Discontinued Chrysler models

Never, ever proven. Explain why all economy cars from every maker -- VW, Peugeot, Fiat, Renault, Toyota, Honda -- every one -- is fwd.

Huh? I assure you, fwd cars are assembled on the line as much as rwd ones.

Sure, the CV is based on a 1979 design, with all the tooling long paid for.

Now that's absurd. Discounting the cost of the old tooling, no way. The K-cars and their derivaties were highly standardized.

Because economy cars tend to be small, and FWD allows more seating space and passenger room -- no driveshaft tunnel.

DS

I not going to debate the subject. I do KNOW the difference but I am prohibited by contract from reveling company secrets, as is common in industry for those privy to company secrets, when I left a company. I can tell you that you would be surprised to know the true cost of building both, but the FWD definitely costs more to build, for the reasons I cited. You would be even more surprised to know that, because of economies of scale, it does not cost more than a relative few thousands dollars more to build a big luxury car than a small car. Large and luxury car buyers in reality are subsiding the sale of small cars, especially with the advent of CAFE. The major reason for GM's Saturn Division was to separate small car production from any others to determine the TRUE cost of building small cars in the US from the ground up.

mike hunt

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

Psst! Mike! Simmer down a couple notches. I'm on your side of the argument, and none of what you said comes as any surprise to me.

DS, who is also c> I not going to debate the subject. I do KNOW the difference but

OK. Maybe we're splitting hairs here, but if a FWD car can have the same interior space as a RWD, while being smaller and lighter and saving on glass, metal, and plastic, then it might still cost overall the same as the larger RWD car, even though the cost of assembly is higher.

I know that you can't use sales price as an indicator of manufacturing costs, so unless you were privy to the actual manufacturing costs, the New Yorker comparison is meaningless. The company I work for sells its products for what the market will bear, not what the product costs us to make. Our gross margins vary tremendously from product to product, and even within a product over time.

As an engineer myself, I'm wondering what the addition pre-assembly is? You attach the transaxle to the engine. This seems similar to attaching the transmission to a longitudinal engine, which was typically done "off line" also. Some FWD cars appear to have the front suspension also integral with the engine/transaxle, but I don't see how this is more work than installing the suspension "online" in a RWD production line. And you still have to install the drive shaft for RWD and a rear axle in either case. What's the big difference with FWD?

Matt

When did you retire? Most companies can only put a fairly short term limitation on either your employment contract requirements or any termination contract. My company uses two years as our lawyers said that courts have been throwing out contracts with longer terms of restriction.

I agree with you 100% on large cars vs. small ones. This is true in many industries as I mentioned in another post. You simply can't draw any meaningful conclusions from selling price with respect to manufacturing cost.

I'd still like to see some more detail as to process requirements for FWD that increase the unit assembly costs. Just doesn't make sense to me, but I'm willing to be convinced with a decent argument. However, saying "I know, but can't tell you", is a weak argument. I believe it with respect to divulging actual cost data, but it shouldn't be hard to talk about obvious process differences that are generic to FWD vs. RWD without being proprietary to any one manufacturer or past employer.

Matt

I'm simply adding to the content of the discussion. ;)

mike hunt

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

The entire front drive assembly must be put together by a crew, not on a moving assembly line, then transported to the bottom line and installed up into the car on the line. Unlike bodies, that are pre assembled but on a robotics assembly line and placed on a buck to cure before being placed automatically on the line. There is an advantage to pre assembly of some components that can can be place at the assembly line to speed up the line time, to negate the cost of assembly, like pre- assembling doors and dashboard but in the case of the FWD it is more costly because it does not reduce line time very much. Certainly I understand marketing strategies, I was Group Sales Manager for a major multi franchised dealership organization on the east cost for ten years after I retired in 1986. Price a Nissan in Mexico or a Toyota in the mideast for example. Or look even closer to Canada, invoice/MSRP is 10K more in CND but when converted to USD they are $2,500 cheaper than in the US. In the case of the two New yorkers the smaller one sold for more than the larger, if the gas guzzler tax did not need to be added to the V8.

mike hunt

"Matthew S. Whit>

The gas guzzler tax did not, in fact, need to be added to the V8. Not by a long shot.

DS

Well I can only guess then why the window sticker on all those we sold had a $500 gas Guzzler tax listed, maybe Chrysler did it for the fun of it. ;)

mike hunt

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

Of course they do, Automotive build costs are considered down to the penny. $5 added to the build cost takes away $5,000,000 for every million vehicles a manufacture sells. About 19 million are sold in the US every year. I have tried, albeit apparently unsuccessfully, to explain the process to you without teaching a school. You can believe what you wish I suppose. The fact will not change that it costs more to build a FWD car than a RWD vehicle, of comparable size. If you look at maintenance costs of the two, you will see those build differences result in higher maintenance costs as well for a FWD vehicle than a RWD vehicle.

mike hunt

"Matthew S. Whit>

But these makers used to make small rwd economy cars -- Corolla, B-210, GLC, for example -- or rear-engine ones -- Dauphine, Beetle, Simca 1000, for example. Ditto the US makers -- Pinto, Vega, for example. They've all gone to fwd for their smallest, cheapest cars.

Another myth never proven.

Yes, and then they discovered the packaging advantages, from the vehicle occupants' point of view, of FWD architecture.

DS

But surely competition in that market, where profit is slim to nonexistent, would have prevented companies from going to fwd while others remained rwd and made cars more cheaply (and thus made more profit). That is, if going to fwd made it more expensive to make cars.

LOL! Was that 'assembly' line powered by gerbils?

mike hunt

Lloyd Parker wrote:

FWD became necessary to stay competitive. Surely you're not too dumb to understand this...?

DS