Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
There was a request for a link to Ford's answer's to the NHTSA investigation posted on a previous thread, since closed. Here is the link: Ford's NHTSA Answers to the 6.7 investigation This PDF i...
Forum Discussion
Simulation is during and before release to production (purchasing, stock, 2nd/3rd
operations, build, test, ship)
FMEA is after it has failed and reconstructing or IDing (forensics) the failure mechanism
This scenario is so much having the left foot know knowing what the right foot
is saying with a healthy dose of finger pointing
As NewsW says, we as outsiders can only make educated guesses
We have, are, and will go down rat holes to explore any potential cause and effect(s)
For me, it continues to point back to the pump and H2O.
That then, to me, says cavitation or some other mechanism that creates a negative
or passivation of the DLC.
Could also be a non-DLC coated spot that is attacked to create debris that then
is plowed into the DLC surfaces by either or both the cam/follower and piston/cylinder
I see poor engineering management of their design teams. They don't seem to be
talking to each other (in-company and company to company). That is what the last
two comments touch...comparing specifications and the philosophies there of (smart
vendor who needs little to no input/direction/etc, to a jobber who will do whatever
their customer tells them to do, but no added value other than as a jobber)
We have gone down the 'where is the H2O getting into the system' rat hole.
We have gone down the 'upstream pressure waves creating cavitation in the pump'
rat hole
Etc
In each of these rat holes we have found weaknesses in both their specification
and seemingly acceptance of product(s)
My example of that is when I got tossed out of a Ford design center for talking
to their designers and asking questions that got back to their VP
Found them using my super computing system for their CAD programs.
Saw one guy changing switch drawings and specifications to then run some simulations
Asked if he knew the over all tolerance stack up....I got: 'what are you talking about?'
In 'trying' to explain that the stack up is not just with the switches and harnesses
he was designing, but the other switches and harness being designed down the
row of cubical's
To then have to understand that the purchasing groups are goaled to buy the
cheapest against their AVL/PNR (approved vendors list/part number request), which
has pricing provided by the engineering coordinators when they did the R&D work
Meaning that they will always buy the lowest spec whatever
Then the vendor will try to make as much margin as possible based on the PO
Meaning that the vendor will build/purchase/etc the cheapest or at the low end
of the specification the PO spec'd out
Meaning that the stuff received in their stockroom(s) will be the lowest spec
of all their specifications.
Was asking who knew the whole tolerance stack up and got in trouble when this
kid asked a manager or supervisor...who went higher till it got to their VP of Eng
Who came down to see what was going and yelled: "get this guy out of here!!!" Knew instantly there that Ford's would have a higher than
average electrical fires (they were also reducing wire gauge and
gold plating on the switch/connector/etc contacts). Also why today's
headlamps do not have full voltage delivered to them via the harnesses,
contacts, switches, etc
Turns out they don't want their designers to think outside of whatever box
they stuff them into...
That is another point trying to make by going down these rat holes...that one
guy on another thread said was being anal (anality), but doesn't get it as this
is just being thorough and detailed oriented. That is on the Andersen
Hitch thread...hope I'm wrong, but by using the coupler not as it was
designed or it's intended use....there is a potential failure of
that latch. Another is the whop'd-do where the WD Springs (plastic)
are compressed. Whereas the traditional spring bars would have lots
of compressive travel from that whop'd-do, the plastic spring would
become a solid to further increase the forces on that latch being
used out of context.
Finally, there is a philosophical positioning of the various OEMs on how they
manage their customer relationship. I've referenced that Detroit still doesn't
get it as in when they got their collective lunches eaten by the Japanese who
honored most all warranty claims in one fashion or another knowing that they were
building brand loyalty that to this day is often blind loyalty...
We need to have a constant reference to a set of specifications in comparison
to each other. There might be an "AH HA" in there comparing columns...
operations, build, test, ship)
FMEA is after it has failed and reconstructing or IDing (forensics) the failure mechanism
This scenario is so much having the left foot know knowing what the right foot
is saying with a healthy dose of finger pointing
As NewsW says, we as outsiders can only make educated guesses
We have, are, and will go down rat holes to explore any potential cause and effect(s)
For me, it continues to point back to the pump and H2O.
That then, to me, says cavitation or some other mechanism that creates a negative
or passivation of the DLC.
Could also be a non-DLC coated spot that is attacked to create debris that then
is plowed into the DLC surfaces by either or both the cam/follower and piston/cylinder
I see poor engineering management of their design teams. They don't seem to be
talking to each other (in-company and company to company). That is what the last
two comments touch...comparing specifications and the philosophies there of (smart
vendor who needs little to no input/direction/etc, to a jobber who will do whatever
their customer tells them to do, but no added value other than as a jobber)
We have gone down the 'where is the H2O getting into the system' rat hole.
We have gone down the 'upstream pressure waves creating cavitation in the pump'
rat hole
Etc
In each of these rat holes we have found weaknesses in both their specification
and seemingly acceptance of product(s)
My example of that is when I got tossed out of a Ford design center for talking
to their designers and asking questions that got back to their VP
Found them using my super computing system for their CAD programs.
Saw one guy changing switch drawings and specifications to then run some simulations
Asked if he knew the over all tolerance stack up....I got: 'what are you talking about?'
In 'trying' to explain that the stack up is not just with the switches and harnesses
he was designing, but the other switches and harness being designed down the
row of cubical's
To then have to understand that the purchasing groups are goaled to buy the
cheapest against their AVL/PNR (approved vendors list/part number request), which
has pricing provided by the engineering coordinators when they did the R&D work
Meaning that they will always buy the lowest spec whatever
Then the vendor will try to make as much margin as possible based on the PO
Meaning that the vendor will build/purchase/etc the cheapest or at the low end
of the specification the PO spec'd out
Meaning that the stuff received in their stockroom(s) will be the lowest spec
of all their specifications.
Was asking who knew the whole tolerance stack up and got in trouble when this
kid asked a manager or supervisor...who went higher till it got to their VP of Eng
Who came down to see what was going and yelled: "get this guy out of here!!!" Knew instantly there that Ford's would have a higher than
average electrical fires (they were also reducing wire gauge and
gold plating on the switch/connector/etc contacts). Also why today's
headlamps do not have full voltage delivered to them via the harnesses,
contacts, switches, etc
Turns out they don't want their designers to think outside of whatever box
they stuff them into...
That is another point trying to make by going down these rat holes...that one
guy on another thread said was being anal (anality), but doesn't get it as this
is just being thorough and detailed oriented. That is on the Andersen
Hitch thread...hope I'm wrong, but by using the coupler not as it was
designed or it's intended use....there is a potential failure of
that latch. Another is the whop'd-do where the WD Springs (plastic)
are compressed. Whereas the traditional spring bars would have lots
of compressive travel from that whop'd-do, the plastic spring would
become a solid to further increase the forces on that latch being
used out of context.
Finally, there is a philosophical positioning of the various OEMs on how they
manage their customer relationship. I've referenced that Detroit still doesn't
get it as in when they got their collective lunches eaten by the Japanese who
honored most all warranty claims in one fashion or another knowing that they were
building brand loyalty that to this day is often blind loyalty...
We need to have a constant reference to a set of specifications in comparison
to each other. There might be an "AH HA" in there comparing columns...
