Different quality cars for different markets from same manufacturer 2

[dragvorl]

We had a discussion on another forum concerning vehicle quality for different markets. So, the general idea is: say BMW or another manufacturer basically has two classes of quality, higher and lower of course. So the higher quality vehicles are sold in developed countries (i.e. Germany, Switzerland, UK, USA, etc.), and the lower class goes to Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and so on. Say they make the VW Golf in Belgium and Hungary (just a hypothesis) and the cars from Hungary are made for the second class markets in second class quality, the ones in Belgium are making cars for the higher quality markets. The car prices are roughly speaking the same, let's say. It was even mentioned that the manufacturers even have first and second class cars from the same factory and assembly line and for the same model of course. Just to make it clear, by quality I mean lower quality interior plastics, lower quality leather, lower quality fabric for the interior...it was mentioned that say lower quality starter motors which were known to have some issues (not durable enough, not issues like setting the car on fire) and subsequently stopped being put on the higher quality cars are deliberately put on new cars for the second class market (let's say they are "good enough")...those starters would have higher possibility of breaking down, but they would still be good enough not to make too many fixes under warranty and thus additional expenses to the factory. And by this I don't mean that cars for different climates or different road roughness have more powerful ACs or different shocks (say different AC or radiator for Emirati vs Swedish markets). The story was even more fueled when a member who has a 320d E90 LCI had a few defect which were or are going to be covered by warranty, and one of the issues is going to include an engine removal, the mileage is around 10ish thousand km. So, what's your opinion?

 

[truckandbus]

The only example I'm familiar with involves sorting stock from 'dead on spec' to those parts that are marginally within spec and then using the marginal parts in applications where the end user isn't likely to care about performance/durability. Even at that, the parts sorted needed to be of significant value to justify the exercise.

 

[MintJulep]

producing different models with different features for electronics, so that Best Buy doesn't sell the same identical product as Costco.

Actually I think it's producing different model numbers for different outlets even though the product is exactly the same so that Best Buy and Costco don't ever need to worry about actually honoring their "price match guarantee".

 

[SomptingGuy]

Don't the car nerds call this "blue printing"?

- Steve

 

[IRstuff]

"Actually I think it's producing different model numbers for different outlets"

I think there's always some physical or functional difference. Otherwise, someone who has the money and time to burn could do a side-by-side to debunk the notion that the different model numbers correspond to the identical hardware.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[140Airpower]

The idea of sorting parts by how far out of spec they are is a losing proposition these days for ordinary parts. I believe Deming's recommendations include not producing parts with defects or marginal specs in the first place. In fact, if you only produce high quality parts you don't need to inspect and sort them. Saves a ton of money.
If your production is unreliable, inspection can catch unacceptable parts, but errors in the inspection process will waste some good parts and allow some percentage of terrible parts to get through (your inspection process is likely to be of the same quality as you production line). It is not efficient and it's harmful to the makers reputation.

In 1980 an illustration of quality manufacturing was presented in a TV report. Datsuns (Nissan) were being unloaded at Long Beach CA. The cars were driven off the ship and parked in a big lot. They had been loaded by crane, so this was the very first time they had been started ever. If one did not start it was sent back to Japan. The thing was that only about one in 5,000 cars wouldn't start or had a significant defect.
In contrast, the practice at GM was to, before installing in a car, run every single engine on natural gas to inspect for defects. 1 out of 3 required some adjustment.
It did not pay Nissan to inspect because they were not in the business of manufacturing defects. But, GM was.

 

[IRstuff]

It depends on what the binning process is. For Deming's era, sorting tended to be semi-manual, and the costs could have be prohibitive. However, with automated testing, the binning process for certain types of testing is completely transparent. To wit, computer memories must run at a certain speed, otherwise, you'll either slow down the computer, or corrupt the data. However, as part of final test, each memory chip is tested for speed, and an automated binner sends the part to its correct bin for marking and packing.

"It did not pay Nissan to inspect because they were not in the business of manufacturing defects. But, GM was."

I think you've provided your own reference. GM's approach was to allow its components to consume the entire tolerance band, since they were more interested in quantity, rather than quality. This meant that parts would have varying degrees of compatibility, with some engines tight, and others loose.

Nissan's, and other Japanese companies of that era, approach was to try and hit the desired value as close as possible. Essentially, each engine was nearly identical to its brethren. This allowed them to further tighten tolerances to the point where engines could essentially run their optimum for longevity.

But, they used similar machines, the same physics of materials. The only difference was the overall corporate culture, i.e., the workforces had different goals and objectives.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[140Airpower]

IRstuff, good comments. I did qualify what I said by saying "ordinary parts". I recognize that some parts, like computer chips, require a complicated, extensive multistage production process that can result in small variabilities in specs that produce critical variability in performance. Binning is required. It is the nature of the technology.
However, windshield wiper motors are not like that, nor are piston pins, etc. In fact, whole mechanical drivetrains can confidently be produced without sufficient variability to effect performance in the field,... if the production line is high quality.

 

[Screwman1]

I have been in vehicle assembly plants on every continent, for almost every manufacturer and the simple fact is that there is one corporate standard part number for a given part and it is supplied the same globally. The way that the both the OEM and the supplier get the price down to the minimum is to make the part standard so the volume is maximized. There is not a single supplier I have been involved with in 30 years in the automotive supply industry that has any type of "binning" inspection system. The parts either pass or the the lot is rejected. With SPC and CPK charting; mechanical parts only use a small portion of the allowed tolerance in most cases anyway. The margins involved in automotive are so slim that no supplier could take the time to sort out the "lower standard" parts; plus, how would the contract work for that? You would get paid a lower amount to sort out parts (added labor) that are in spec, but towards the lower end?? No manufacturer is going to sign up for that one.

The scenario that that the OP is posting about just doesn't exist. There are different models in different markets at different price points, but not what he has proposed.

 

[btrueblood]

I can think of only one specific example of "defunctioning" electronic parts. Canon makes a large range of digital cameras. The high end cameras have the same processor as the lower end cameras, but some of the functions and features are not accessible on the lower end cameras (the physical buttons and/or menu screens for those features don't exist for the lower end versions). Users have since hacked the camera's code, and you can download and install software that restores all of the features that your camera model is physically capable of... for instance shutter speeds to 1/20000 second are possible with most (if not all) Canon digital cameras as it's just a digital timing function (how long to integrate the CMOS sensor readings) - but you can't manually set the shutter speed on most of their cheaper cameras without hacking the code.

 

[dragvorl]

Good post screwman.

 

[140Airpower]

btrueblood, what Canon does is common for those kinds of products. They usually don't actually add functionality to high-end microcircuits, they disable functionality from low-end parts. For goods like cameras, the microcircuits could be the same, but functionality is not provided from lack of a control setting or a button, etc. A mere software limitation is a poor barrier to hackers as you explained.
I think screwman1's post describes very well the situation with mechanical parts.