Date: 25 Feb 2005 20:38:38 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospamcop.net> Subject: Re: Saab to be sold? ...GM Denies!
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:24:59 GMT, th <someguynospamwhere.se> wrote: > Dave Hinz wrote: >> Well, that's no different than the Ford engines in the 1960's to 1980, >> or the GM power steering rack in the c900, or the battery, or any >> other part made by not-Saab. Not a concern. >> > You're right there. Nobody will buy Saab if the parts/subsystem supply > chain is not secured, whatever the source. Right. GM won't stop selling engines to Saab just because they're not part of the same company. >>>Volvo already tried cooperating with Renault with little success. Saab, >>>being another Swedish company, could possibly have the same problems in >>>terms of culture, management style etc. >> >> >> Yes, the French are difficult to deal with on an engineering standpoint, >> at least from a USA'n perspective. And the PRV-6 engine was an >> unmitigated disaster. The joke at the time is that the French didn't >> tell the Swedes where the meetings were, so they did it themselves. >> > Now you're a bit too nasty. That's possible. > French engineers are well educated, skilled > and quite nice to work with. Any cooperation problems should be found on > other levels. My experience differs, profoundly. At least amongst the engineers in the French division of my former employer, there were exactly two of them who could be worked with. Standards were disregarded (important when you're designing medical equipment), schedules were ignored, and a lot of passive-aggressive project non-participation was going on. Maybe it was just a case of bad morale at a place which had been bought by a large corporation, but I'm not sure about that. >>>Basically a US engineer does what the boss tells him to do >>>even if he knows that the boss is wrong. >> >> Well... only if they can't get away with making it right while the >> boss _thinks_ they're doing it the boss's way. Direct personal experience. >> (I also no longer work there. Hmmmm...) > > Probably the situation has diverged the last decade. I've met/heard > about both the _very_ management controlled type but there seem to be a > trend towards a more independent engineering staff, maybe the trends are > more linked to company culture than to the society. Could be. I'd rather work for a boss who hires me to be the expert at something and _lets me_ be the expert at something, than a boss who tells me where I should double-click my mouse. >>>A Swedish engineer at the >>>lowest level typically makes makes the same kind of decisions as the >>>lowest level US manager and is more prone to put in question the >>>decisions of his nearest manager. Thus a Swedish department manager >>>typically discusses best with a US division manager as they are on the >>>same level from a responsibility point of view. >> >> I would tend to agree. If engineering quality of Saab is the rule, >> rather than the exception in Swedish engineering, I think you're right. >> Then again - Husqvarna, or any of the other Swedish products I own >> are equally well designed and built. > Don't forget Hasselblad cameras (not owned by many people), I sold mine, but loved it. You know the Saab connection there, I assume? > SKF > bearings, Use 'em all the time > Scania trucks, Sandvik tools Got a bunch of those too. > and Saab aircraft (the latter > luckily still mainly Swedish owned and managed) I really wish I had a Safir. Looks like fun. >>>Thus, Saab being sold to Nissan should improve the car >>>quality compared to a GM ownership. >> I can't see it being worse. > IS GM really that bad? Not being from US I have no generation long > prejudices towards a company that you never basically hear about in > Europe. Well, there are things happening now that never happened on the pure Swedish cars. Timing belts for starters. Rubber bands do NOT belong inside an engine, period. > Now we've lerned that Opel, Saab and Cadillac belong to that > group but otherwise it is quite anonymous over here. What are the other > GM brands that have caused this bad reputation? GM has a long history of engineering defects and "hidden recalls". The Cadillac HT4100 engine (4.1 litre aluminum block V8) was a (pardon) clusterfuck of biblical proportions. Steel sleeves, aluminum block, rubber sealing o-rings. Thermal expansion between sleeves and block differed enough that the sealing o-rings let coolant into the oil (!), which is rarely good for, for instance, camshaft lobes and all those spinny parts. GM's "fix" was to dump that silver stop-leak powder in (without telling the customer...) and hope for the best. Result? Lots of plugged heater cores and radiators, and a temporary fix for rubber o-rings. They'd only pay out if things got ugly. Hopefully this isn't where the 2.3L B235 engine problems will end up. Having a b0rken one at the moment, the issue is close to my heart. I can't help but think that some GM-ish engineering influence has made that engine's PCV problems exist. Maybe unfair, but it's my opinion that priorities were GM-ized rather than being SAAB-ized. Dave Hinz
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
