Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:39:29 -0500
From: ma_twain <ma_twainnospamo.com>
Subject: Re: 9-3 2003-2005 Safety Rating - Double Pick


Shane Almeida wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:36:27 -0500, ma_twain wrote: > >> I don't find it unlikely. Do you really think the accountants in the GM >> headquarters and GM executives get out and prowl around the design labs >> of every factory? Once the 9-3 was built and crash tested, it was too >> late amd too expensive to "roll back" the change. The only thing the GM >> execs could do was make an example of the Saab engineers who pulled a >> fast one on them. >> > > I'm assuming that changing a chassis on a car that's already been designed > is not easy to do. Isn't the point of a common chassis reduced R&D and > production costs? It seems like that would be an undertaking that > wouldn't go unnoticed. Wouldn't you have to modify the assembly line to > produce a different product? Unless I'm overestimating the work involved > in changing the design, I can't imagine those kinds of changes going > unnoticed. Maybe the changes they made were small but important? > Major changes can go unnoticed by higher level execs and accountants all the time. How many times have your heard "Who authorized that change?" after a product/system fails after being put into production. Only then does it get the attention of the execs. In this case, it was not a failure but an embarassing success. The questions asked probably included why did the Saab chassis do so well when the other common chassis vehicles did not. Yes, the car won the highest crash test rating, but it failed to save money. Which do you think is more important to the execs and accountants?

Return to Main Index

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2019 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Saabnet.com Mission and Purpose Page.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]