Jump to content

Planned obsolecence...


rocky5517

Recommended Posts

I see this term from time to time and although we all know, or think we know, of instances where GM engineers must have designed something to fail, is there any written proof or documentation of this practice? Any retired engineers who spilled the beans on this practice?

What would the most common "planned failures" be?

Seems to me GM and other manufacturers were doing quite well in the 50's and 60's/ would they have risked their reputation on this?

I wouldn't be suprised, jaded as I am in my older age, but I wonder if it's been documented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a lot like conspiracy theories. It gives too much credit to the supposed perpetrators. They were doing all they could just to save ten cents per car on the next 200,000 cars they made. Now there is a jaded statement from an older guy!

Bernie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this term from time to time and although we all know, or think we know, of instances where GM engineers must have designed something to fail, is there any written proof or documentation of this practice? Any retired engineers who spilled the beans on this practice?

What would the most common "planned failures" be?

Seems to me GM and other manufacturers were doing quite well in the 50's and 60's/ would they have risked their reputation on this?

I wouldn't be suprised, jaded as I am in my older age, but I wonder if it's been documented.

I nominate the infamous aluminum timing gear with the plastic teeth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Rocky: One of the things Henry Ford was suspected of doing on a routine basis was go to wrecking yards with his engineers and study the wear points as well as the strong points of his cars. The ultimate objective was to learn how to cheepen them up to speed the attricion process along.

Whether this is actual truth or not is inconsequential because there's enough info about Henry worked that could easily lead us to believe this could be true. My point? That's American manufacturing. Eventually it will bite everybody in the a$$. Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this term from time to time and although we all know, or think we know, of instances where GM engineers must have designed something to fail, is there any written proof or documentation of this practice? Any retired engineers who spilled the beans on this practice?

What would the most common "planned failures" be?

Seems to me GM and other manufacturers were doing quite well in the 50's and 60's/ would they have risked their reputation on this?

I wouldn't be suprised, jaded as I am in my older age, but I wonder if it's been documented.

Don't forget that in the day, folks traded every couple years. Cars weren't good enough to keep like they are today. A 100K car was a car rare exception!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Into the 1930's most manufacturers looked at the used car as competition to new car sales. Many sent the "factory man" to dealerships with a sledge hammer to smash the radiator and crack the block of trade ins. Alfred P. Sloan saw the importance of GM cars retaining value. He helped the dealer network develop the used car market.

One of Sloan's conspirators was Harley Earl in maintaining attractiveness of aging cars. If one damaged a large compound curved fender in the 1930's, the local blacksmith was likely to leave a pretty lumpy and unattractive fender. By adding a chrome plated die cast spear that would be broken in a collision, Mr. Earl assured that the brightest part would be shiny and new, detracting from the lumpy body work. It wasn't to be pretty. It was planned extension of use!

The more shiny straight stuff that has to be replaced after an accident, the better the car will look when you sell it.

Today the concept has been reversed. Advertisements show that people would rather throw their Subaru away than have value after the accident. I wonder how many of those "factory men" had a big collection of shift knobs.

Bernie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest lemmy-67

What happens more often is parts get superceded. I heard about it from my friend working at a Chrysler dealership collision center in the late 90s. To reduce costs, the manufacturers will eliminate certain parts in order to make more cars use a common array of assembly components. He was working on a new Sebring which needed a replacement motor for the cooling fan on the radiator. The original part was superceded by a new motor, and the new motor did not fit. The shaft for the fan blade was 1/8" too long. Problem for the customer or mechanic. Cost savings for Chrysler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...