Quote:
Originally Posted by cjd
I'd venture to guess fuel economy plays a big role. Outside chance it's an opportunity to use up existing stock.
|
There has been no such thing as "existing" stock in the automotive manufacturing system for several decades now. Every manufacturer has gone to LEAN, JIT (Just In Time), or TPS (Toyota Production System). It literally means "just in time" and pretty much every parts manufacturer is minutes away from shutting down a whole assembly plant. One of the plants I work in makes suspension sub assemblies for a major assembly plant. We receive a VIN number for each assembly and build it to arrive at the assembly plant just as the vehicle is at that station. In other words the vehicle is already being built when we start the subassembly and something as minor as a traffic accident during delivery could mean shutting down the plant. If we are going to build 700 modules a shift we bring in the parts to build 700. We do not have parts on hand to build 701. This process goes all the way back through the supply chain to the smallest components. Subaru did not have tens of thousands of left over intake manifolds they had to use up laying in a warehouse someplace and if the supplier made more than ordered then they would just be told tough shit (or the Japanese equivalent of that).
The second part of this is assembly line complexity. This term does not reference how complicated the parts are but how many variations are built on a single line. The more variations that are built the more it costs to run the line. Variations are not just left to chance to happen correctly. The installation and use of poka yokes and other mistake proofing systems means capital investment and assembly time lost. The assembly plants want as little variation as possible so if there are different versions then there needs to be a firm business case or reason to support them. The idea that it is a marketing ploy or to use of leftover parts does not seem to make a valid business case.