Yes we have! It's kinda funny that you would word your response like that. Instead of admitting that the Honda has been excessively poor in quality, you dodge the bullet by looking into the Taurus' crystal ball in an assumption that it will fail miserably. Just breakin' your onions here. I don't consider replacing the steering rack at 55K excessive, I consider it a fluke.


Does anyone know who Honda and Toyota buy thier outsourced parts from? How about Ford and GM?

Tim

 

Well Tim, for a car with 165 on it, thats 9 years older in technology, I just dont see that as an accurate comparison A more accurate comparison would be a 99 honda to your car (but you dont have one obviously) or even a little closer would be when your taurus hits 165.

Im genuinely interested on what (if anything) that the taurus would need replacing.

I could compare my fathers 96 honda accord with 330k on it to your taurus if you wish. Other then routine maintenance, it has got tires, brakes, shocks, a windshield (gravel roads) and now needs a switch that is INSANELY priced! With that many miles on it, they are just pondering a newer car.

No steering had to be replaced on it, that may be a fluke, but its excessive for sure. Its a very uncommon thing to have to replace at 55k.

What I may consider excessive on your honda, is fuel injectors, water pump, distributer for sure, and starter relay.

CV axles turn constantly, and if the person that had it before turned corners sharp while accelerating, that can wear them fast, alternator well they turn all the time too(ive had alternators from all makes and models need replacing after some miles), timing belt well thats a maintenance item common on a honda its like changing the oil!, exhaust does wear out too no matter what make and vehicle (yours will yet too!), and lastly the ac system, who knows, what exactly was wrong with it?

I think Tim, you should go get a 1981 ford escort with 165k (9 years older then the honda) on it, used, and compare

I definatly recognize that you had some problems though, and cant wait to hear the report of the taurus (which is 9 years newer) when it hits 165k!

 

Here's a comparison for you:
I had an '88 Ford tempo and my cousin has a '91 Civic.
The Tempo had around 150K on it when it was sold (not because of trouble). The civic has about 150K on it now.

The civic has had the head off and repaired 3 times, and it's had rings and rod bearings put in it once. Several expensive electronics have also had to be replaced.

The Tempo had a rear stut put on it was all at about 120K It was making some noise..

Both of course had usual maintenance.

 

Thats a more accurate comparison yep

Just for fun Ill compare a few I had.

First car 86 ford escort. Drove it HARD, bought it used, lasted till 200k, crank busted and shot a rod out of the block CVs needed to be done but it was a beater car so we never replaced them(I cant remember the size of the engine, 4 banger)

Second car, 1987 toyota corolla. Drive HARD by me, and the previous owner. lasted 485k till I sold it, it had some struts replaced, nothing engine and trannywise (not sure about the cv's although the one was getting poor)

1989 pontiac sunbird. Driven HARD. Lasted 220k before both cvs went, engine still ran ok, and the tranny was acting up.

Last car, and its not really much of a fair comparison cause its a few years newer, is a 1993 honda civic. Driven HARD, lasted till 189k till I sold it. Nothing wrong at all with it, never replaced anything on it(besides tires and whatnot)

 

Almost ashamed to admit this, but I happen to like the tempo. The lower power output and lack of aluminum head might be part of the reason they lasted longer, just more overdesigned like most fords even if they don't win a race everytime. At least I think they didn't have the aluminum heads...

They also didn't rust as bad. I was in the market for a used compact a little while ago, and was tempted by how well they seemed to hold up. Further research revealed that just about every automotive journalist HATED the car mainly because of mild performance. They do seem to grudgingly acknowledge the decent reliability however.

Looked at toyotas of the same age and really didn't see the better quality that they are said to have. The steel rusts so fast that the paint doesn't even bubble before you have a hole. Good luck wielding that shut.

 

I guess we all could compare different vehicles all day. Thats where consumer reports and jd power and associates kinda come in and can narrow the stuff down somewhat.

Although with my past experiences with domestics vs imports, I will have a hard time believing the reports when they say the domestics have caught up in quality(regarding the cars, not the trucks), just as some guys have a hard time believing that the domestics werent always number 1.

 

I always liked them too. I had the one I talk about. An uncle of mine had two, he kept both till close to 200K. Another uncle had one that he kept till about 175K. Great cars. I didn't think anything was wrong with the power they had.

 

To be fair, we also have a toyota rav4 in the family and its given absolutely NO problems at all. You don't even have to crawl under to get the oil filter off! I was dumbfounded when I first saw that. All we've done with it so far is replace the oil and break pads. Doesn't seem to be rusting either. Although it rarely sees speeds above 60 MPG and is mainly a daily driver.

The truth is the tempo and taurus were legends when they first came out, but even if aerodynamics are a practical feature, that fashion trend is fading too. Just look at the toyota scion or ford flex. The tempo and escorts of the mid 80s also had great MPG ratings.

My truck is by far the highest maintenance in the family, but its also worked the hardest and most trucks tend to be rather high maintenance after 20 years, then it goes back down again.

 

What you don't see from a workers perspective is the inefficiency of the assembly line that causes excess time to do nothing. There are unwritten union rules that forbid you from helping out others unless told to by your supervisor. In the eyes of the union, anything that gives the perception that the company can do more with less is bad. If you can work two jobs on the assembly line, there will come a time when it is expected. I have seen it.

I started out testing big diesel engines, 16 a shift per test cell. (had 20 test cells though) One operator that had management aspirations started running 18 a shift. within a month, all were expected to get 18. Then he started running 21. within two months, all were expected to get 21. Injuries sky rocketed, and they backed it down to 20. The guy made it to management in record time only because he had the union breathing down his neck to slow down. He was not liked (even hated) for his actions as a union member.

Now back to my first statement about assembly line inefficiency. One of my other jobs was an assembly job in a different plant. I experienced two temporary layoffs in engine test due to cyclic business conditions, took a job with the same company 100 miles from where I was to remain working, since my unemployment was about depleted.

Anyway, once I got used to the job, I could do my operations, and help my partner (2 guys, 1 assembly operation area, some areas had as many as 4 people) in 32 minutes. You would assume that at that speed, we should be able to do about 14 units in an 8 hour shift. Wrong. 4-5 units per shift, and 3rd shift was only expected to do 2-3 a shift.

When the Time study guy would come out, we did everything the way the assembly operations instructions told us to. Took us 1 hour 14 minutes to do it by the book. You'd have to know the assembly operation to know that some components could be assembled before the unit even arrived in my station, and those components could be ready for all units for the entire shift in under an hour. That's where our time savings came in. We got more efficient, and the asesmbly instructions didn't.

So, the result was almost 45 minutes of down time per unit (SEE edit at bottom), plus a 25 minute lunch and 2 10 minute breaks per shift. So , lets see, lets add this up.

actual work:

Prepping components for assembly : 1 hour
actuall assembly of prime product(1 shift, 5 units): 2 hours 45 minutes

Downtime:

45 minutes X 5 units = 3 hours 45 minutes - 1 hour of assembly prep time.
45 minutes lunch and mandatory breaks.

3 hours 30 minutes.

so,
total = 7 hours 15 minutes. the other 45 minutes was spent cleaning up our area for the next shift, and making sure that the next shift had the parts bins full when they began their shift. Every shift did this for the next one.

So almost half my day was spent sitting on my **** (not that i'm proud of that, but for the reasons I explained above, this was the way it went, day in and day out.

Blatant laziness would be sleeping instead of working when your supposed to be. or refusing to do what your supervisor has asked you to do. (who gets away with that anyway?)

Just because you don't see them working when you were there doesn't mean that there isn't a reason why they're not.

From my experiences as a UAW Union Member.


On edit: This was a cell based assembly line. Not a moving assembly line. The cell before us had to complete before we would receive our next unit to assemble. The cell before mine took longer to do their part. Another example of assembly line inefficiency.

 

I am aware of these things. The UAW keeps the line speed down under the guise of "ergonomics." If you have the time to work two jobs on the line then the company has 1 too many people working for them. I run a small business... why would I pay two people when 1 person can handle it? It makes no sense and only makes the cost of doing business more.

Sounds like crabs in bucket mentality. A go getter who works harder is hated because he makes everyone else look bad. Seems that 19-20 was probably the number it should have been set at in the first place, and sadly it took one person making the others look bad to illustrate it.

Not all laziness is blatent. Sometimes its "collective" or covert. Doing "just enough" is laziness.

And it also doesn't mean there is a reason why they're not working.

I've got a brother in law in charge of a unionized bearing plant. They put cameras up at each station... and productivey went up and quality sky-rocketed. The cameras were never even turned on. Seems that people who otherwise claim to be proud of their work suddenly do better work when they think they might be personally responsible for it. The union raised hell about the cameras, they were removed. Productivity went down and quality down. There are plenty of excuses coming from the unions and seems members rarely want to acknowledge the problems unions cause. You have to understand how bad it looks that big 3 UAW jobs cost companies more for less productivity, and then they come hat in hands begging the American taxpayers to bail them out. No one ever bailed my company out when it was going through tough times... working harder and smarter was the solution.

 

Yep, I agree.The union is trying to preserve as many jobs as possible. (or should I say members, as membership is declining rapidly)



Agree again. I got into management by going back to school and applying for the job I wanted, not by embarrassing my co-workers and others with barely achievable results at the sacrifice of safety.





Agree. This is the union mentality. Doing just enough keeps more people in jobs. The mentality should be one that helps the company succeed and grow. This creates more jobs than 'doing just enough' saves. The problem the union sees nowadays, is that all new jobs created are going south to right-to-work states. So helping the company does not translate into helping the local economy where they live. Keeping as many people working in their plant and community is more important than seeing the company grow. IMO, Unions are narrow minded or they choose to ignore the bigger picture, specifically, the economy.


Mute point. we'll never know if there is or isn't just by looking at a worker standing there.



Yep, i agree totally No bail out money should be given. Although, 100's of 1000's of jobs would go away with any of the big 3 going bust, makes me take a hard gulp saying no bailout.

Personal responsibility increases quality. agreed

IMO, Unions are hanging on for dear life right now, and there is a distict possibility that some will go away in the next decade or so.

Instead of cameras (which were tried here too), More checks and signoffs were used to track productivity and quality. The employee's know that their work is being tracked, but it is now under the disguise of Quality Improvement Initiatives, and doesn't look outwardly like distrust of the employee. For every operation, the employee must use his badge to mark it done, and move the unit to the next station. Those signoffs using a badge are traceable to the unit for it's life. Long term quality can be tracked to each bolt and component of the assembly, and who built it, specifically.

Along with this, all aspects of productivity are being measured and reviewed every day in real time now, Production is not just units out the door per day anymore.

 

thats the kind of stuff that makes me sick,so its wrong to watch over your employees with a camera, if my current boss saw me blowin off i cant count how many 4 letter words i would hear.my i also agree with u on having a guy multitask,where i work i generally set forms and operate a skidloader but if im not busy why not move on to something else,and that makes me more valuable then hiring someone that can only do 1 thing all day.im not in a union,and if i was running a business i would want a union anyways

 

Um...what's wrong with it? You're trying to say an employer doesn't have a right to know what his/her employees are doing? What about theft? Vandalism? Such a tape could just as easily vindicate an innocent employee, as it would implicate a guilty one!

As an example, in my job, I have constant, continuous electronic monitoring of everything I do. Doesn't bother me, for the simple reason that if I'm doing my job correctly, I have nothing to worry about!

 

I dont get paid if there is no work. I get paid less if I dont put out enough work. If I dont do it right I get to do it again free. If every job were like this a lot more work would get done and done right.

 

Productivity and quality go when a camera is installed shows the employees couldn't be trusted to do a good job when not watched. They were put in place because there were quality issues. The employees claimed it was the equipment. So, they had supervisors come in and watch them... the quality issues went away so they couldn't determine what was causing the problems. So, the only way they could simulate supervisors all the time was with cameras. If the employees had that many problems... they needed cameras!

Did I read that right, you'd want a union if you ran a business? Unions coming into the work place is one of the greatest fears of many small companies, because it puts many of them out of business.