All;
-Hate to add fuel to the fire, but manufacturing records are not
infallible. Just because it's on a ledger and on a work-order, does
not make it 100% correct. How do I know?
-For 6 years I was the "Raw Material Planner" at FMC Ordance. Many a
time I took work orders and had the M.E.'s "sign-off" a marked-up work
order to utilize "drop" armor plate in the various Saw Shops. This
drop came about because "someone" had pulled the wrong raw-stock in
the past which lead to a different pantograph yield.I was issuing new
work-orders in "reverse" to use up "un-useable" material.
-The Work Order reports we all ran showed everthing was "by the book"
with no variations, and Mngmnt. saw these same reports. However,
"efficiency reports" for the different Saw Shops run by Mfg. Engr.
showed "abnormal" run & set-up times every time we cut odd-size drop
pieces. Cost-Acctng. would catch these as a labor/parts "variance" for
that particular work-order and vehicle. ROOTES probably was no
different.
-In my current post, my parent company is notorious for having
"red-lined" prints on the Mfg. floor, with all the reports and ECO
records as clean. Commonly, a vendor winds up with 2 DIFFERENT
drawings with the SAME rev level.Remember, EXACT record-keeping costs
$$. Any Mfg. Mgr. worth his salary with any hands-on experience knows
there's a "dollar cutoff" where it's not cost-effective to keep exact
records of every deviation that arises on the mfg. floor.
-Norm's book is a damn fine piece of scholarly undertaking. (I was a
History major), but the ONLY way anyone can be sure is to find some of
the actual work-orders and compare them to the Mfg. ledgers. Norm's
point of the casting bore-centers being differnt between the 260 & 289
/number of freeze plugs per-side is a good piece of info also.
Happy hunting,
Phil
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: that's _darn_ the torpedos :)
Author: Larry Wright <Larry.Wright@mail.wdn.com> at ~INTERNET
Date: 1/2/97 4:29 PM
Ed E. Powell wrote:
"Interesting. Clearly the "folklore vs fact" pendulum swings both ways. And
I'm
driving a December 1966 Tiger that rolled off the lot stock with a 289 engine,
in the face of "facts" that refute such a machine.
Having said that, Who Cares? Oh, it's all very intersting from a trivia point
of view, but the cars are still fun to drive. "Damn the tropedoes; turn up the
wick!""
Ed, I hafta agree with you, up to a point. My only point, other than curiousity,
was that perhaps
these book authors might not be infallable. This guy is obviously British, and
might not be getting
all the info goodies he would were he in California. I just don't know what to
beleive; I guess
perhaps it is best not to accept anything as gospel jus' because it's in a book.
Larry Wright "I can't get no-- Satis-traction"
|