Oldsmobile joins Plymouth: RIP

YEP and this is why I drive a 1935 series 40 . Even Buick went down a
little after the war.

Steve E.


On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:50:00 GMT, "Art"
> wrote:

>The only thing I find a bit strange about GM is that if you look at Consumer
>Reports repair surveys, Buicks turn out to be pretty darn good compared to
>the rest and pretty close to Japanese imports.
>

Dan Gates wrote:
>
> Dirk wrote:
>
> > edward ohare explained the CR ratings thus in message
> > >. ..
> >
> >
> >>Japanese import owners are some of the most mechnically naive people
> >>around and don't understand the difference between repairs and
> >>maintenance.
> >
> >
> > OK, I'll bite--which country-of-origin's car owners are the most
> > mechanically brilliant?
>
> I'd vote for one of the former soviet republics. A fair number of
> really bad cars around and no money for mechanics. They ALL do the work
> themselves!
>
> Dan


Dem boys from the CSA (Confederate States of America) did pretty good in
the pre-NASCAR bootleggin' days (when the term "stock car" was more than
just a meaningless name) at being self-sufficient. In fact - that's how
NASCAR got its start. They had to be pretty good to consistently outrun
the federal revenooers and the local law enforcement (that is, if the
local law enforcement wasn't in on the take).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Rocket Man wrote:
>
> ...probably THE opposite end of the spectrum from Bob
> Lutz, Zora Duntov or John DeLorean, who...understand
> you don't market cars like laundry soap.

Yeah but if the press reports were correct, Mr. DeLorean got involved in
a different kind of white powdery stuff to try to keep his company
afloat.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> >
> >> Any degree that has to have ethics classes as part of its
> >> cirriculum is by default broken.
> >
> > Then all three major professions: Medicine, Law, and Engineering are broken.
>
> I don't see engineering as "has to have" it. Some engineering schools
> do put in ethics classes, but that's neither here nor there as they
> aren't teaching students to make dangerous products, to design boilers
> that explode, etc and so on. Meanwhile, business school would be teaching
> a large number of current trends and such that would be IMO the same
> as teaching engineers to design pressure vessels that expode. Hence
> it's broken and is patched with ethics classes. I dunno about medicine
> and law, but I doubt doctors are being taught that unnesscary surgery
> is the key to a profitable practice.

I think your argument is faulty. In an ethics class I took in
engineering school, I learned about the Lockheed brake case, among other
things. That was where a Lockheed facility tested their brake design
for a military jet. During the qualification testing on the
dynamometer, the brakes turned cherry red and exceeded the allowed
temperature at first. So they decided to have huge fans blowing air on
them (not part of the test protocol) to complete the test and got them
to pass. The pilot was killed and a multi-million dollar plane was lost
on the first series of test flights - brakes failed on a landing.

I personally saw other "opportunities" to be or not be ethical in my
career. Ever hear of Intelsat VI? It was a $500 million satellite that
would not separate from the Titan missile it was launched on due to
electrical design errors in the missile. I was the original electrical
design lead on the Titan vehicle that it went up on. The project was so
out of control as far as drawing checking and integrity that I was
threatened with (and actual attempts were made after the fact at) having
my career ruined when I insisted that I be transferred off of the
project since I could not vouch for the integrity of the design.

Long story short, after I left the project at my insistence, the guy who
took over from me changed some wiring for software commands (things like
the one that ejects the satellite from the 2nd stage of the Titan when
it reaches orbit) without informing the software controls group. When
they built the wiring harness, it failed the tests. The techs called
the engineer about it. He signed off on the tests that showed a fault.
The missile reaches orbit, they issue the separation command, nothing
happens (as is usually the case, a series of errors has to happen for a
real problem to make it thru). A shuttle mission was used to manually
separate the two and throw the satellite out into orbit. The missile
mfgr. settled out of court for an undisclosed amount (probably somewhere
between 1/2 and a billion dollars).

Before the settlement, it was interesting the conversations that the
company lawyers had with me trying to determine how willing I was to
bend the truth about how the project was run. I am convinced that I
never would have been called to testify had it gone to court (and
perhaps that's why it never made it to court).

I have other stories of opportunites like that.

Another example of ethics not at work: Challenger o-ring failure.
Management over-rode engineers decision to scrub the launch because of
concerns of the o-rings at the ambient temperatures when NASA threatened
to black list Morton-Thiokol from any future NASA business if they let
the engineers scrub the launch.

Pressures are huge in the auto industry to fake quality systems because
the resources are not there to hire the people that it would really take
to administer them properly. Instead quality systems are often used
purely to cover the customer's butt if a quality spill happens so that
they can recover all the costs associated with the spill.
Unfortunately, there is no incentive (other than personal integrity) to
behave ethically in that situation. Ask me how I know.

Unfortunatley, in a large sense, ethics can't be taught - a person
either has them internally or doesn't. However, a class on the subject
might make them aware of unintended consequences that will get them
thinking and may make them decide to grow some balls to do the right
thing in tough situations (even if their career may suffer for it).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
> > I don't see engineering as "has to have" it. Some engineering schools
> > do put in ethics classes,
>
> Actually, I heard that it was a requirement from friends who went
> through the engineering programs at Virginia Tech when I was an
> undergrad there. But, since you have the benefit of personal experience
> with the cirriculum, I'll take your word for it.

Coincidentally, Virginia Tech happens to be where I got my engineering
degree and took the course on ethics that I referenced in another post.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> Unfortunatley, in a large sense, ethics can't be taught - a person
> either has them internally or doesn't. However, a class on the subject
> might make them aware of unintended consequences that will get them
> thinking and may make them decide to grow some balls to do the right
> thing in tough situations (even if their career may suffer for it).
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")

Bill,

I think ethics ARE taught -- when you're under 7 years of age. It's all
about the behavior your parents model for you. If you are lucky enough to
see them trying to do the right thing most of the time, you'll likely grow
up to be an ethical person.

Ethics cannot be taught at the college level, but they can be reinforced.
You can show basically ethical college students what is expected of them in
the business world, and they will internalize it and become more able to
exhibit ethical behavior in their working lives.

--Geoff

"Geoff" > wrote in message
...
> > Unfortunatley, in a large sense, ethics can't be taught - a person
> > either has them internally or doesn't. However, a class on the subject
> > might make them aware of unintended consequences that will get them
> > thinking and may make them decide to grow some balls to do the right
> > thing in tough situations (even if their career may suffer for it).
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with "x")
>
> Bill,
>
> I think ethics ARE taught -- when you're under 7 years of age. It's all
> about the behavior your parents model for you. If you are lucky enough to
> see them trying to do the right thing most of the time, you'll likely grow
> up to be an ethical person.

True, but if as an ethical person you work for crooked people and receive
all kinds of **** for doing the right thing your career won't be a pleasant
one. I have been there and done that. I have long ago chosen to work
for myself, where my ethics and actions have never been questioned...

> Ethics cannot be taught at the college level, but they can be reinforced.
> You can show basically ethical college students what is expected of them
in
> the business world, and they will internalize it and become more able to
> exhibit ethical behavior in their working lives.

Exactly. College is far too late to teach ethical behavior. Students will
pay
lip service to what's being taught, pass the course, forget about it, and do
whatever they would in a professional capacity once hired had they never
heard of ethics if so inclined...

-'dreas

In article >, Bill Putney wrote:

> I think your argument is faulty. In an ethics class I took in
> engineering school, I learned about the Lockheed brake case, among other
> things. That was where a Lockheed facility tested their brake design
> for a military jet. During the qualification testing on the
> dynamometer, the brakes turned cherry red and exceeded the allowed
> temperature at first. So they decided to have huge fans blowing air on
> them (not part of the test protocol) to complete the test and got them
> to pass. The pilot was killed and a multi-million dollar plane was lost
> on the first series of test flights - brakes failed on a landing.

The above is what is known as a 'business decision' to ship the crap
by making it pass the test. Dollars to doughnuts this was driven
from pressure from on high. I've been there, and thanked god that
we weren't producing aircraft, cars, bridges, or anything where a
failure of the product would kill someone.

> I personally saw other "opportunities" to be or not be ethical in my
> career. Ever hear of Intelsat VI? It was a $500 million satellite that
> would not separate from the Titan missile it was launched on due to
> electrical design errors in the missile. I was the original electrical
> design lead on the Titan vehicle that it went up on. The project was so
> out of control as far as drawing checking and integrity that I was
> threatened with (and actual attempts were made after the fact at) having
> my career ruined when I insisted that I be transferred off of the
> project since I could not vouch for the integrity of the design.

<snip rest of story>

Then you are familiar with business cultural aspects that create bad
design. I don't see this as an ethics issue in the way of a MBA coming
in and deliberately wrecking a company in a hunt for the bottom line.
Judging by what you state above, the errors were not made on purpose
but were rather the product of a cultural problem at the company.

> Before the settlement, it was interesting the conversations that the
> company lawyers had with me trying to determine how willing I was to
> bend the truth about how the project was run. I am convinced that I
> never would have been called to testify had it gone to court (and
> perhaps that's why it never made it to court).

This is where ethics comes in. Your willingness to tell the truth. But
this a different sort of ethics than what is comparable to the business
practices tought to MBAs. An engineering comparision to an MBA
buying up a company to close the doors and fire everyone for profit
would be designing a pressure vessel to explode before leaking because
it would be cheaper.

> Another example of ethics not at work: Challenger o-ring failure.
> Management over-rode engineers decision to scrub the launch because of
> concerns of the o-rings at the ambient temperatures when NASA threatened
> to black list Morton-Thiokol from any future NASA business if they let
> the engineers scrub the launch.

Exactly, management. MBA type thinking, the growing of the pointy hair.
I am sure you are familiar with people who rose through engineering to
management only to grow pointy hair and become like that. They are doing
what they are expected to do to advance rather than standing up for
what is right. That's why the buisness side is fundamentally broken,
that's where this sort of thinking orginiates.

> Pressures are huge in the auto industry to fake quality systems because
> the resources are not there to hire the people that it would really take
> to administer them properly. Instead quality systems are often used
> purely to cover the customer's butt if a quality spill happens so that
> they can recover all the costs associated with the spill.
> Unfortunately, there is no incentive (other than personal integrity) to
> behave ethically in that situation. Ask me how I know.

Been there, done that. Again, this is a business cultural thing that
has nothing to do with engineering education as it exists today.
Engineering education doesn't cover anything regarding real business
cultures. I suppose 'standing up to management 101' would be a useful
course, but that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at a previous
persons post on how MBA's are tought business practices that are
fundamentally flawed ethically then get an ethics class. Engineers are
not tought practices that are fundamentally flawed, like designing exploding
pressure vessels.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Cloaked wrote:

> I may not like some of the crap that DC has put out - like the PT
> cruiser

By all accounts, the PT Cruiser is a very well made, very reliable, very
versatile (and obviously very popular) car. Be careful not to confuse
bad stuff with stuff you just don't like -- they are not the same thing.

> The A604 appears to be the first of its kind. And I bet that DC
> has learned a LOT, and is making it better than ever.

Quite so. I'm aware of at least one individual who snaps-up every
transmission he can get out of recent-model, low-miles Mopar wrecks. He
removes the working components, discards the housing, and installs the
working components in earlier-model housings. His shop's business is
booming because he's known as the guy who fixes A604 transmissions "all
the way fixed".

> I drove GM for over 20 years. Products that were produced between 1968,
> and 1995. I can truly say that while some of the creature comfort stuff
> got better, the overall designs just got worse and worse.

Agreed.

> Cars that ate brakes like candy, bad steering racks, A/C systems that
> required major repairs immmediately after the warranty expired

Remember when GM-Harrison air conditioners were widely known to be
problem-free over several decades? (Remember when Chrysler Corp. was
widely known as the builder of the world's best automatic transmissions?)

> I actually like my GC, even with all its quirks. That 3.3 l engine is
> reliable, and easy to service.

The 3.3 has the same daddy as the slant-6, 318, 2.2, and a lot of other
excellent Chryco engines.

> There is a REASON that GM's market share has dwindled over the years.
> And at the root os it is BAD MANAGEMENT.

Yep.

DS

You guys seem to feel that unethical MBA's are screwing things up. I
disagree. I believe that stupid over-confident people who are too dumb to
know what they don't know do the greatest damage to our free enterprise
system. They sound good, interview well, get promoted and don't know crap
no matter how much schooling they have.