what happened to taking pride in your work

[Goostoff]

The wife and I 150 miles one way yesterday to check out the Keystone dealer with a good selection. We had a certain floor plan we wanted and they had it. Now I know Montana isn't really top of the line trailers but they are what I consider a high end trailer for the average Joe. We ended up going through 7 Montana 5th wheels and every one of them had cabinet hinges that were not tightened and when you opened them the door fell off. These are 2017 trailers and should not be falling apart on the dealers lot. I was very disappointed.

We did love the window on the front cap though.

[RustyJC]

laknox wrote:

westom wrote:

Jayco-noslide wrote:
I really think that V-8's are pretty much obsolete except for very high performance and race cars.

V-9 engines need extra pistons because they are low performance engines. Even Indy no longer races obsolete technology V-8s. So why are so many RVs still powered by V-8s? Some RV manufacturers fear innovation and change. That explains poor workmanship in other parts of that RV.

Cr@p. It's called "reliability". You get more performance, more easily and with less wear and tear, out of a V8; simple as that. When you have to use blowers or turbos to stuff air into an engine, that means extra stresses and, usually, much higher RPM, to make the same numbers. The =main= reason that race engines are only 4 cyl, is to =limit= performance to =limit= speeds. Just like NASCAR uses restrictor plates on the super-speedways. Yes, we =can= get huge numbers from small engines, but I'll put up my 350 hp Genesis Coupe against an older Corvette, with the same output, and that Corvette will simply leave my Genesis in the dust. People forget about torque, which lower-revving V8s have the lock on. Why do you not see pickups with V6s in them to tow anything more than about 8k lbs? Simple, you just need more torque and performance than a V6 can give.

Lyle

Have you counted the cylinders in Class 8 tractors lately? Almost all over-the-road diesels, all the way up to the 13 and 15 liter classes, are inline 6 cylinders (turbocharged and intercooled, of course). The 6.7L Cummins inline 6 cylinder in my truck (see signature) is sufficient to handle a 39,100 lb GCWR and 30,050 trailer tow rating - that's plenty for my 19,000 GVWR Mobile Suites 5th wheel.

Rusty

[westom]

laknox wrote:
The =main= reason that race engines are only 4 cyl, is to =limit= performance to =limit= speeds.

Reason for 4 cylinder engines: those better engines provide sufficient (maximum) power while lasting longer due to innovations that make V-8s unnecessary, wasteful, inefficient, and less reliable.

4 cylinder engines represent advancement of technology. V-8s still exist because so many (management and consumers) fear innovation.

V-8s only exist because innovation (that makes low performance V-8s obsolete) was stifled - most often by cost controls as taught in business schools.

[colliehauler]

Pride in craftsmanship starts from the top management.

[laknox]

westom wrote:

Jayco-noslide wrote:
I really think that V-8's are pretty much obsolete except for very high performance and race cars.

V-9 engines need extra pistons because they are low performance engines. Even Indy no longer races obsolete technology V-8s. So why are so many RVs still powered by V-8s? Some RV manufacturers fear innovation and change. That explains poor workmanship in other parts of that RV.

Cr@p. It's called "reliability". You get more performance, more easily and with less wear and tear, out of a V8; simple as that. When you have to use blowers or turbos to stuff air into an engine, that means extra stresses and, usually, much higher RPM, to make the same numbers. The =main= reason that race engines are only 4 cyl, is to =limit= performance to =limit= speeds. Just like NASCAR uses restrictor plates on the super-speedways. Yes, we =can= get huge numbers from small engines, but I'll put up my 350 hp Genesis Coupe against an older Corvette, with the same output, and that Corvette will simply leave my Genesis in the dust. People forget about torque, which lower-revving V8s have the lock on. Why do you not see pickups with V6s in them to tow anything more than about 8k lbs? Simple, you just need more torque and performance than a V6 can give.

Lyle

[danrclem]

I know cutting costs so the final price is cheaper has a lot do with poor quality but I think there is another reason too. DRUGS! Where I work they don't even do a drug test anymore because most of the applicants can't pass it. The quality and turnover is unreal. I'll be glad when I finally get out of there.

This country is in trouble.

[53_willys]

darsben1 wrote:
Pride in craftsmanship starts at the top of a company but is not in play today in most workplaces because everything is bottom line and max profit driven

Last month my wife and I were looking at new motorhomes , we were trying to decide ether to buy a motor home or keep our 5th wheel and buy a new truck. I was looking at a motor home and asked the salesman about the crappy craftsmanship on the cabinets and he says to his partner , we have a straight and square guy here. I ask what did you say he says we refer to guys like you to straight and square guys picky picky picky. Well that's all I needed stopped at Ford on the way home and bought a new F-350 powerstroke 4X4 . The new RVs at any level within the reach of middle class are very sketchy these days.

[westom]

Jayco-noslide wrote:
I really think that V-8's are pretty much obsolete except for very high performance and race cars.

V-9 engines need extra pistons because they are low performance engines. Even Indy no longer races obsolete technology V-8s. So why are so many RVs still powered by V-8s? Some RV manufacturers fear innovation and change. That explains poor workmanship in other parts of that RV.

[Fabguy]

This is exactly why it is important to make sure that you buy from a reputable dealer that will stand behind the products they sell.

[Jayco-noslide]

I really think that V-8's are pretty much obsolete except for very high performance and race cars. Only a very small per cent of car buyers care about that extreme horsepower as long as the vehicle feels reasonably peppy and responsive. That is available now with 4 cyl. especially with turbo. You can't even get a V-6 now in the Malibu but the top 4 cyl. has 255 HP. Ford has a 300 hp. 4 cyl. focus! And these get 30 or more MPG.Not much to do with the quality of RV's I guess.

[ol_Bombero-JC]

Calicajun wrote:
Workers have become lazy and don't care, even the sales staff has become lazy. We just spent three days at the LA RV show looking at new units. Now when I did sales, it was part of my job to me to clean up/fix up everything for sale. So that the customer saw was the best product for sell.

Now you walk into a RV with sawdust in almost every cabinet, loose screws and all the say is "well it has to be cleaned up the workers aren't that good". You want to sell a 50 to 70 thousand dollar unit and you can't even pick up a dust pan. Sure I trust your word and service department.

Explains why we have been looking for the last year for a new RV.

LA RV show - Pomona, CA - - "Sales Staff"

A few years ago, I was looking at 5th wheels at the Pomona RV show.
At one dealer's display of several units, I saw the brochures stacked in a storage compt of one of the display units.

Didn't want to help myself, so asked a salesman a few feet away if I could have a brochure.
He replied, "I don't know where they are - this is my first day!"
I thought he meant his first day at the show, and said something to
that effect. No - it was his first day *on the job*!

Nice guy - he thanked me when I showed him the brochures (location).

*****************************************************************

Same day, same show.
While "walking" the show, I ran into a friend I had known for years.
Although he had a really nice Alpenlite, his wife wanted a Motor Home, so he had made an *appointment* to test drive a high-dollar diesel pusher at the show. (He could afford it)

When I ran into him he was chatting with the dealership *owner*, who introduced himself.

Saw him a few weeks later, and asked how his test drive went.

He said the dealership owner kept putting him off - telling him one of the salesman would - "get around to the test drive soon".

So he was killing time looking thru the MHs.
While he was in the back (bedroom) of one of the MHs, he overheard this exchange between two salesmen outside the front of the MH:

Salesman #1: "Who's that guy in the unit?"
Salesman #2: "Oh, just some tire-kicker".

That was when he knew waiting was done, as they didn't need/want his business.

He bought a slightly used Foretravel (cash) from a private party.

~

[laknox]

westom wrote:

laknox wrote:
As a bit of a "car guy", I'll firmly dispute your statement that v-8s are obsolete. If they were, don't you think that race cars would all be running 4-cyl engines?

Technologies in race car circuits (Indy, Formula 1) tend to appear decades later in conventional cars. For example, the engine that made V-8s obsolete is the 70 Hp per liter engine that (if I remember) won Indy in 1948. If your car does not do that today, then it is obsolete. And it is obviously defective. You can hear its loud exhaust. Low performance engines make more noise. And therefore require more pistons to replace energy wasted making noise.

Indy no longer races V-8 engines.

BTW, when the GM vice president of drive train development was discussing a decade previous development of 70 HP/liter engines in the mid-1970s, he was also discussing development of variable valve timing and electrically driven valves (manufactured by Magnavox - yes the TV company). Those technologies were that old and stifled when business school graduates started designing cars in the 1970s.

Nardelli was running Home Depot into the ground. So they paid him $200 million to leave. Nardelli does what business school trained management does - enrich themselves.

Nardelli then ran Chrysler into backruptcy by doing what business school grads do. Nardelli's manaagement company is now running Acme Supermarkets where store close to make spread sheets look more profitable.

Is Nardelli knowledgeable of hardware, autos, and groceries? Of course not. He understand cash flow, cost controls, and other support functions. Therefore innovation was impossible. Costs increased. Innovators were stifled. Management padded their compensation packages. Employees and customers became victims. Nardelli got rich at their expense. He did what is taught in business schools.

Remember Flint's water? All key decision makers were business school graduates. Flint was created by cost controls.

What is the employment experience of each RV manufacturer's top management?

First off, race engines only have to last a few hundred miles. You ever hear of a race engine lasting 200k miles? Didn't think so. Fine with me if you want to re-engine your car every 5k miles because that Cox .049 producing 200 hp gives up the ghost. Me, I can't afford it. Indy no longer races v-8s because they're trying to =limit= horsepower to =limit= speed. Same with NASCAR only running small blocks. How fast do you think the Cup guys would be going with 427/429/454/455-sized engines today? D@mn scary speeds, is what. Even the NRA dropped the "quarter mile" for Top Fuel to 1k feet for safety, rather than mess with the engines any more than they already do. I do agree that we =can= make more h.p. =reliably= with much smaller engines, but for performance, there still is "no replacement for displacement".

Again, I do not disagree with you about MBAs FUBARing companies, but there are plenty of instances of "pure" engineers FUBARing companies, too, simply because of a lack of business acumen. A good business leader tries to find the balance between innovation and profits; an =excellent= leader finds that line and walks it, acknowledging mistakes along the way, but working for the long-term success of the company before his own. The rest are mercenaries, intent on lining their pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Lyle

[westom]

laknox wrote:
As a bit of a "car guy", I'll firmly dispute your statement that v-8s are obsolete. If they were, don't you think that race cars would all be running 4-cyl engines?

Technologies in race car circuits (Indy, Formula 1) tend to appear decades later in conventional cars. For example, the engine that made V-8s obsolete is the 70 Hp per liter engine that (if I remember) won Indy in 1948. If your car does not do that today, then it is obsolete. And it is obviously defective. You can hear its loud exhaust. Low performance engines make more noise. And therefore require more pistons to replace energy wasted making noise.

Indy no longer races V-8 engines.

BTW, when the GM vice president of drive train development was discussing a decade previous development of 70 HP/liter engines in the mid-1970s, he was also discussing development of variable valve timing and electrically driven valves (manufactured by Magnavox - yes the TV company). Those technologies were that old and stifled when business school graduates started designing cars in the 1970s.

Nardelli was running Home Depot into the ground. So they paid him $200 million to leave. Nardelli does what business school trained management does - enrich themselves.

Nardelli then ran Chrysler into backruptcy by doing what business school grads do. Nardelli's manaagement company is now running Acme Supermarkets where store close to make spread sheets look more profitable.

Is Nardelli knowledgeable of hardware, autos, and groceries? Of course not. He understand cash flow, cost controls, and other support functions. Therefore innovation was impossible. Costs increased. Innovators were stifled. Management padded their compensation packages. Employees and customers became victims. Nardelli got rich at their expense. He did what is taught in business schools.

Remember Flint's water? All key decision makers were business school graduates. Flint was created by cost controls.

What is the employment experience of each RV manufacturer's top management?

[laknox]

westom wrote:

GoPackGo wrote:
As I recall, his philosophy on quality control is that quality should be built in at each stage of the manufacturing process. Each worker performs QA, it is not added on at the end of the line after the product has been built.

To increase quality, Quality Control (QC) inspectors are eliminated. Those simple concepts are obvious when one comes from where the work gets done.

A business school graduate was taught that a trade-off exists between costs and quality. Increased quality always means decreased costs. Concepts difficult for a finance guy to grasp.

Any car that still has a six or eight cylinder engine is using obsolete technology. Since innovations (demonstrated by GM engineers in the early 1970s) are standard all over the world. But GM still needs large front ends (ie SUV) to house obsolete technology V-8 engines. GMs high costs, blamed on unions, are directly traceable to GMs lower quality. Because a spread sheet says innovation increases costs. Reality says otherwise.

Chevy Volt is the only hybrid where the engine cannot recharge its battery. Done intentionally to decrease costs.

Those concepts apply to all industries.

As a bit of a "car guy", I'll firmly dispute your statement that v-8s are obsolete. If they were, don't you think that race cars would all be running 4-cyl engines? Do you really think there's =any= 4 or 6 cyl that can make the 10,000+ hp that a nitro burning dragster makes? Didn't think so. As a long-time Corvette owner, with a friend that worked at the old GM Proving Grounds in Mesa, the old adage of "there's no replacement for displacement" is true. For a little econo-box, sure, a little 3 or 4 cyl is just fine, and they =can= be made to make some serious ponies, but for a truck or full-size car, 6 and 8 cyl are still the most effective way to go. With electronic valves and variable timing, fueling and even dropping cylinders when power isn't needed, they've become extremely efficient, too.

I don't disagree with you about the MBAs trying to be engineers, because I've seen that in action, both at GM and at John Deere. There was a John Deere test facility near our farm and we used to see all kinds of stuff being tested around here. I know for a fact that they had to get $1,000 of cost out of one particular machine. The farmers that were using the test machines absolutely loved them. When they then tried the production model, they were down as much as they worked; total POSs. Deere killed themselves since all these guys went to different brands that simply didn't break down and didn't have the JD "premium" built in to the purchase price.

Lyle

[westom]

GoPackGo wrote:
As I recall, his philosophy on quality control is that quality should be built in at each stage of the manufacturing process. Each worker performs QA, it is not added on at the end of the line after the product has been built.

To increase quality, Quality Control (QC) inspectors are eliminated. Those simple concepts are obvious when one comes from where the work gets done.

A business school graduate was taught that a trade-off exists between costs and quality. Increased quality always means decreased costs. Concepts difficult for a finance guy to grasp.

Any car that still has a six or eight cylinder engine is using obsolete technology. Since innovations (demonstrated by GM engineers in the early 1970s) are standard all over the world. But GM still needs large front ends (ie SUV) to house obsolete technology V-8 engines. GMs high costs, blamed on unions, are directly traceable to GMs lower quality. Because a spread sheet says innovation increases costs. Reality says otherwise.

Chevy Volt is the only hybrid where the engine cannot recharge its battery. Done intentionally to decrease costs.

Those concepts apply to all industries.

[laknox]

Wasn't it MacArthur who basically set up the modern Japanese manufacturing economy after WWII?

Lyle