Not entirely true. Although all the underpinnings are the same, the Saturn Sky roadster has a very different appearance from its Pontiac sibling. I believe there are also differences in just which engine, transmission and option packages are available.
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:48:15PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: > Note that Saturn, which used to do its own engineering (And the SC2 was > an example of that) is now just another GM nameplate from the production > side of things. The Ion for example, is an Opel (And is the same as the > Chevy Cobalt and the equivalent Pontiac). Only the dealer network > retains any independence. > > -Adam > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > > There is a difference here, the user, in this case the driver never > > noticed the change. On the other hand Saturn which used to have one of > > the best variable assist hydraulic power steering systems by all > > accounts, and I know how good it was on the SC2, I own one. Seems to > > have replaced this with an electrical system, which is light as a > > feather with no road feed back as all as far as I can tell. It was done > > primarily for cost savings. From a drivers point of view it's absolutely > > horrible. I wonder how much money they've saved? I wonder how many > > sales they've lost because of it. GM is in serious trouble right now, > > they can't afford to lose those sales. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> Previously written by Shel - > >> > >> > >> > >>> I knew a > number of people in the automotive business many years back, > >>> and > >>> they'd > >>> watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a > >>> million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss > >>> costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing > >>> bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of > >>> five > >>> bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which > >>> seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units > >>> needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during > >>> manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. > >>> > >>> > >> To which I'll add - > >> Shel I was a design engineer (also held most other engineering > >> positions -development, durability etc.) at one of the Big 3 for many > >> years. > >> I can vouch for what you've stated. > >> During my design career, I did work on the F-series of trucks, mainly in > >> the > >> steering/suspension & brake systems area - with volumes in the millions - > >> a > >> penny saved was a serious cost save on those kinds of volumes. We also > >> figured other issues into the cost save equations - like complexity - if > >> we > >> could eliminate a part from the assembly plant it was equated into a cost > >> savings due to the lack of handling, storage, procuring etc. Process > >> assembly engineers also considered the cost savings of having > >> minimizing/reducing assembly costs. > >> > >> Kenneth Waller > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> Subject: Re: The JCO survey > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a > >>> number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd > >>> watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a > >>> million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss > >>> costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing > >>> bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of > >>> five > >>> bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which > >>> seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units > >>> needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during > >>> manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. > >>> > >>> John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some > >>> may > >>> realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of > >>> the > >>> steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. > >>> Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more > >>> rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The truth is, > >>> we > >>> _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR > >>> camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. > >>> > >>> I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just > >>> blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some > >>> abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, including the > >>> aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design > >>> has > >>> been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of > >>> shake > >>> reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the true cost > >>> of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the > >>> peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those > >>> numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. > >>> > >>> BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual > >>> assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of > >>> that type of work as possible. > >>> > >>> Shel > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> [Original Message] > >>>> From: P?l Jensen > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> How do you know the part in question costs $5.00? > >>>>> Does the $5.00 reflect only the cost of materials, or > >>>>> does it include any manufacturing and setup > >>>>> costs to implement the item in cameras that were > >>>>> designed not to include the part? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> If it cost $5 and you sell a million cameras thats five million. > >>>> I personally believe that the lens mount without mechanical coupling are > >>>> more suited for robotic assembly. Mechanical linkages needs precision and > >>>> > >>>> > >>> is > >>> > >>> > >>>> probably far more expensive to manufacture I suspect. Therefore I don't > >>>> think we will see a completely compatible lens mount in anything but a > >>>> top-of-the-line body if at all. > >>>> Personally, I find this issue trivial. Although it would have been nice > >>>> > >>>> > >>> with > >>> > >>> > >>>> complete comaptibility with K and M lenses, Pentax after all fully > >>>> > >>>> > >>> support > >>> > >>> > >>>> all lenses made after 1983. Thats best in business. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> PDML@pdml.net > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
