Standard Car Parts

The current bru ha ha about Delphi made me think again about an old question that I have had.

Why so late in automaotive manufacturing hasn't the American manufacturers come up with standard "forms" of starters, alternators, water pumps, radiators, heaters, ignitions, fuel injections, etc.?

For Heavne's sake, the wheels on a Chevrolet won't fit a Ford or a Dodge. Howcum? The tires will, but not the wheels.

There should be one form of alternator, maybe two sizes in a form. Same way with starter motors.

There should be a form for water pumps. When an outfit designs an engine they choose the size they need but all the pumps are of the same form.

This can be carried out over the entire range of accessory parts for cars and light trucks.

The auto makers want the lowest cost, that would be a good way to achieve it.

Specify the form and size and put the requirement out for bids.

The trucking industry has done a nice job of using standard form parts. All of the engines fit all of the clutches and all of the transmissions. No problem with the mechanical fit, all you need to do is specify the size.

The big truck makers go one better, thay let you choose what engine you want along with the rest of the stuff. Could you imagine getting a Ford pick up truck with a GM engine? Nope. But go to a heavy truck maker and get whatever you want.

The auto industry is supposed to be so innovative and intelligently run, why don't they get the basic stuff straightened out?

Or better yet - come out with a "generic" breed of automobile, that doesn't undergo "stylish" changes, year in, year out? Concentrate on cranking out a car, with each and every one being exactly the same, and work it over until all the bugs are out. Change the design ONLY when it it's absolutely necessary, and lower the per-unit cost by keeping the same tooling running to eternity. I believe that you could get a half-million mile automobile to be the standard. And, yes, I would buy one. Unlike many, I'm not too proud to drive such a vehicle.

Anybody else wonder why this isn't being done? People say there's no market for this type of thing - but tell that to the millions of people in American who can't afford to buy a car...

The same valve cover gasket fits all bmw
motorcycles, from 1955 up to 1995. The same
head gasket fits from 55 up to 69, then there's
a different one from 70 up to 95.

There was some discussion that you could make
a car, with an 'engine pod' that basically
just bolted into the machine. Any repairs, you
just swapped out the pod.

The real reason that cars don't all look the same
is, they can make more money selling cars that
look different. And that change each year.

I think if anyone wants to see what kind of
cars we would get if we only had one car, you
should look at a Trabant.

Jim

The real reason that cars don't all look the same
is, they can make more money selling cars that
look different. And that change each year.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Buddy. That's short term thinking. Project the numbers out over the long run, with stable profits, and per-unit cost decreasing with every year - you've got a great thing.

2 problems immediately pop up, however:

1) you end up creating a "disposable" class of automobile
2) recalls could be a bitch

However, on the bright side, I don't think you'd ever have a problem finding parts... (salvage yards would be full of the things - cheaper than the already cheap factory parts)

I think if anyone wants to see what kind of
cars we would get if we only had one car, you
should look at a Trabant.

Click to expand...

I take it you have a problem with seeing the same car everywhere? Like I said, I'm not too proud. If people want to be so arrogant, as to need to be "individuals" in everything they do, then they deserve to pay out the nose. As it is, I could care less what my car looks like. I work from my home office, and travel less than 20 miles per week, on the average. My current vehicle is a 1990 Honda Civic, with over 235,000 miles. It's rusted to the frame, but it keeps on driving... (rust because I live next to salt water, and don't see much point in maintaining such an ugly beast - when it dies, I buy a new beast)

Such a conveyance served the car-buying public for years: it was called the Model T.

Yes - and it was the first affordable American car.

"As it is, I could care less what my car looks like."

If you took one look at the family car we have,
and my truck, you would realize instantly that
we have a great deal in common sir!

Actually I kept those particular vehicles for
the simple reason they made large quantities of
each - and the manufacturer made many of the
parts compatible over the entire lifetime of
the model.

This does indeed drive the cost per part, way
way down.

Jim

The current bru ha ha about Delphi made me think again about an old question that I have had.

Why so late in automaotive manufacturing hasn't the American manufacturers come up with standard "forms" of starters, alternators, water pumps, radiators, heaters, ignitions, fuel injections, etc.?

<BIG SNIP>

The auto industry is supposed to be so innovative and intelligently run, why don't they get the basic stuff straightened out?

Click to expand...

Heres an example: my Yamaha FJ1200 motorcycle ( all prices in english so out with those calculators guys )
In 1990 it was sold for a list price of £5000 including tax and registration, a few years down the road the fuel pump quit, not uncommon but its a pain.
Goto a Yamaha dealer and ask for an FJ1200 fuel pump ..£85!!! <faints> goes home, and pokes around with the old fuel pump, notices it has a mitsuii???? part number ahh Yamaha buy them in ,I checks with the FJ12 owners club, turns out its the same fuel pump as fitted to a Nissan small car...... goto Nissan dealer with part number £21 !

The reason why car makers make everything different water pumps, starters etc etc etc, is because there is next to no profit in making and selling a car, the money is made in selling spares for the car ( and the same goes for motorcycles too)

Ford will haggle with a supplier over the price of a water pump and beat them down to a £5 price..... but if it needs replacing.... they will sell it on at £50 as a spare and thats where they show their intle... intleg int.. smarts

Boris

'next week: how pizza places make money'

The next one was the VW Fffffolks Ffffaggen.

Actually the closest thing that we have now is Ford's Ranger truckie. They have looked the same for quite a while now. It is today's Model A pick-em-up.

My little proposal isn't as drastic. Car makers could change a lot in the styling epartment. They would stop a real profit drain in diddly dingus parts making. Who cares about the size and shape of alternators, starters and water pumps?

The nice part of having a standard form is that no one company or contractor would make them all. Automakers wouldn't be put in a bind if one of the companies had troubles or came into or went out of the market.

Aftermarket and replacement sales would smooth out the tendencies of the auto market to boom and bust.

"Why so late in automaotive manufacturing hasn't the American manufacturers come up with standard...." simply because of FORD, GM and CHRYSLER et al....... hell they can't even make standard parts for their own models let alone try to play with anyone else.....

I think it would be a good idea but if all cars are taken down to lowest common model it could seem a little like old Russia.....

Actually the closest thing that we have now is Ford's Ranger truckie. They have looked the same for quite a while now. It is today's Model A pick-em-up.

Click to expand...

Close? Hmm... Maybe. But it's morphed more than it ever needed to.

My little proposal isn't as drastic. Car makers could change a lot in the styling epartment. They would stop a real profit drain in diddly dingus parts making. Who cares about the size and shape of alternators, starters and water pumps?

Click to expand...

I do quite a bit of design work for automotive. Everything from Class A surfacing, to tooling, to the POP'd parts made in the slums of East Beijing. For my side alone, I see more money every year going into aesthetics than most of you can even imagine. Having a $25-$50K job is a common occurrence for these tasks, and they're done, sometimes, multiple times for the same model.

Class A surfacing is HUGELY expensive. Tooling is even more HUGELY expensive. And I'm only capturing design costs. Automotive companies don't order the blocky designed tooling that Aerospace companies live with - they buy CADILLAC tooling. I have actually lost jobs for trying to make tooling cheaper and more efficient for the automotive customer - they assume that everyone does it the same way, I think. All of this (except for losing work) is good for me, but for the consumer?

I think it would be a good idea but if all cars are taken down to lowest common model it could seem a little like old Russia.....

Click to expand...

Oh, God forbid! At the rate our society is heading down the tube, the last damned thing that I'm worried about making us resemble Soviet-era Russia, is the cars we drive! There's plenty of other factors putting us in a worse pickle than that!

But if that's the most important side of the discussion, then I guess I've made my point.

By the way - wouldn't it be a shame if our country emulated old Russia, in areas like science, mathematics, and music? (in case you're not getting my point - just because we didn't agree with them on every point, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater)

failsafe7:

Dont

Tell

Me

The Ranger is...is.....-----

Morphing! Aaaaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!


Actually, Jack,

A car nut buddy of mine has let me on to my own delusion. "Yes, Jimmy, the Ranger is morphing and you had better be glad that you've got one of the 1997 four bangers."

When I worked at the wind tunnel at the Maryversity of Uniland We had the contract for small scale testing for Ford. Of course the subject of streamlining came up in the shop.

The outcome of the matter was that when all cars are designed in the wind tunnel all cars will look alike.

I suppose that all that surfacing and styling are so that to under close scrutiny, there is brand identity. One wouldn't want one's Beemer mistaken for a Honda Accord, now would we?

Now you may not believe it, but ol'e Jimmy has gotten into trouble for just that mistake.

Hmmmmmmmmmm -

I don't have any trouble telling the difference between a 1976 Mack and the same year's Autocar.

Oh, well that's part of the reason that I am out to pasture here in W. Va.

And

Those old Russians, who wants to mess with THEM anyway.

Ghawdd!

All that science and mathematics makes my head hurt.

And once I saw a piece of Rachmananov's piano music. It looked like the press just spit the ink on the paper. I got a CD of his Piano Concerto No. 3 and it took me three weeks to calm down from my first listening.

Who wants to go through THAT when there is plenty of Hank Williams out there.

Naaah!

Nobody likes the Russians.

Great idea; unfortunately it was tried before, several times. The profit was not there. Here are some examples.

The Chevrolet division of General Motors once tried your concept. The parts on the car remained basically stable. The body shape changed every year and that was about all. Changes in the undercarriage parts happened when technology demanded it. In 1963 Chevy went from generators to alternators. The old hoary headed, and rock solid, 10DN alternator would bolt on and change places with all the old generators. This new alternator went through little changes. It used the same voltage regulator and about a third of the old generator parts. The advent of modern electronics, and price cutting, forced the 10SI alternator, by the seventies. Again it used eighty percent of the old parts.

Wiper motors were also a generic item. The same could be said of ignition, motor blocks, rear ends, trannies, etc. Many times your new car was the old one with new tin.

Today GM is just like the rest. They caught up to the competition and passed them in parts prolifiration. The public must come back to the garage to get parts. No aftermarket company can keep up with three alternators on the same car, in the same model year. Dealers break even on car sales and make all their profit from the parts counter and service bay. The goal is to make it so complicated that you must return to the garage for repairs and parts.

Heavy equipment and farm machinery are in the same bind. The companies that change designs every year and bastardize everything are the most profitable. Caterpillar bastardizes everything. Every shaft is some odd size and every hose is special. The model name is the same, but everything changes constantly.

In the old days John Deere made the 'A' Deere tractor. Most people think it was the same for twenty years. In reality the same model was a new machine every two years. Deere prospered. Compare that to Minneapolis-Moline. They were a combination of a merger and they refused to change anything. Their machines were better than everyone else's and they were easy to fix. Three water pump seals took care of their line from 1930 to 1995. Three basic engines were used from 1917 through 1995. Their 'babbit' bearings were a cast block that could be changed in the field, with no fitting or machining. The only major change in engines came about when they went from babbit to insert bearings. Even that was a drop in 'running change'. Dealers could carry vast selections of parts with little inventory. In 1917 they had four valves per cylinder and lean burn technology. In 1938 they had had fully enclosed cabs and features that still are missing today. They had a truly revolutionary, and simple, electronic ignition in 1960. Unfortunately they were always in trouble because the customer could maintain the equipment with a handfull of parts and the aftermarket ate at the dealer's profit.

Today, as then, the company that screws the customer the hardest, on service and parts, comes out on top. The Germans taught Chrysler to change starters ten times a year and use six different alternators before changing the calendar. Did you ever look behind the dash in a Mercedes car or truck? In 1984 they cataloged 47 different printed circuits for one model car. My idiot aunt found this out the hard way. You need a truck load of special tools to work on one of those 'bernz-O-matics'. They are very profitable and their cars eat at the customer's wallet.

Even something as basic as a rifle is not foreign to that same game. Peter Paul Mauser just about gave away his rifles to anyone with dirt to guard. He sold the ammunition and made a fantastic profit doing it. Once he had your soldiers carring his arms, you were forced to pay exorbitant prices for his cheezy ammunition.

Get real. Companies are there to make a profit. Companies that care about the customer are bankrupt.

Charlie Biler
www.molineparts.com

The Checker Cab company actually manufactured their own vehicles for awhile. Due to popular demand, some were sold into the end user market. Recently, I saw where some one was buying those up, rebuilding/restoring from the frame up and reselling them. Restoration was not intended to be "collector grade" but rather to new car levels.

Under the skin, there is more shared technology than the ads would have people believe. I recall that, years ago, someone successfully sued GM because the "Rocket Olds 88" motor about which the ads spoke so highly was actually a Chevy engine. I had a '68 Firebird with manual three speed with syncromesh low gear. Made by Ford, but nothing in the literature mentioned that. Likewise, Ford's manual four speed transmissions were made by Chevy, initially for the Corvette.

Even with their shrunken market shares, I suspect that Ford, GM, and Chrysler have reached points of diminishing returns on sharing "hidden" technology -- even within their organizations. How much per unit can a manufacturer really save on a master cylinder if they are made in quantities of 1,000,000 instead of only 250,000? Might be able to spread the tooling cost over more units, but tooling wears out and maybe 250,000 units is the useful life of that set of tooling.

Charles

My pet peeve is the move AWAY from standardized headlights. Years ago, there were 5" and 7" round headlights. The 5" came in two-filament and one-filament variations. (Maybe the 7" did too, but I only recall seeing two-filament hi/lo 7" lamps) Three headlights fit 95% of American cars. They were cheap.

Now? Headlights are different on every car. They are so expensive that thieves steal headlights off parked cars. Insurance claims for minor accidents have skyrocketed. Break the headlights, and it costs over $500 just to replace them.

Xenon? That's not the issue, it's the plastic reflector housing.

John Ruth, Luddite

Great idea; unfortunately it was tried before, several times. The profit was not there. Here are some examples.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't with the businessmen - it's with a certain cultural mindset, as I've alluded to. The same mindset, that for years, prevented anyone but the "liberals" from driving fuel efficient cars. Now, all of a sudden, it's not such a bad idea, after all...

I'm not taking sides, and I'm certainly not a liberal. But good ideas, are just plain good ideas, and nothing will ever change that - not even the people who have those ideas. Don't forget - the Russians, driving the same generic car, first got the automobile concept from the same place everybody else did. And it is ONLY in wealthy nations that you have the luxury of "choice". It's nice to have it, when you want it - but it's not necessarily what makes good sense. As long as people continue to demand that that their morning commute be made in a miniature formula 1 machine, or a rolling living room, you're going to get screwed all day long. Tough nuts. I'm only upset that I get screwed with all he dumbasses who get their toys. I just want my car to work, and not cost 1/3 as much as my house.

I guess you just have to decide for yourself if that luxury is really worth it. Seems most people already have, and the market will surely respect your indiscretions.

I'll chime in on this. Pick a vehicle you like, and can repair easily, and then drive it forever. Yeah, I know, as soon as people get those ideas, suddenly parts become unavailable or high priced if they are available. Or they hassle you in the legal system because it's rusted, or non-emissions compliant, or some such issue.

Don't buy new.... But that isn't necessarily the best choice either. Maybe "order" a new car rather than buying off the lot, and do without some of the breakage prone. expensive to fix, do-dads. Then drive it forever. Anyway I'm probably two to one used vs new, and used is gaining.

Read a book by a CPA (my game) with a title something like "Retire Comfortably At 35"...

He had several good ideas, such as moving to a more Southern, rural community (not TOO far from a larger city). Residential property costs are less per square foot than in big cities, and if you picked well, the HVAC costs will be reasonable as you will be in a moderate climate area.

But the automobile concept is what is germane here. Get what he called a "station car" -- something old enough and ratty looking enough you do not need to worry about it being stolen while you leave it at the commuter parking lot and ride the train/subway to work. Maybe $500 to $1,000 for it. Drive it until something major happens, then sale/trade/give away and go buy another one. I think on this board, the equivalent might be a "beater" truck....

Charles

Maybe $500 to $1,000 for it. Drive it until something major happens, then sale/trade/give away and go buy another one. I think on this board, the equivalent might be a "beater" truck....

Click to expand...

Nope, that's my Honda. I drive what the rest of America is too proud to be seen in. As a result, my insurance, gas, and overall cost of ownership, is much lower, and I save thousands per year. By the way - I paid $700 for it, "new". (to me) After having driven it for almost 4 years, the cost of owning that vehicle is, by light years, a much better value than owning a new vehicle for 30 years, even if the new vehicle runs flawlessly. Years of driving for the price of 1 car payment...

This is the heart of the matter. America has decided that it can't live without nice cars. A classic case of wrong priorities. Unfortunately, that's the down side of freedom.

Used cars and trucks don't have to be awful. Have someone who you know in a Yuppie city be on the lookout for a used car for you.

My daughter who lives in Arlington found my '97 Ranger for me. It was owned by a wanna-be country boy who treated it like a girl's car. It was sold new from a dealer just down the street from her. We bought it from an individual. The truck never left Arlington. $2,500.00 - Not bad and the truck looks like new.

This is the second Ragner that I bought from a Yuppie downtown. When they want another car, they really don't care what they get for their old one. Cash money turns the deal, most people want financing and individuals won't go along with that.

In this case the extra $1,500 makes the difference between a run-it-into-the-ground beater and a "legitamate" car or truck. I don't have to worry about inspection or emissions.