"Jack Goff" wrote in message
om...


So back to you, Kanter... how can you be perfectly lucid in the previous
post, then so off the wall and obtuse in this one? Are you drinking or
smoking late at night? Would you sober up for a moment and explain your
nonsense?



If you're open to noticing, you'll find that relatively young Fords,
especially larger ones, smell like 30 year old Toyotas. Not as bad a
Chrysler minivans, though. But, let's drop this subject. Cars are too
closely tied to the ego in this country. You cannot bring actual mechanical
reality into the conversation, like the information I've gotten from a guy
whose job it is to install and program the CNC machining equipment at
several Ford & Chrysler plants.

"Doug Kanter" wrote:

If you're open to noticing, you'll find that relatively young Fords,
especially larger ones, smell like 30 year old Toyotas. Not as bad a
Chrysler minivans, though.

30 year old Toyota's don't smell. They're parked in junkyards, rotting
away. When's the last time you saw a 1975 Toyota on the road? Smell?
Maybe it's your upper lip... hehe

Now my 35 year old Ford smells. 351C 4V, headers, duals, Flowmasters,
posi-trac. It smells like a V8 with no catalytic converters. But you
wouldn't smell it for long... :-)


But, let's drop this subject. Cars are too
closely tied to the ego in this country. You cannot bring actual
mechanical
reality into the conversation, like the information I've gotten from a guy
whose job it is to install and program the CNC machining equipment at
several Ford & Chrysler plants.

Another obtuse post. What's the info? That he install equipment there, and
can only tell you things he's seen at one or two Ford or Chrysler plants?
That he has no info on the scene at Toyota or any other plants? Let me
guess... he is a big Toyota or GM or brand X fan, and only sees what he (and
his ego) wants to see?

Since you have your panties in a wad over Toyota, let's talk about them for
a minute... I've owned one. IMO, they are very reliable, but boring. They
have no style, average handling, decent ergonomics. I'd recommend one to my
mom if she was inclined. But they are mundane, average, boring vehicles
that, on average, last a long time. If you're about to flatline, I guess
you could love one.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
om...


But, let's drop this subject. Cars are too
closely tied to the ego in this country. You cannot bring actual
mechanical
reality into the conversation, like the information I've gotten from a
guy
whose job it is to install and program the CNC machining equipment at
several Ford & Chrysler plants.

Another obtuse post. What's the info? That he install equipment there,
and
can only tell you things he's seen at one or two Ford or Chrysler plants?
That he has no info on the scene at Toyota or any other plants? Let me
guess... he is a big Toyota or GM or brand X fan, and only sees what he
(and
his ego) wants to see?

6 plants, so far. Where did you get 1 or 2 from?

The purchaser of the CNC equipment can specify, within a certain range, how
tightly they want to limit tolerances. That's a mechanical adjustment. After
engine parts are made, each manufacturer decides what's considered a
rejected part, and what gets used. This is a management decision. The
difference between what Toyota will accept and what Ford, Chrysler and GM
will accept does not fall into the category of "negligible".

If you think this is obtuse, let me know in your next post.

"Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote:


What's the info? That he install equipment there,
and
can only tell you things he's seen at one or two Ford or Chrysler
plants?
That he has no info on the scene at Toyota or any other plants? Let me
guess... he is a big Toyota or GM or brand X fan, and only sees what he
(and
his ego) wants to see?

6 plants, so far. Where did you get 1 or 2 from?

Try reading for content. "What's the info?" That means you gave no initial
info, and I'm asking for more.

"That he install equipment there, and can only tell you things he's seen at
one or two Ford or Chrysler plants?" The question mark at the end signifies
that I'm asking a question, not making a statement. It's a possible
scenario to your mysterious situation.

Got it now?


The purchaser of the CNC equipment can specify, within a certain range,
how
tightly they want to limit tolerances. That's a mechanical adjustment.

No, it's a designed-in ability of the CNC machine to be able to hold, and
repeat said tolerance. It's a mechanical adjustment to setup the machine
initially to perfom correctly, and to re-adjust or fix it when it wears
enough to lose its accuracy.

After engine parts are made, each manufacturer decides what's considered a
rejected part, and what gets used. This is a management decision. The
difference between what Toyota will accept and what Ford, Chrysler and GM
will accept does not fall into the category of "negligible".

If you think this is obtuse, let me know in your next post.


Still fairly obtuse. What is said CNC equipment being used to manufacture?
Pistons at Toyota and alternator brackets at Ford? You do realize that
there would be a *huge* difference in the pass/fail parameters for different
types of parts, right? And lets not forget about the fact that the *design*
of the overall gizmo (engine, brake caliper, etc...) determines what
tolerances need to be kept, and those acceptable tolerance ranges aren't an
indication of quality in and of themselves. Also, management does not
decide what is acceptable to be used in a design. Engineering gives them
the ranges to use, and management enforces that. If the range is too tight
to be cost effectively manufactured, a re-design is indicated.

Besides, you do realize that Ford and Toyota don't make their own pistons,
right? They each have hundreds of suppliers, each making some unique part
they specialize in. For example, the Wiseco company could, and probably
does, make pistons for both Ford and Toyota USA.

Is your ass not getting tired of talking? Have another drink, Kanter.

(note to Kanter... you didn't say pistons... I'm using them as an example...
Reading Comprehension 101)