Letters

The Buzz Creates Buzz

An engineer friend of mine just read me your fantastic article in Automotive Industries about "the Buzz." (Al November 2002, pg. 64) I would dearly love a copy, or perhaps the URL to a website where I could send folks to read it -- or perhaps a best-selling paperback based on it!

Thanks for putting those thoughts into such eloquent written form.

Tracy Logan

Rochester, NY

As defined in your article, I have been branded as a "grouser" during various stages of my career.

In one case, as a result of protecting the company from being put at a competitive disadvantage by an undocumented print change that an OEM was trying to force upon us, I was put on probation by a "protected" sales manager.

In another case, I ticked off another protected manager who was technically incompetent but involved with higher management. This indiscretion resulted in me being "laid off due to the need to rationalize the staffing requirements in response to a business downturn."

The ONLY way to address the "buzz" issue that you so aptly describe is to issue diplomatic immunity and/or get-out-of-jail-free-cards to designated creative staff members in the engineering and/or development ranks. This can't/won't happen.

In my case, things have improved over the years and I am now employed at a company where my knowledge and experience are valued.

Name withheld on request

Reading the "Buzz" was like having a fortuneteller tell you things about your life they couldn't possibly know. I don't know if you actually lived through all the things you describe in the Buzz or not, but if so, we are living parallel lives. I must admit however, that it helped that you captured the problem in print. The first thing I did was take it to the copy machine and leave copies where all the people who cause the Buzz would find it. My theory is that like vampires, they can't stand to be exposed to the light of day.

Ellen Donnelly

via Internet

You're onto something Ellen. We maintain they don't have reflections either. -- Ed

Can't Afford to Change

Your Nov. 2002 Al Editorial hit the "nail on the head" in regards to cost driven engineering changes (Al November, pg. 6).

What is distressing is the fact we do not seem to learn from our mistakes and continue the practice. In some case, we (suppliers, OEMs) are cost-cutting ourselves out of business. Poor quality and customer dissatisfaction are the only possible results.

While the North American OEMs have closed the quality/reliability gap with the European and Japanese OEMs, they are still kicking our collective behinds.

This should be a red flag to OEM management, because the Euro/Japanese OEMs are manufacturing higher quality vehicles in the USA.

Stephen G. Johnson

Product Engineer

I agree with you regarding change at the wrong time. At launch (actually after Pilot or Manufacturing Validation Build) is not the time to change, even for cost or productivity improvement. While well intended, it can tip over the launch or cause a problem at a supplier or assembly plant. I always knew that the systems at suppliers were more fragile than ours and it got more fragile the further away from Tier 1 you got. You did a good job of explaining that. This is where experience in launches counts. The "old salts" have a big role to play here. They've been down that road before and have learned the lessons.

via Internet

The scenario you describe in your editorial is avoidable. The technique is called Systems Engineering, and is very well established in the Defense and Aerospace domains.

A key construct of Systems Engineering is function-based technical specifications, summarized by the three F's -- fit, form and function. I have yet to see a specification created by one of the major automakers that properly identified the external interfaces of the component, the function desired at that interface and the performance levels of that function. Our industry is one steeped in parts and details, and the current crop of specifications exemplifies such.

Unfortunately, OEMs lack much Systems Engineering talent, since the emphasis is placed on functional groups and the more traditional engineering disciplines.

What I know of Toyota points to them having many more "Generalists" on programs, and use function-based specifications to describe the component in "black box" terms giving suppliers the maximum opportunity to optimize the component design, while Toyota manages the vehicle design.

Kevin Dutcher

President, Detroit Chapter of INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering)

Name withheld by request engineer at a Major Tier 1 Automotive Supplier

Your editorial on "Managing Change" is right on target. I am involved in a one of the "Band-Aid" actions caused by a cost save. The real cost to such blunders is the redirection of resources off designs to be launched over the next two years. Future designs suffer and the cycle perpetuates. If North American OEM's want to save money, they should suck up today's costs and properly develop designs upfront.

As a retired R&D engineer I couldn't agree more on your comments. Back in "the good old days," before computers, and all the tools the "kids" have now, it was a personal challenge to "make it right." Working for a company building less than 50,000 vehicles a year we would make changes overnight. It was done through personal contacts with all departments involved. After 30 years and two buyouts, working for a large company building 2 million vehicles a year it was a nightmare. Your last paragraph mentions signoff. As far as I know there is no communication between departments that are involved in changes. I challenged design engineers without success, many times, only to see misbuilt vehicles. Someone has to step up and change the system.

Martin Abrams

That's why we wrote the article. Pass it on and let's fix this problem. -- Ed

Harley noise questionable

I'm curious as to how much of the Harley Davidson noise, vibration and harshness development (Al November, pg. 37) facility is devoted to maximizing the noise created by the aftermarket exhaust systems their dealers install with cynical disclaimers about being intended only for race track use. I don't know if they are able to get away with that due to lax law enforcement or to a loophole in EPA regulations. Either way, it makes the claim that they will do their part in meeting future emission regulations meaningless.

It is ironic that their first V-twin motorcycle was nick named "The Silent Grey Fellow" because back then its relatively quiet engine was considered a marketing advantage.

John N. Finn

TRW Automotive

Is Toyota coming to Texas?

I read Automotive Industries quite regularly. I find the articles very interesting and thought provoking and the topics very up-to-date. However, I've noticed mistakes.

On page 8 (Al November 2002, pg. 8) a small article by Andrea Wielgat states that "Toyota Motor Corp. is planning to build a new SUV and truck plant in San Antonio, Texas...". Absolutely nothing has been announced by Toyota Motor Corp. The wording of this column makes it sound like everything is set in stone and leads the reader to think that maybe Ms. Wielgat received her information straight from Fujio Cho or Dr. Toyoda himself.

Also on page 36, there is a picture stating that the Toyota 4Runner is built at the Toyota plant in Princeton, Indiana. The vehicle in the photo is actually a Toyota Sequoia which is manufactured alongside the Tundra and soon the Sienna at Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc in Princeton, Indiana.

Byron Followell

Your point on the photo is well taken, Byron. The vehicle shown is indeed a Sequoia and not the 4Runner. But we stand by our facts on the new plant in San Antonio. No, Mr. Cho did not did not confirm this, but there are many accurate sources of information when a plant is being built. By year's end we suspect you will be writing us back and asking how we knew. -- Ed.

Honda builds motorcycles, too

I read with interest your article, "Can Honda Crack Europe?" (Al November, pg. 12). We, here in the U.S., sometimes think that we are the world and that Honda's commanding position here is duplicated globally. Your piece was an eye-opener.

One of your statements struck me, where you mentioned "...Honda's prowess in lawn mowers and outboard boat engines." Lawn mowers and out-boards??!!

Honda was, first and foremost, a manufacturer of motorcycles! The generators, mowers, outboards, and even cars, came much, much later. Shame on you for neglecting this manufacturer's roots.

Larry e. Fry

GKN Aerospace Services

In the 1930s, Soichiro Honda owned a piston ring company and then In 1946 ran an engine research lab. Today's Honda Motor Company began in 1948 as an engine company that modified surplus war engines. And the closest it came to motorcycles was an engine kit that mounted to a bicycle. Honda-designed engines, both 2- and 4-stroke were subsequently used on motorcycles, but Honda never actually manufactured its own motorcycle frame and components until 1952. The rest, as they say, is history. -- Ed

Seeing the Light

On page 48 of your November, 2002 issue, you have Visteon as the manufacturer of the headlamp assembly for the Lincoln Aviator, siting CSM Worldwide as your source. This is incorrect.

North American Lighting (NAL) is the designer and manufacturer of the HID and halogen versions of this headlamp assembly. NAL produces the headlamp, taillamp, luggage lamp and highmount as a Tier 1 supplier. We produce the foglamp as Tier 2 to Magna Decoma who supplies the bumper fascia.

Ben Inskeep

Manufacturing Engineer North American Lighting

Thanks Ben. We are enlightened. -- Ed.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Diesel & Gas Turbine Publications
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning