labor For the Trucker to Deliver the parts
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

pure BS, as I said insurance costs alone added 1500 per car in 2005 for GM. Also it takes 6.5 man hours to buld just a 4L60e @70/hr or about 455 bucks. (I know this because the coming 6L80/90 was designed to be assembled by robots and cut labors cost by over 35% per unit) I do not know where the author got his figures but he is dead wrong. ALso gem spends just a like over 20 man hours @ 70/hr assembling cars (this does not count hours to build sub assemblys) Toyota spends about 23 to 24 per car because of lower labor costs with resulting higher quality control. YOu need to do a lot more research and a lot less BSing because you are really clueless. If labors was such a low part of vehicle cost detriot would not be hurting so badly and pickups would not be 35 to 45 K. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
or

Unless you have something besides your word, which has been proven to be worthless, to back up your story, you might as well go back to that bottle that you've been sharing with Tom. At least I provided something that has been published to back me up. You can't even do that.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hairy wrote:

Your in Trouble if you believe Everything that is published !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sigh...
Until you work for GM, (like some of us here do) you will not know the truth. Media articles are nice, but about half of them are ever true. In this case, your 70% figure is untrue. I do not fault you, because you are just following news articles that the author failed to verify. But at least now, we can correct you with the truth.
The truth is, about 15% of a vehicle is hourly and salary (5% hourly, 10% salary) labor costs. Labor costs also include each & every employee, including CEO pay & options. People fail to realize that. GM would fare much better if they severed or offered a buyout to the salaried workforce. At the present moment, there are 5 salaried to each hourly worker on average. With the exodus of hourly workers, GM has failed to realize that cutting fat from the leg, does not remove fat from the beer belly. But in order to win the media's love, blame falls upon the hourly workforce. Sad to say, GM will not move forward with momentum until they cut the salary fat as well.
As far as the argument about a $35k truck... Why doesn't the SUV made in Mexico sticker price less than the same one made in Wisconsin? The mexican workforce is without "high wages, legacy costs and healthcare costs." If GM found a solution to the 15% labor costs, it will not affect vehicle pricing, because it isn't a major issue, when component costs are. Another myth.... busted.
Another thing. I receive a cost benefit analysis statement from GM each year regarding the value of my pay & benefits, broken down to an hourly figure. I know what that is, and it sure isn't $70. Please stop using false information.
Heh... Your Toledo, Ohio Powertrain transmission plant figures are wrong as well. Do you live in Toledo? I'll meet you this weekend for lunch to discuss.
Snoman.. I agree with some things you say about other topics, but you should really stay away from this one, since it is evident that you are not proficient on this topic.
SnoMan wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

http://www.ford.com/en/company/about/publicPolicy/manufacturing.htm How much of an extra cost burden do U.S. manufacturers carry? The National Association of Manufacturers estimated that, when compared to its nine largest trading partners, the U.S. had a 18.3% cost disadvantage: 5.6% in corporate tax rates, 5.5% in employee benefits including health care and pension costs, 3.2% in litigation costs, 3.5% in pollution abatement costs, and 0.5% in rising natural gas prices. When the higher hourly labor costs of U.S. workers was factored in, the total net cost burden was calculated at 22.4%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

http://www.automotivedigest.com/WhitePapers/Auto_Cost_per_Part.pdf The cost of a automotive manufactured part/product is made up of the following general cost categories:
. Raw Materials 50%
. S, G&A* 20%
. Operating Labor 15%
. Maintenance 8%
. Capital Equipment 7%
(S, G & A is a catch all category that includes traditional accounting S, G & A as well
as depreciation and other corporate costs.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

It boggles my mind that "anyone" on this newsgroup would believe a word you say anymore!
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

-----
I feel ya sno man, however, i think most engins today are far, far better then anything in the 70's, and early 80's. Vega engins come to mind... burned oil right off the show room floor. It gonna take government action to get rid of the piston slap issue in iron engins, which are going by the way side these days... so that means nothing gonna happen there. Slap should go away after it get good and hot.
HDS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ian,
Could I bother you to listen to this wave file on this web site, http://www.pistonslap.com/photos.htm ? It's supposedly a GM motor with piston slap being recorded. The point of my asking you is as I know you have extensive experience at GM dealerships in the service department, I'd like your opinion on if this is a normal sounding motor that is considered to have piston slap.
Personally I've never had any of my GM vehicles with any piston slap noise, including my current 2006 5.3 liter. Nor have I ever heard one, hence my request from you.
Anyway, Ian thanks for all the service advise you give, and I hope you have a Happy New Year.
Brian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
diablo wrote:

I've been to this site before and heard the clip. I listened to it again, and yes....that's pretty much what they sound like when cold. It's very rare that it lasts much longer then 1-2 minutes.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But, if the pistons were infact properly sized for bore you would not have to wait for them to heat up and swell to stop rattle. Iy expect to here this in a well wormn engine with many many miles and years of usage on it, not a new one. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Iy expect

Agreed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

When pistons had skirts, you didn't hear piston knock when the engine was cold. Unfortunately, as usual, you are stuck in the 70's.
Did you take note of the specs I provided? Much tighter tolerances today then in the 70's!
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No I am not but you are "stuck" on buying GM's excuse for poor quality and tolerance control that causes this problem. Short skirt or long, they will not slap "IF" fit properly from day one. It is too expensive for GM to fit them properly in each engine and too expensive to fix at dealer so it is now considered "normal" by GM to stem the blood loss but "saying" it is all right does not make it right. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks Ian, Just wanted a frame of reference if I ever here noise from mine.
Thanks, Brian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SnoMan wrote:

................... I'm going to have to call you on this one. I have been at several GM engine plants to audit, and some of what you say is purely unsupported. First off, they have never closely fit piston to bore, because the bore & hone operations are not even close to the piston insertion operation. Each block is bored & honed to a specific tolerance +/-, which is audited every so often to make tooling adjustments & such. Later on, and after some other operations, the cases (blocks) are moved on pallets to the engine assembly area. After several more operations, the cases make it to the piston insertion area. At this point, pistons are inserted and capped. They always have been assembled this way, and they have never been custom "fitted", as you imply.
As far as labor costs, I believe you're off the mark here as well. The pistons are brought in fron a vendor, and therefore expected to be within a certain tolerance +/- as well. Take this tolerance and couple it with the variance in honing, and you can have quite a difference that will be purely a roll of the dice... As you put it,i the worst case, the large end of the tolerance. In this large tolerance situation, if the bore is too large, it is not because of high labor costs, because it would take longer to create a larger bore, than to retain a smaller bore in machine cycle time. The hone operation cycles for a certain time, then it moves on to the next hone station. Each station has a finer set of stones, and is set to a different tolerance. If labor costs were a factor, then bores would be tighter, since cycle time would be shorter.
Part of the current problem is piston composition. Basically, they just don't make them like they used to. Shorter skirts are the rave, but not when it comes to pistons. Then we have the pistom composition.. another stort entirely. Using your labor cost argument here as well in regards to piston size, you will also relaize that it would take longer to machine the piston smaller than it would be to keeping it larger. Thus, machine cycle time to machine the piston to the low/smaller end of the tolerance spectrum would cost more in labor.
Please understand that although a few thousandths only takes less than a minute to accomplish, but when we produce thousands of engines, a few minutes here & there add up to hours & days by the end of the year. These are several added days of time that are added to (IMHO: mistakenly) oversize the bore or overmachine the piston. So much for concern over high labor costs eh? Keep in mind again, that pistons have never been custom fitted to each motor, as you implied. I am in the engine plants.. I would like to know if you have been?
Regardless, with the new GM 100,000 mile powertrain warranty, any engine failure will be covered with model year 2007 and future models sold in the last half of 2006 an so on. This warranty applies to the same procedures & processes that have been in place. Nothing has changed with the motors. This does not mean that I accept the piston slap. It bothers me. But you did make an excellent suggestion regarding bumping up the oil weight. 5w-30 is the worst oil to run in these motors. I would run a 10w-40 in the winter weather and a HD-30 (straight 30) in the summer weather.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wonder if GM and Ford are going to take into consideration that there are those of us that are going to go somewhere else for our next vehicle.
I will never buy a Ford again and if this turns out to be piston slap on the Denali, this will be my last GM product. I hope someone from GM is calculating this into the equation.
Ken
--
"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go
from thirty-third to Buffalo.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NJ Vike wrote:

They don't need to bring this into any equation. As long as the ultimate supervisors (Shareholders) care only for immediate profits, don't worry, be happy$! Greed rules the roost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.