PacerX

Went over another Corvette yesterday, and it wasn't good... same stuff as before... like a bad dream that won't go away.

The dimensional management system at GM is broken and does not work. A new pilot system, in it's entirety, might need to be rolled out to the engineering, styling, quality and manufacturing groups.

If the system were rolled out, authority for implementation must be granted to individuals who can ensure that the core tenets of building a cost effective (don't pay for what you don't need to pay for, and most importantly... don't screw it up in the first place and then have to pay to fix it) dimensionally high-quality product (one that meets the requirements, but does not require expensive tolerancing practices without good cause) are followed.

Features of the system in question:
1) Broad-scope training in GD&T in all disciplines (quality, engineering, design, manufacturing). You cannot build what you cannot tolerance.

2) Broad-scope training in gages and fixturing. An understanding of what they are, where they are appropriate to be used, and where they are not appropriate to be used must be imparted. You cannot build what you cannot measure.

3) Broad-scope training in variable measurement systems for all disciplines. Variable is a synonym for SPC in this case. Understanding of what it is and where it is appropriate to use it is the goal in the engineering community in particular. KPC's/SPC's seem to be applied pretty haphazardly on GM products. You cannot build what you cannot measure.

4) Broad-scope training relative to what the capability of given manufacturing processes are for dimensional repeatability. You cannot build what you cannot build.

5) A study of industry best practices relative to interior fit. To know what to build, you have to know what you have to build.

6) Vehicle-wide implementation of Build Objectives. A "Build Objective" is a requirement for a given physical characteristic, usually at an interface. So, for example, a Build Objective at the interface of two panels might be something along the lines of:

Gap: 3.0 +/- .5
Flush: 0 +/- .5

Because of the "throw it over the wall" situation between most engineering groups, the Build Objectives are lost and the fit and finish suffers.

You cannot build what you do not REQUIRE to be built.

***See Murphy's Law***



Place incentives on the meeting of Build Objectives at every appropriate level in styling, design, product engineering, assembly and the supply base.

If the Build Objective is met, the parties in question get a carrot. If not, they get the stick.

A certain car we all know and love needs a process like this implemented NOW, well before anything is tooled and while the vehicle is still stored as electrons on hard drives across the world.

After the steel is cut, it's too late and costs twice as much.


Brand X writes entire books on Build Objectives, places incentives on meeting them, AND THEN IMPLEMENTS, GM does not.

NEWBIE T/A

Interior fit not good.


Must make better.




Who is Brand X ?


And, who is the stick ?


In my SS , my biggest gripe is the flimsy plastic used in the rear sail panels and the rear hatch area. The sails will not stay in place - they pop out.

Annoying? Yes.

A car buying killer ?

Nah.

But, I agree - F & F is an important aesthetic issue that makes a big first impression .


Britt