GM and technology

[Bill Stoneberg]

I read an interesting article about GM's use of technology. They were able to take a car from concept to production car (not prototype) in 18 months.<BR>Take a look at the article, its a good read.<P><A HREF="http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020531S0008" TARGET=_blank>GM technology page</A>

[Guest]

WOW, i think the 53 corvette was done in about 9 months.

[Guest]

and dont forget, alot of cars built since 1975 are so-called 'platform' cars. My guess is that GM lies about the 18 months for tax write off developement purposes and so-forth. The time probably averages something more like 10-14 months unless they're in a hurry. Back in the late 70's the auto companies touted a 3hree % profit percar too! and the public believed it. JESUS!

[Steve Moskowitz]

10-14 months! Get Real! The fact that they now can in some cases get to market in 18 months is a miracle for GM. I have sat in way too many meetings with GM being frustrated at how much time it took to come out with a new model. The like platforms did not mean squat. Heck, in some cases it took almost two years just to get a new wheel. The average person has no concept of the time it takes to build a car even with the use of all this computer technology, certify it and get the vast number of suppliers to build the component parts as well.

[Guest]

how 'bout the 53 Corvette???

[Tom Deering]

Re: '53 Vette Lead Time<P> The first generation Vettes required minimal "hard tooling" to go into production.<P> Product Design is the easy, fun, and shortest part of a new product development cycle.<P> Tom

[Steve Moskowitz]

I am no expert on the '53 Vette but it hardly the basis for what happened to GM starting approximately in the 70's. You are comparing apples to oranges. You can not take a time frame where safety regulations, EPA certification etc was non- existent. In those days GM had the ability to be responsible for most of their own parts as well. So much of GM"s cars today are built by affiliated or private suppliers.<P>GM certainly was not happy about the publicity it received for the last 10-15 years about how long it took them to get to market with a new vehicle. It was embarrassing to them but they could not hide from it. No you shouldn't believe everything you read but the article in the original post was accurate based upon my active involvement in meetings for almost 10 years at GM.<p>[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: oldscarnut ]

[Guest]

saftey regs and EPA cert?????? WHO do u think instigated that legislation anyway???? Some political environmental hero or something???????? IT is the AUTO COMPANIES THEMSELVES. The more air bags, smog pumps, belts, pins and harness' they can sell u the more money they can make. The faster the car becomes antiquated and thus replaced. The auto companies and their suppliers r usually bed partners owned by some bigshots inlaw or exlaw or outlaw or something.

[Guest]

Dont get me wrong. GM is very near and dear to my heart. BUT, lets NOT loose sight of reality.

[Tom Deering]

Packard V8,<P> Think about it. You really can't believe a wooden buck that's used to manually lay up a couple thousand bodies in fiberglass is anywhere as intensive in terms of time, cost and lead time as the giant multi-ton dies used to stamp a steel body component. <P> Oldscarnut raises the most significant point. Certification from the myriad of bureaucracies may well be the greatest single impediment to the timely introduction of new product. <P> Tom

[Steve Moskowitz]

Unregistered...you really see things in a different light! You obviously will believe what you will. However, to think that GM or for that matter any car company welcomed all these regulations is ludicrous. Really ludicrous! The amount of effort and expense that GM exerts to lobby against this stuff is staggering.<P>This is not "stuff" I read, like I said in previous posts I was there! Hopefully there are some retired engineers who will chime in on this topic but your "conspiracy" thoughts just do not ring true to the facts!<P>Oops..I better edit my previous post...I should not type without my glasses or when I am in a hurry!<P>Another thing, there are a lot of bankrupt suppliers that would disagree with your comments about being in bed with the manufacturers. You should read the last several years of articles in Ward's or Automotive News to understand the wars they have gone thru due to cost cutting mandates by the Big 3.<P>[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: oldscarnut ]<p>[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: oldscarnut ]

[Guest leadfoot]

GM technology? Try this one - about 1979 my NJ neighbor bought a new Oldsmobile sedan (not green) that was diesel powered. He was so damned proud of the car that he had to call me over to view this engineering marvel. What GM perpatrated on consumers was their gasoline V-8 converted to a diesel. He should have known better, he was a high level Bell Labs Scientist. As predicted, the GM bomb didn't last long even though this guy was a maintenence freak and easy driver.<p>[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: leadfoot ]

[Guest]

minimal hard tooling??????? By WHAT standard??? The developement of a completely new body AND material in its construct? a sportscar nontheless??? windtunnel testing for aerodynamics????<BR>THAT WAS 1953!! FIFTY YEARS agO!!!!!!!!!!! Do u think they designed on their MacIntosh and cut the parts CNC or something???? NOT EVEN GM had a hand held calculator in '53. <P>MY POINT is that one should never believe what those magazines and journals claims when the auto companies choose to publicize.

[Guest]

NOT to mention that what ever 'minimal tooling' they had was probably cut on machine tools left over from WWII AND WWI.

[Guest]

<<<<<...'Another thing, there are a lot of bankrupt suppliers that would disagree with your comments about being in bed with the manufacturers. You should read the last several' ..>>>><P>Ask those bankrupt suppliers WHO WAS IT that eventually wound up with their shop ,equipment and contracts AFTER recievership!.<P>Big company gives small company a first time 'lure' order. Small company wants to impress big comany for more future orders and quotes 'loss' price for contract. Small company gets 2nd bigger order and finances thru 'recommended' loan officer for more equipment. this goes on for a while until big company places order for something the small company CAN NOT deliver. NOT wanting to say 'NO" the small company is over its head. Small company does not deliver. Small company enters into recievership. Somebody (or bed partner) at big company acquires the bankrupt small companies assets at deep discount from loan agency. In some cases the loan agency IS the big company itself. <P>Hey, this kind's thing has been going on for centuries!!!

[Guest]

<<<<<<<. 'What GM perpatrated on consumers was their gasoline V-8 converted to a diesel. He should have known better, he was a high level Bell Labs Scientist. As predicted.'.>>>>>>>><P>YES!! The late 70's Olds diesel was NEVER expected to be a success from the inital concept but was ONLY a 'legalized' way of meeting 'FLEET MILEAGE' reg's. of that day. READ THAT CLOSELY!!!!!! it was FLEET (here i'll spell that for u its F-L-E-E-T) regulations. They did NOT care if the engine was any good or not. AND KNEW IT WAS NO GOOD. BUT, it counted equally toward their MPG averaged among all of their other models. Get the picture?

[Guest]

<<<<. 'He should have known better, he was a high level Bell Labs Scientist. As predicted, the GM bomb didn't last long even though this guy was a maintenence freak and easy '..>>>><P>In my bussiness u have to 'know your customer'. (Jeez i hate that phrase)! And the Auto companies KNOW THIER customer WELL. Yep, that man u described is just exactly who they were trying to appeal to. Low to mid level management types who want to be on the 'cutting edge of techno' and trend.

[Guest leadfoot]

Hey Unregistered User Packard V-8, READ THIS CLOSELY!!!!!! This thread clearly demonstrates why you haven't registered. If you did register, some of us could send you a private e-mail and tell you what we think of you!

[Guest]

I'm PackardV8@Juno.com. Go ahead. There is always someone telling me what they think. However, i learned along time ago that what I think doesn't count.

[Guest]

was there something i said that was construed as inflammatory??????

[Guest]

yeah, thats rite!!!! i even use the cheapy Juno as my E-mail provider.

[Bill Stoneberg]

I sent the link hoping that there would be some serious discussion about this.<BR>I think its great what GM is trying to do to so that the imports wont continue to kick their butts. <BR>But instead this thread has downgraded to a **ssing match. If it continues the way its going it will make it the rants and raves category and nobody will read it.<BR>Cant we all grow up and discuss things like adults ?

[Guest]

thanks for posting the GM techno page article. I enjoyed it.

[Guest]

Hang in there Bill. You had a good thread going.<P> It seems to be every other thread on here that someone wants to mouth off and get a arguement started, doesn't it? And, as in most of the cases, it's by sombody from another club section of this forum or a non-AACA member. <P> It just keeps more and more of the regulars from wanting to be on here anymore. And that's a shame.<P> Tired (of reading the arguments)

[Steve Moskowitz]

I agree as well Bill, it was an interesting and very informative article. However, i continue to be amazed at the "experts" out there who have never been involved in certain topics and think they know it all! Everyone has a right to their own opinion but it should be an informed opinion based upon FACTS! Bill,keep sending along the interesting stuff.

[Guest]

Steve, you may have hit the nail right on the head. Maybe that is why so many of the old time regulars have disappeared from the Forum. <P>hvs

[Guest]

i was hoping that there would be other "experts" out there that could add experiences or even close second hand observations to the thread. Tho my posts maybe somewhat terse or not torn from the pages of that silly 1980's self-help book titled 'How to Win Friends and Influence People', I had no intentions of offending anyone. Still not sure what i said to offend anyone? Maybe thats why all of the old regulars left???

[Guest]

I've never been a big GM supporter, but I have to admire how they've finally recognized what they've been doing wrong and are trying to correct them. It's actually a matter of survival. I have to comment that my wife's '92 Pontiac Grand Prix now has almost 100,000 miles on it and has been one of the most reliable cars we've owned.<BR>What GM is doing with design is what the aircraft builders like Boeing have been doing. CAD design has eliminated a lot of the steps previously needed to design a car or a plane. By doing so, CAD has reduced costs tremendously to the manufacturer. In the long run, the consumer benefits. If that's what it takes, it's a good bet that GM may have another customer, namely me.<BR>Rog

[Guest]

Yeah, my guess is that it is now possible to go streight from CAD to CNC. I've heard that the CNC programming runs about $140/hr. I am wondering if there is an interface between the CAD to directly produce the programming for machining without any computer geek intervention. If so, then that would greatly speed the tooling time along for many applications.

[Guest]

Yes,there is technology to take the "math file", that is the coordinates of the CAD object, and translate them into CNC instructions for the tool cutting. But, if the original design is not right it just means you get an expensive boat anchor quickly.

[Tom Deering]

You guys think new product development moves at glacial speed? If you're interested, I'll share a little history on the adoption of the UNIGRAPHICS CAE/CAD/CAM package that is referenced in Bill's link.<P> Starting around '85,'86 or therabouts, Executive Management members in many corporations wre becoming concerned about the meg-bucks being dumped into CAD/CAM systems that in the worst case were "vaporware" and in the best case it was a stand alone which was unable to communicate with other systems. <P> Around '88, GM along with Hughes (GMH) created a Corporate Action Group (CAG) to evaluate the various CAD/CAM systems currently in house and those that were ready to come on the market. The CAG submitted their recommendation and implementation plan in the 4Q of '90 to go with UNIGRAPHICS. That was so much fun, I opted for early retirement 3Q '91. Getting a committee of ~20 persons to settle on a single system was a cake walk compared to the lobbying efforts of the ensueing years. Finally in '96, it appears the recommendations bore fruit and found a corporate sponsor with some clout. At long last GM is enjoying the benefit of an action they initiated nearly sixteen years ago.<P> One of the really neat benefits of the system that was glossed over in the technology report, is the ability to take the CAD data base that was created in the morning, and have it translated into a durable 3D model that can be handled in the afternoon. That process is known as Stereolithography.<P> Tom <P>P.S. Hope this wasn't too long. It was a complex issue with thousands of implications. Not the least of which was the Federal Govenment with their Computer Aided Logistics Support initiative (CALS).

[Guest]

Deering: Thanks for the update!!! So, the model was a 3D model machined by CNC???<P>Yep, one thing IS for sure: GM moves in strange ways.<P>about 4 years ago i was invited to a Lazer welder demo in Springhill. An amazing machine both in cleanlyness of welding AND massive size of the equipment. It could weld a hub into a transmission planetatry drum with NO distortion. IN fact, it was nearly impossible to tell that a weld had taken place at all. 20 years ago, it would have required a one piece mfg of the part.

[Tom Deering]

Since I retired nearly eleven years ago, there is no question about my being a technical dinosaur. Anything I'm presenting here is for historical purposes only. <P> CNC means different things to different people.<BR>Yes, the 3D model is an advanced form of CNC. As a young Draftsman in the '50s, my first exposure to CNC was for drilling holes in terminal boards and printed wiring boards. These crude pioneer hardware pieces were drilled using X axis and Y axis coordinates that were tabulated on the drawing, translated onto "Masters" which were punch cards and finally onto a perforated paper tape that told the machine spindle what coordinates to drill a specific hole size. That was CNC in it's infancy. We thought we were the cats pajamas when we advanced to X,Y, and Z axis programs to control the depth of blind holes or mill cuts. This happened in the early '60s in the companies where I worked and was still referred to as CNC.<P> In the late '80s, we were belly aching because the so called state of the art software couldn't automatically calculate the "plus draft" or "minus draft" dimensional requirements on a casting die that was made from the product design data base. Do any of you folks still in the work force know if this capability exists yet? <BR> Tom

[Peter J.Heizmann]

Tom, it is possible, however, in our foundries & machine shop, we shy away from it. <P>Problem we have today, is, it is incredible how many quote requests we receive, or, actual customers that have engineers designing parts all day, and, have never spent 1 minute in the foundry/machine shop to see how their design fits the process. I mentioned it many posts ago how we waste so much time phoning/e-mailing the customer to ask for the missing info, or, explaining what they desire is not realistic.<P>Another aspect is in tolerance blocks of a CAD Model, Print, etc., is the customer's version of Brinell Hardness requirements, dimensional tolerances, and, so on, that are completely wishful thinking and nowhere in line with foundry/machining standards.<P>Thanks for listening...<P>Peter J.

[Peter J.Heizmann]

Sorry, I got carried away from the "minus draft plus draft".<P>In Grey Iron: Depends on where the parting line is designed. Cannot "draw" the pattern with reverse draft. The core breaks down from thermal heat of the iron. 99% of the time there will remain a stub of the core in the reverse draft area and no way to get it out.<P>In sand cast aluminum: The low temperature will not break down the core and you would have to go into the area with some sort of tool to get the cored area out.<P>Machining: We have had customers, as well as our machine shop, utilize boring bars to create reversed draft features. This is too costly, thus, we normally decline the job.<P>Lost Wax, Die Casting, etc., are better methods of reverse draft on a casting.<P>In closing, and, getting back to the your original query, a good percentage of CAD Models/Prints do not address "plus/minus draft". <P>Gets back to my frustration that these engineers should take time out of their schedules, visit the vendor, and, spend a day or two learning the process of how their project part relates to reality.<P>Regards, Peter J.<p>[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: Peter J Heizmann ]

[Guest]

Mr Heizmann touches on a key issue - being able to describe the shape does not mean it is practical to make it. Stereolithography fuses a model one thin section at a time - the completed piece is a model or prototype - it's not a process for going directly to manufacture. The current state of the design, approval, purchasing, and lead times on hard tooling make it very unlikely to do a truly clean sheet design in a year and a half.

[ply33]

One of the things that has come out in the last five or ten years is "desktop prototyping". The Computer Aided Design (CAD)/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) files are fed to a machine that makes a part directly. There are at least a couple of ways this is done.<P>An engineer I worked with at a previous job is now at a company that makes a machine that uses lasers and a liquid plastic to make a 3-D model of what ever part is being designed. The plastic part that is made is not durable for actual use in most applications but can be used to validate the shape of the production part. I have heard of another company that uses wax for the same type of prototype. The wax can then be used in a conventional investment casting process ("lost wax") to make a final metal part.<P>And, of course, there have been ways of turning CAD designs into NC (numerical control) and CNC (computer numerical control) machine tapes for a long time. I worked in that field nearly 30 years ago, so the idea is not new. Just a lot more advanced now than when I worked in it.

[Tom Deering]

Peter,<P> I have sensed your frustration with technically deficient Engineers here and on previous posts. You are not alone, nor is it a new problem. Technology is only making the deficiencies more obvious. In my opinion, the real fault lies with Engineering Management! Most of us have been smitten with the new technology and have over burdened the Engineer with a bunch of peripheral tasks that are only remotely related to his primary responsibility. We have bought the sales pitch of the snake oil salesmen with their whiz-bang computers and engineering programs. We also bought into the evangelists promoting geometric dimensioning and tolerancing as another panacea.<P> What have we done? We place the implementation of these new tools squarely on the Engineer. Adding insult to injury; we have in many cases removed his support personnel. He doesn't need a Secretary anymore; he can type his own memos and reports because he has a computer. He doesn't need a Designer, Draftsman, or Checker any more because he has a computer with a CAD system. Since he is a salaried employee, he can work a little casual over time; oh, let's say about 10 or 20 hours a week, that shouldn't kill him.<P> My point is this: we have come a long way in modernizing the manufacturing industry in the last 50 years by implementing the latest technology. But---we're screwing up royally when dealing with our most valuable resource: The Worker!<P> Sorry if it seems like I drifted off topic here. I'm kinda passionate about balancing technology and Human Resources. After all; isn't technology supposed to serve humanity? I sincerely hope the next generation can re-establish the balance between technology and human needs. My generation sure messed it up. <P> Tom <BR> Tom

[Guest]

Yes Tom, technology is SUPPOSED to serve humanity, but I fear that concept has been lost somewhere. It has become more of, man has become a slave to technology and abdicated his thinking process to it.<P>I was never in something so technical as engineering, but in my working years was a simple "glass peddler." I once had a case where the salesman went into a store, checked the customer's stock and informed him that he was out of 28x30 glass, a very common size. The customer went to his computer, brought up his inventory program and announced, "We buy that size on the 1st and 3rd week of the month. Today is the 10th [second week]. I will order some when you are here next week." <P>"But you are out of it NOW," said the salesman. It made no difference. The man was a slave to his computer.<P>I realize this is somewhat off the subject, but it shows that ignorance and slavery to hi tech devices is not limited to hi tech industries. Anybody can become a slave to their computer. ~ hvs

[Steve Moskowitz]

Nice to see this post finally generate the responses I think Bill originally intended to get. I am now reading a book about gasoline engines from 1910 and it is sure a far cry from the incredibly complex vehicles of today. I think, even though te seel and service these machines, i will stick to the brass-era! All this despite the fact that i am getting tired of cranking my old beast!