All done by a packaging team, that has nothing to do with the original concept of what Saturn was all about. At one time you could get a Oldsmobile Alero with the same 6 speed manual transmission as a SAAB 93 or the same six cylinder engine offered on the SAAB 93, but not in the same car. Needless to say it would have been a much less expensive car. It's not like the People who'd buy a SAAB 93 would stoop to buying an Alero, if they would, they'd buy something else anyway.
John Francis wrote: >Not entirely true. Although all the underpinnings are the same, >the Saturn Sky roadster has a very different appearance from its >Pontiac sibling. I believe there are also differences in just >which engine, transmission and option packages are available. > > >On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:48:15PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: > > >>Note that Saturn, which used to do its own engineering (And the SC2 was >>an example of that) is now just another GM nameplate from the production >>side of things. The Ion for example, is an Opel (And is the same as the >>Chevy Cobalt and the equivalent Pontiac). Only the dealer network >>retains any independence. >> >>-Adam >> >> >>P. J. Alling wrote: >> >> >>>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: P?l 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>-- >>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
