Common parts cut car costs

Common parts cut car costs By Michelle Krebs MOTOR MATTERS Published October 27, 2006

Detroit automakers suffer a $2,400-per-vehicle profit disadvantage compared to Japan's top automakers, according to a new study, but contrary to what company officials say, it isn't solely the result of uncontrollable health care costs. Laurie Harbour-Felax, president of the newly formed Detroit-based consulting firm Harbour-Felax Group, and her father, Jim Harbour, were frustrated hearing that health care costs were to blame for Detroit's woes. What they found was, indeed, skyrocketing health care costs accounted for the bulk -- $1,500 -- of the $2,400 profit gap. But the remainder was made up of some items that the automakers could control. They found the controllable portion falls into three major areas: revenue per vehicle, labor issues, and product design and parts commonality. "Revenue per vehicle is a huge issue," said Mrs. Harbour-Felax in an interview. "In 2005, Detroit automakers instituted employee pricing programs and huge incentives that killed them." She notes that when GM dropped employee pricing, lowered incentives and shifted to value pricing, the profit picture turned around dramatically. The study examined labor issues, such as absenteeism, relief time of workers, the number of job classifications, and quantified what those factors cost automakers. It was several hundred dollars per vehicle, depending on the manufacturer. The information in the study certainly will be used by automakers to negotiate their national contracts with the UAW, which expire in September 2007. The third part of the profit gap is in product design and product commonality, or the lack of commonality. "I believe that's the biggest area of opportunity," said Mrs. Harbour-Felax, who visited 50 supplier plants to get a sense of how well manufacturers are doing in commonizing parts -- or not. Detroit automakers have talked the commonizing game for 20 years, but, she said, organizational structures, corporate cultures and executive reward systems have restricted its expansion. The companies have restructured and could enjoy significant savings. She said GM has done the best job of commonizing globally. But one Detroit automaker that she wouldn't name still has 81 different side-view mirrors. Some are used in tiny quantities, whereas 10 different mirrors are used on

80 percent of the vehicles the manufacturer sells. "We estimated $1,000 to $1,500 a car can be saved by Detroit manufacturers. That's billions of dollars. And I actually think that's conservative," Mrs. Harbour-Felax said. By comparison, Mrs. Harbour-Felax learned by visiting supplier plants for the study that Toyota saved $1,000 per car in the past five years by commonizing platforms globally and commonizing parts that the customer doesn't see. For instance, Toyota has only seven different firewalls -- the insulation in the engine compartment that lines the wall to the passenger compartment. They are identical in shape, all of them. The only difference is in size. That means, the parts that hang to the firewall are common as well. "The savings through the supply chain can be exponential by commonizing." She said. Can Detroit ever close the gap with the Japanese? "I'm cautiously optimistic," she said. "They've all put strategies in place -- now they need to execute the strategy. They can't falter in that or they'll struggle. And they've got to do it faster." However, she added, the gap will never be closed entirely as long as the U.S. government stays out of health care and exchange rates. "The Big Three can do everything known to man, but the yen will still drive the gap," she said. In September alone, she noted, the exchange rate went from 113 yen to 118 yen to the U.S. dollar. "That five-point change created $4 billion that went back to Japanese automakers. It was money in their pocket that can go into new product." Meanwhile, Mrs. Harbour-Felax's consulting firm will focus on transforming small-to-middle-size suppliers and prepare them for the future. "I see the next five to 10 years being make-or-break for the supply base. I want to help them gain perspective and understanding on how the automakers think, breathe and do things so they are prepared," she said.
Reply to
Mike
Loading thread data ...

Also I don't understand why Detroit doesn't examine Asian manufacturing techniques. Look at car roofs for example. Every Toyota and Honda relies on trim to hide joints at roof welds. Chrysler apparently goes to great pains to avoid joints and provide the consumer with a seamless look. Does the consumer care. Apparently not judging by sales. I wonder how much those perfect welds cost Chrysler.

Reply to
Art

Probably nothing more than the trim costs the Asian manufacturers.

But in actuality, everyone is still dancing around the real issue. The real issue is the Japanese automakers are able to make small cars that stack up better than Detroit's small cars.

Take the GM/Chevy Aveo verses the Toyota Yaris.

Both of these cars are complete and utter pieces of shit that nobody who had any real money would ever look at buying.

But, the majority of Americans don't have real money.

And, right now, the majority of American new car buyers are worried about gas prices.

So they are buying cheap, disposable throwaway small cars. Like the Chevy Aveo and the Toyota Yaris.

They look at the Aveo and see a 1.6L engine that gets

27 mpg city, and has a 100,000 mile rust-through warranty.

They look at the Yaris and see a 1.5L engine that gets

34 mpg city and has an unlimited rust-through warranty.

In most other respects, including price, the cars are the same.

It is true that some things, like a cruise control, that are not available on the Yaris are available as options on the Aveo. But who the hell cares - people buying cheap disposable commuter cars like this aren't going to spend the money on frills like this. And a cruise control?!? Who is kidding who? Raise your hand if your just dying to make that cross-country 1000 mile trip in a Yaris or Aveo. It's useless as teats on a boar.

Detroit still just doesen't get it and this is a perfect example. The bozos at GM that designed the Aveo are just still completely fixated on the idea that even people buying cheap shit cars value performance more than economy.

If GM had made the base Aveo with a 1200 cc 85 HP engine, and tuned it to get 40Mpg city, and 50Mpg highway, both very doable with that small of an engine, even though the thing would have a top speed of maybe 80Mph and have been panned by all the auto critics as being underpowered (who mostly have the same fixation on power as Detroit) it would be ahead of Yaris. And, if Detroit knocked down MSRP to $9,999 then it would be kicking the shit out of the Yaris in sales.

When the Datsun was introduced it had a 1.2L engine,

30 some years ago and people loved it. The VW bug was the same way - small fuel-sipping engine.

And I won't even get into the issue that GM loses money on every Aveo sale since they can't make a profit on small cars.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Wow, what a concept. I wonder why a manufacturer that's been in business for a hundred years can't figure out that common parts save money. I'm starting a business making harmonica amplifiers. I have three different amplifiers, each available in three different speaker cabinets. The metal chassis are all the same size, the only difference being the placement of certain tubes and transformers. The three speaker cabinets are designed to fit all three amplifiers. I'm glad I didn't get an automotive engineer from Detroit to design my products or nothing would fit. It really is mind boggling that a group of experienced professionals could do something so stupid.

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

In fairness to the manufacturers (though I also am critical of them at times - they do in fact do some very stupid things), if you had very severe constraints on the size and weight of your amplifiers to the degree that the automobile industry does, you would have to give up the commonality. Having space designed into the common chassis for a component that is not used on one of your configurations would be a luxury you could not afford. Add in requirements for video, email, satellite radio, GPS to the design of your amplifiers in the same volume they occupy now, and you start to see what I mean.

Commonality across different applications and absolute compactness/low weight/tightness of integration are conflicting design requirements. Market pressures (consumer demands) have dictated compactness and light weight and high degree of integration and the addition of new gadgets every year - and the consumer can't even spell commonality (checking - let's see - yes - I did spell it right).

This is why repairs that used to cost on the order of $50-100 are now on the order of $600-1500 and people don't even blink at that. Of coursre the consumer does not understand or realize the unintended consequences of their demands. What's important to them is having everything at their fingertips right now, and feeling like they're saving the earth at the same time. Never mind that it now takes 6 hours to do a 1 hour job and the entire vehicle has to be scrapped before its time because the complexity that fails after 6 years makes it worth less than the repairs to get everything working again in order to sell it. But that's not factored in to the "save the earth " feel-good aspects of the whole thing.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Your comments in the cruise control section don't take into account your own comments about the people who have to buy cheap cars.

They buy them because, as you point out, they don't have enough money to buy something more expensive -- or they're just economy-minded people who just want decent trasnportation.

Those people DO take long trips in the same cheap cars for the same reasons. Having a cheap car doesn't eliminate the need for long trips. People who don't have much money will look at their cheap car as a cheap way to get them through that long trip cheaply. Those people tend to rack up a lot of miles on those cars -- well past 100K.

Cruise control is far from useless and, in and of itself, is a cheap accessory. It usually gives better fuel economy (except perhaps in very hilly areas), certainly reduces driver fatigue, reduces the odds of getting a speeding ticket, and generally makes the drive more enjoyable. If you can't get it without having to buy some expensive package bundle, you can usually have the dealer add it later or install it yourself.

You might not use cruise control except on long journeys, but I use cruise control even near home when I hit a long road or the freeway and know that I have five or ten minutes of steady cruising to do. Why not tap the cruise button and ignore the speedometer for those five or ten minutes?

Reply to
Marcus

Hi...

I respectfully suggest that common parts would cost them a great deal of money... :)

Imagine for example, if all (similar sized) Chryslers used the same headlamp system, and further that the same system was carried forward over several years.

The junkyards would be full of an adequate supply of them for all of us, so that virtually no one would pay Chrysler 300 bucks or more for a new one, and the dealership 100 bucks to install it.

It would also give sufficient lead time and incentive for the

3rd party makers to come on line with better and much, much cheaper units.

Know I'm getting older, hoped I'd get mellow, but apparently I'm getting ever more cynical :)

Take care.

Ken

Reply to
Ken Weitzel

Exactly. Not everyone buys a car as a "prick extension" or as a show of ostentatiousness. Some of actually use them as basic transportation devices. I take medium length trips in my ancient Honda a lot, for the gas mileage, and to save wear and tear on the M-body. For long hauls, I'd take the M-body and enjoy the leather seats, the quiet, and still get good economy. After reading this group for some time now, my basic question as to whether I should consider buying either new or a recent LH II car has been answer...an emphatic "no." These cars appear to be more trouble than they're worth, and I'm quite satisfied with what I have.

That being said, I have predicted that parts scarcity will probably retire the Honda next year sometime. Already, ignition parts are hard to get, and a cracked bushing for the primary lead on the distributor forced me to make my own out of a chunk of nylon. All good things must come to an end, and I must commend Honda on supplying basic mechanical parts for a stunning 30 years. But, to pass emissions, certain parts availability is necessary, so it'll probably be retired if I 1.) can't pass the California SmogChekII dyno test next time AND

2.) can't get the carburetor parts to make it do so. Still, with cold AC and everything working, if I can get a full kit for the Keihin 3 bbl., I may rebuild it anyway. The problem is that weather stripping is starting to fail, necessitating "haywire" repairs, and this situation will continue to get worse at time progresses.

With the M-body, one crucial part to passing emissions tests, the mixture control solenoid, is virtually "unobtainium" from any source, and used ones tend to be just as bad as what's being replaced. Mine works perfectly so far, and I know that these can be field serviced to a certain extent by removing the jet and plunger for cleaning. However, the rubber tip of the armature is simply not available, and if the winding goes open, that's that. Fortunately, I managed to buy a spare still in the plastic bag, so that's not a problem, and my recent engine and AC work make this car perform as it did new, or better.

I don't need to impress anyone with what I drive. I just want it to start, run, provide all its built-in services, and yield economical operation. With all the money I've saved over my contemporaries from NOT being addicted to cars and trucks, I've paid off a house and have sizable stock positions.

What's that old one about the squirrel and the grasshopper?

Oh yes...I have cruise control on both the Honda and the Chrysler. Despite being panned by Consumer's Union when new, the Chrysler unit functions quite well...as long as you keep the cable from the vacuum unit to the throttle bell crank lubed with graphite! The one on the Honda is an aftermarket Dana unit that I've had for over 20 years, and it works fine, as well.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

Funny...Al Sloan figured that out in the '30s, as did Cadillac in the '20s. It was Cadillac who made standarization of engine parts part of the GM engineering mantra before being absorbed into Durant's fledgling GM in the '20s.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

I've driven non-stop from Portland OR to San Francisco in my 1981 Datsun

210, no cruise control, and am very familar with this issue.

The fact is that it is HEALTHEIR to buy an older large car that gets less gas mileage and make these kinds of long trips than to buy a new small car and take the depreciation hit to get the better gas mileage.

People that think otherwise and do things like take daily non-stop trips between Portland and San Francisco in Datsun 210's end up paying large medical bills to chiropractors.

I think your implication that people wihout a lot of money buy cheap cars to make a lot of long trips is absurd.

The vast majority of people without a lot of money that buy new cheap cars may take an occassional long trip like this, possibly once every 6 months, but that's it. They can live without a factory installed cruise, or like you say, go aftermarket. That isn't an incentive to the manufacturer to add cruise, which is why Toyota doesen't.

Because it's unsafe in a semi-congested freeway. The only safe way out of cruise control in an emergency situation is to step on the brakes. While that may be OK for the majority of highway potential accident situations, it is not OK for all of them. Swerving is much better for some situations and if you do that the cruise control will accellerate the engine at completely the wrong time.

Don't get me wrong, I use cruise control in short trips too - but I'm fullly cognisant of the dangers of doing so and I take precautions to avoid them - such as turning off the cruise control in certain situations - that help to mitigate a lot of the danger. You, apparently, are completely clueless about it, I just hope you don't drive on the freeways anywhere near me.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

The auto industry builds to what the majority of customers want, not to what "some of actually use them" for. The original post was a claim that the automakers could save money by using common parts. Well, how can they do this when the majority of their customers do, in fact, buy cars as shows of ostentatiousness, and prick extensions, as your just stating here?

Right, meaning that as a used car buyer, your not a customer that the automakers are building for.

Can we just all take it as a given here that the typical person buying cars as a basic transportation device isn't going to be a new car buyer? Or do I have to bring out the mathmatics and depreciation tables to prove it one more time? It really gets tiring.

NAPA has a large selection of these, you can order. Also, any carburetor rebuild house is going to have a source for them. I also own a computer controlled carbureted engine and have gone through this. You can also put a non-computer controlled carb on it and just tune the carb.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Whatever gave you the idea that I'm clueless about it?

It sounds like I do the same thing you do -- use cruise control in certain situations even on short trips. That's why I qualified statement with the example of "when I hit a long road or the freeway and know that I have five or ten minutes of steady cruising to do."

My daily commute is less than 13 miles each way, yet most of it includes a lot of those steady-cruising situations with very sparse traffic which frequently feature hidden radar traps -- perfect cruise control territory. Which is why I can average nearly 20mpg on my daily commute in my V8 Grand Cherokee. :D

I would never use it with traffic nearby and maintain a very significant following distance when I do use it. (Besides the safety issue, even trying to use cruise control in heavy traffic is just an exercise in annoyance since you'd be constantly cancelling it.)

Reply to
Marcus

YOU'RE

Depreciation means nothing; it's accounting smoke and mirrors. An item is "fully depreciated" when it can no longer provide its basic function to the owner economically. Anything other than that is just sharp pencil games.

Illegal, and if you lean it down to pass smog on cruise, it'll run like crap in traffic. Been there, done that. My MCV works fine and I have a spare.

Also, be wary of aftermarket EGRs! I got one with selectable orifices from Standard that, although I used the correct one, was bypassing a little too much exhaust gas into the intake vis à vis the Mopar original. This will show up on the dyno as excessively low NOx and higher than desireable HC and CO, but low enough to pass.. Bringing it down to the next smallest size cured the problem and the dyno showed it to be squeaky clean on HC and CO, and with better power. Usually the EGR's working properly when you get a little "ping" on accelleration that the ECS II box will retard for on a very dry day, of which we get a lot of around here. Too much EGR and the ping goes away, as does economy and emissions go up slightly.

This is why I hate new cars...I take the time to learn a car's systems and behavior and can make it do what it's supposed to do, and then they want me to chuck it and buy something new!

Reply to
DeserTBoB

The later 210s weren't bad for comfort, really. Try it in a 1200! The mid-'70s B-210s were...eh. The Japs hadn't yet learned that Americans are TALL and need leg room, and the seats in the B-210 were marginal, at best.

I can take any distance trip I care to in my old Accord...no seating support or comfort problems there at all, other than the leg room's a tad tight for me.

False. I remember selling Datsun back in the '70s. Guys forced to commute long distances were lining up in droves for B-210 "el strippo" Honey Bees to get that advertised 41 MPG, and they'd rack up 150K-200K miles on them in about three years.

Exactly. If you're broke, you don't travel much anyway.

All true.

Also true.

Studies by NTSB and others prove cruise control is safe, and reduces driver fatigue by a rather large factor.

Anyone coming up on a bad situation ahead will instinctively get their foot on the service brake immediately, and just a tap releases cruise control. This is hogwash.

You're (note proper usage here) not correct on this and have a homonym misapplication problem.

Reply to
DeserTBoB

You got a point there. Japanese interiors have always been sort of amusing in that nothing is the same color, or the same texture. American copanies tried for years (without success) to build monochromatic interiors out of 4 different materials with different fade characteristics. You can't complain about something not matching when it wasn't supposed to match to begin with.

Now the American interiors just come in tan plus three shades of black, so I guess they have learned something.

Reply to
Joe

Very True - makes a huge difference in what cars are equipped with.

That's completely wrong. The majority of the human beings on this planet are women. What on earth do you think they buy new cars for? To tow their Harleys down to bike week? Or, if you'd prefer an example, what's the best selling car in America? What was the one before that? How about the one before that? What's the best selling car in the world? Any Corvettes or Hummers on that list? Cadillacs? BMW's?

If you want to, you can claim that you don't think of a Ford Taurus as basic transportation. But boy, I sure do. No doubt about it in my mind. Sure, a Toyota Camry has got air conditioning, but it's still designed to be the most boring car they can produce. It's a car for people who don't even like any car. Those are always the most popular cars in the U.S.

Reply to
Joe

Agreed. I took the post as a joke, but then maybe it wasn't. Not sure. I think anybody who ever saw a 1940 Chevrolet and a 1940 Cadillac would kind of figure it all out. 1940 Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln side-by-side would be similarly telling.

Anyway, you can't take consultants too seriously.

Reply to
Joe

True. The Big 3 spent more money every year on color and material selection choices and sourcing matching materials, even in "carry-over" years, than they usually spent on more critical mechanical upgrades. They finally figured out that the Japs have NEVER color coordinated interiors, ever. My Accord came in "Portland Blue" interior, which meant a violet-purple dash pad, mottled blue door panels, medium blue plastic panels, and ANOTHER color of blue for the seat fabric. My M-body came in "Royal Blue" leather, and everything matches fastideously, to the point where I had trouble getting the correct color headliner material to redo the reveal mouldings and "B" piller. The upholestery fabric guy showed me the book...US cars have a myriad of choices, the Japs and Euros usually have two or three...period.

>
Reply to
DeserTBoB

Do we need to point out the correct spelling of "fastidious", or can we just let the whole issue of grammar and spelling drop now?

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

I know they've been standardizing parts for a long time, but you have to wonder about the company referred to in the article, but not by name, that uses dozens of different side mirrors. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Reply to
Robbie and Laura Reynolds

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.