GM, Ford, Chrysler vs. Toyota, Nissan, Honda production

There certainly is: UAW. :-)

And the extra time is not spent building quality into vehicles either because they are always chasing the mark on this as well. Deming is rolling over in his grave. I believe he would say the poor quality goes hand in hand with poor productivity. He would blame management all the way to the top.

Then explain why NUMMI (Toyota in California), a UAW shop, has about the highest productivity in North America and highest quality. Or why some Japanese car makers that aren't very good, even in Japan, like Suzuki and Mitsubishi. You sound like GM/Ford/Chrysler management and just don't get it.

We've hired people who were laid off or fired and then have had them go back to work as consultants for their ex-employers. After all, who knows more about those companies? Basically they tell their former bosses the same things they did while they were still working for them, only now they're not ignored as much, and it costs those companies 3-4 times as much.

No two companies use the same information gathering procedures or the same assembly procedures, so the data is just so much noise.

The degree of automation at an assembly plant will directly affect the number of hours reported but the capital cost of the equipment is being ignored.

And, it could be expected that a more complex vehicle might have more parts to assemble. Also, many schemes aimed at reducing assembly time end up making a vehicle much more difficult to repair later.

Yep, Chrysler used to top not only GM and Ford, but also some of the ricers back in the prime of the company (early/mid 90s). But since Mercedes had some of the WORST manufacturing efficiency numbers in the whole industry before the takeover, are you really surprised?

Just give UAW time...

:-)

But in the case of Mercedes, the result is a quality car. In the case of Chrysler, the result is a car with a lot of problems.

Bob

You've got it backwards. Mercedes were (and are) maintenance hogs. With few exceptions, I've always found Chrysler products extremely trouble-free. Simplicity beats Rube Goldberg engineering every time.

Approximately 8/27/03 09:47, 'nuther Bob uttered for posterity:

Snip from Business Week Online...

" There must be a lot of long faces at the headquarters of the Mercedes Car Group in Stuttgart. On July 8, the world's most esteemed luxury auto maker suffered the humiliation of seeing its ranking in the annual J.D. Power & Associates Inc. survey of car dependability plunge to No. 26 from No. 16 last year, eight slots below the industry average, trailing Chrysler, Ford, and Plymouth. "

Not only did Chrysler beat Mercedes, but a dead brand also did....

Go figure.

looking at

From a UK base, I agree absolutely. As one who has toured many and various factories over many years, I can assure everyone that the productivity figures hide a multitude of sins. Exemplifying this is the difference between a factory which machines and assembles major and minor components compared to a modern assembly factory which only bolts pre-assembled components together. In the latter type of assembly plant, most components are pre assembled offsite into more major components which are delivered ready for snapping into place on the assembly line. The striking point of most major plants I have seen lately is the amount of work put in to assemble doors as a proportion of the whole assembly process. Doors form a very large part of the assembly process in an 'assembly plant'.

Huw

I've noticed that Mercedes-Benz has been engaging in mass production of cars that are priced entirely too low. Something had to give and that's what happened.

The moment they switched from quality to quantity they sealed their fate.

"M.K. Reed" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@post.usenet.com:

Have you ever been in one of the Big 3's plants? I have, for extended periods, and I can tell you exactly why that is. The folks don't want to work. but they want paid (plus overtime) period. end of story. I've personally seen them sleeping, (even have beds made out of milk crates and foam), witnessed them deliberately disable/crash/destroy equipment so they can work the weekend on overtime (and laugh about doing it). The companies install 200% capacity so they can run 60% actual. It is unbelievable unless you have personally witnessed it.

How much more time? They've already had 8 years. We'll probably find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq first.

At least for final assembly, Toyota uses the lowest percentage of automation, under 15%, and for the past 5 years has been on a program to actually reduce this figure. The highest level of automation in Japan may be Nissan, roughly 20%, while around the world the highest is probably with VW or Fiat.

Welded door hinges, nonadjustable wheel alignment, what else (I'm asking; I don't know)? But 6-piece snap-in bumpers don't hurt repair but helps assembly, while some Chrysler dashboards consist of a lot of separate pieces but are just as hard to repair.

Not in my experience with the older models, but perhaps things have changed with the chEap-class.

Not my experience or those of people I know. YMMV.

Bob

YMMV = your mileage may vary....

Lets see, 430k miles on the '73, 265k on the '66, 203k on the 93. Yep it varies by about a factor of two. :-)

Of course all of those Chrysler products are still in the process of accumulating miles, so the story isn't over yet....

Since when is any Mercedes priced low???

Hooray for UAW!

Then they'll come to this forum complaining about jobs going to Mexico or Canada, where workers give more than a damn about their job. :-)

The last Dodge product I had was a '94 pickup, it went throught 4 tranny's in two months after a year, and got turned into a Chev. Tahoe pretty quick after that. Dealer was quite happy to keep putting transmissions into it, but I needed a truck that was in my driveway that I could trust.

Brian