tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: Apocryphal?

To: "Edmund E. Powell" <102430.3640@CompuServe.COM>, tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: Re[2]: Apocryphal?
From: LeBrun@hii.hitachi.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 96 09:19:24 PST
     Ed;
     
     -Anybody that has any mfg. experience at all, knows how difficult & 
     time-consuming it is to hit a break-point right on the ol' kazoo. 
     
     -I've NEVER, NEVER worked anywhere where this was done to the 
     forecasted end/start of new material, parts, machine-ships, etc. 
     Stockroom variances, unforecasted scrappage, change in BOM usage or 
     un-documented floor usage of a part not on a BOM, Mktng. changes to 
     customers, etc. all makes this real tricky. Having MRP and other 
     shop-floor control systems enables you to catch these variations 
     sooner.
     
     -NORM's book has all the numbers/dates of breakpoints. How faithful 
     the ROOTES shop-floor folks were to holding to them is hard to know 
     without seeing every workorder. Did an M.E. "redline" the workorder if 
     a breakpoint didn't get met? Did they "sign-off" on changes that 
     happened sooner/later than forecasted? Did the final content & buy-off 
     of vehicles at the end exactly match the original work-orders?
     
     -Most cost effective is to exhaust-stock, if at all feasible. Say the 
     "260" badge was slated to run out at vehicle ..2400. Because of a 
     mis-count in stores, they had enough to last to vehicle ...2550. 
     Sounds like Chrysler was watching the $...everywhere I've worked when 
     this happened, the workorders all had to be red-lined to exhaust 
     stock, as the BOM's already had clicked-off at the numeric breakpoint 
     in the computer.
     
     Sound plausible? Anyone else's experiences same/different than this?
     
                             Phil 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Apocryphal?
Author:  "Edmund E. Powell" <102430.3640@CompuServe.COM> at ~INTERNET
Date:    7/24/96 1:49 AM


Phil --
     
Well, I wouldn't have guessed that the Mk1A 289s went back so fars as your 
serial number, but there it is -- if it's the original engine.
I don't know if the badge change is significant or not regarding displacement. 
Someone wrote me that it might have been Chrysler's attempt to play down the 
Ford engine, since the 260 and 289 displacements were known to be Fords.
My suspicion is that Rootes figured on having  _approximately_  enough engines 
to complete Mk1A production before moving on to the II.  Cheaper, perhaps, to 
buy the next batch of engines, all the same displacement, than try to hit 
production needs exactly.  Easier, too -- remember, these cats were British and 
they take a rather pragmatic approach to stuff like this.  "Tea first, then 
we'll talk."  So, perhaps, they ran out of 260s before completing the IA cars 
and just shoveled 289s in 'em.  I do not know what went on at Rootes.  But my 
car has a 289 engine in it.
     
Whatever.
     
Eddy
     


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>