There is a difference here, the user, in this case the driver never noticed the change. On the other hand Saturn which used to have one of the best variable assist hydraulic power steering systems by all accounts, and I know how good it was on the SC2, I own one. Seems to have replaced this with an electrical system, which is light as a feather with no road feed back as all as far as I can tell. It was done primarily for cost savings. From a drivers point of view it's absolutely horrible. I wonder how much money they've saved? I wonder how many sales they've lost because of it. GM is in serious trouble right now, they can't afford to lose those sales.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Previously written by Shel - > > > >>I knew a > number of people in the automotive business many years back, and >>they'd >>watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a >>million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss >>costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing >>bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of >>five >>bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which >>seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units >>needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during >>manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. >> >> > >To which I'll add - >Shel I was a design engineer (also held most other engineering >positions -development, durability etc.) at one of the Big 3 for many years. >I can vouch for what you've stated. >During my design career, I did work on the F-series of trucks, mainly in the >steering/suspension & brake systems area - with volumes in the millions - a >penny saved was a serious cost save on those kinds of volumes. We also >figured other issues into the cost save equations - like complexity - if we >could eliminate a part from the assembly plant it was equated into a cost >savings due to the lack of handling, storage, procuring etc. Process >assembly engineers also considered the cost savings of having >minimizing/reducing assembly costs. > >Kenneth Waller > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: The JCO survey > > > > >>Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a >>number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd >>watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a >>million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss >>costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing >>bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of >>five >>bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which >>seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units >>needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during >>manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. >> >>John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some >>may >>realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of >>the >>steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. >>Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more >>rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The truth is, >>we >>_don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR >>camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. >> >>I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just >>blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some >>abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, including the >>aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design >>has >>been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of >>shake >>reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the true cost >>of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the >>peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those >>numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. >> >>BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual >>assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of >>that type of work as possible. >> >>Shel >> >> >> >> >> >>>[Original Message] >>>From: Pål Jensen >>> >>> >> >> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> >>>>How do you know the part in question costs $5.00? >>>>Does the $5.00 reflect only the cost of materials, or >>>>does it include any manufacturing and setup >>>>costs to implement the item in cameras that were >>>>designed not to include the part? >>>> >>>> >>>If it cost $5 and you sell a million cameras thats five million. >>>I personally believe that the lens mount without mechanical coupling are >>>more suited for robotic assembly. Mechanical linkages needs precision and >>> >>> >>is >> >> >>>probably far more expensive to manufacture I suspect. Therefore I don't >>>think we will see a completely compatible lens mount in anything but a >>>top-of-the-line body if at all. >>>Personally, I find this issue trivial. Although it would have been nice >>> >>> >>with >> >> >>>complete comaptibility with K and M lenses, Pentax after all fully >>> >>> >>support >> >> >>>all lenses made after 1983. Thats best in business. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>[email protected] >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> > > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
