6.2 not a good idea because of issues?

[Blackcar]

If customer satisfaction were top priority, GM would:
1. compare the profit margins they're making off of Escalades / Denalis, vs Tahoes / 'burbans
*(Escalades / Denalis are just Tahoes / 'burbans with fancier bits)*

2. correctly assess that the 6.2L V8 is a fancier bit,
from which GM profits even more than they profit off a 5.3L

3. Spend another $500 per engine to prevent the engine failures in the first place

4. snort slightly shorter ******* rails off of slightly cheaper hookahs with slightly cheaper fake bewbz
to offset the temporary lower profits

*(How much money would one save by buying a Tahoe / Yukon, stripping it, and
replacing every visible piece with an Escalade-upgrade?)

Supposedly the supplier of part that caused failure is responsible for repair if found to be their parts fault.

Which in turn some suppliers will go bankrupt which in some parts after a few years old vehicle you cant buy parts to repair because most of the time GM doesn't own tooling that said part was produced with so there is no tooling to retrieve to send to another supplier.

 

[Marky Dissod]

No one who bought an Escalade / Denali with a 6.2L that committed suicide
is going to go after the company that made the schidty lifters or bearings -
they're gonna go after GM, and are right to do so.

 

[Blackcar]

No one who bought an Escalade / Denali with a 6.2L that committed suicide
is going to go after the company that made the schidty lifters or bearings -
they're gonna go after GM, and are right to do so.

This has nothing to do with customer .If faulty part caused repair said manufacture has to pay GM for DOLLARs

 

[Stbentoak]

There are predetermined rules for a field failure caused by a supplier.

No supplier would sign on to a critical part If they said they would have to be fully financially responsible for any failures caused by their deficient manufacture.
There is probably partial financial responsibility up to a certain level to make it hurt enough that they are going to try to produce 100% quality product, but wouldn’t sign on up to the level of risks of bankruptcy.

Although any repeated offenses will probably get you dropped as a supplier as soon as they could find another reputable source.

 

[Antonm]

There are predetermined rules for a field failure caused by a supplier.

No supplier would sign on to a critical part If they said they would have to be fully financially responsible for any failures caused by their deficient manufacture.
There is probably partial financial responsibility up to a certain level to make it hurt enough that they are going to try to produce 100% quality product, but wouldn’t sign on up to the level of risks of bankruptcy.

Although any repeated offenses will probably get you dropped as a supplier as soon as they could find another reputable source.

This is 100% the reality of the auto parts supplier business.

I worked as a quality engineer at a TS/ IATF 16949 certified Tier one auto parts supplier (tier one supplier means that parts go directly to the automakers assembly lines to be built into new cars). And financial liability was one of the main contract negotiating tactics.

The automaker's representative would of course propose buying parts from the supplier for way cheap with a huge warranty/ financial liability on the suppliers part. Supplier's representative comes back saying they'll accept the warranty / financial liability but the price per piece of the parts will be triple what the automaker wants to pay. Automaker's rep comes back with "what can we do to get this cost per piece down?", supplier rep then says "well, if we can remove or reduce the warranty/ financial liability, the cost per piece would be just about what you want to pay".

Of course the automakers representative has direction from his bosses not to pay more than X amount per piece, so they agree to limit the warranty / financial liability, then the automaker's rep and the supplier's rep shake hands and go golfing / day drinking together for the rest of the day. Later each rep goes back to their respective companies and complains about how hard they worked negotiating the contract, how they stuck it to the other guy, then go golfing/ day drinking with their bosses to celebrate the new contract /all the money they made.
...

 

[olyelr]

This is 100% the reality of the auto parts supplier business.

I worked as a quality engineer at a TS/ IATF 16949 certified Tier one auto parts supplier (tier one supplier means that parts go directly to the automakers assembly lines to be built into new cars). And financial liability was one of the main contract negotiating tactics.

The automaker's representative would of course propose buying parts from the supplier for way cheap with a huge warranty/ financial liability on the suppliers part. Supplier's representative comes back saying they'll accept the warranty / financial liability but the price per piece of the parts will be triple what the automaker wants to pay. Automaker's rep comes back with "what can we do to get this cost per piece down?", supplier rep then says "well, if we can remove or reduce the warranty/ financial liability, the cost per piece would be just about what you want to pay".

Of course the automakers representative has direction from his bosses not to pay more than X amount per piece, so they agree to limit the warranty / financial liability, then the automaker's rep and the supplier's rep shake hands and go golfing / day drinking together for the rest of the day. Later each rep goes back to their respective companies and complains about how hard they worked negotiating the contract, how they stuck it to the other guy, then go golfing/ day drinking with their bosses to celebrate the new contract /all the money they made.
...

Lmao

 

[alpha_omega]

If customer satisfaction were top priority, GM would:
1. compare the profit margins they're making off of Escalades / Denalis, vs Tahoes / 'burbans
*(Escalades / Denalis are just Tahoes / 'burbans with fancier bits)*

2. correctly assess that the 6.2L V8 is a fancier bit,
from which GM profits even more than they profit off a 5.3L

3. Spend another $500 per engine to prevent the engine failures in the first place

4. snort slightly shorter kokegain rails off of slightly cheaper hookahs with slightly cheaper fake bewbz
to offset the temporary lower profits

*(How much money would one save by buying a Tahoe / Yukon, stripping it, and
replacing every visible piece with an Escalade-upgrade?)

You’re asking a LOT from one of the big three auto makers. I mean they understand the first three of your requests, but there will be full pushback and feet planted with no. 4 on the list. You’ve overstepped on this one. Ha!

Your last comment is something I often think about, regarding the newer vehicles coming out. All the electrical components and maze of harnesses seems to be growing exponentially. On top of that you’re now paying what…$95k for a vehicle (Denali/Esky) that’s supposed to be “top notch, no issues” - yet you’d then have to put how much into it, just to ensure some of the main issues are addressed?

 

[Marky Dissod]

You’re asking a LOT from one of the big three auto makers.
I mean they understand the first three of your requests, but there will be full pushback and feet planted with no. 4 on the list. You’ve overstepped on this one. Ha!

Exactly. They're so focused on next quarter growth, that they fail to consider:
Instead of trying to squeeze more juice out of the same fruit,
we shoulda been planting orchards.

Your last comment is something I often think about, regarding the newer vehicles coming out.
All the electrical components and maze of harnesses seems to be growing exponentially.
On top of that you’re now paying what ... $95k for a vehicle (Denali/Esky) that’s supposed to be “top notch, no issues” - yet
you’d then have to put how much into it, just to ensure some of the main issues are addressed?

Most vehicle making companies begrudgingly (NOT publicly) admit that
one of their main competitors is the used car market.
Short-sighted schmuckbeciles fail to contemplate this, pushing for the newest vehicles to
be evermore increasingly complicated, prioritizing this over reliability / durability.
The healthier long-term perspective considers the fact that Honda / Toy odor / Subaru
are popular pretty much because more of their 10- & 15- year old cars are still on the road.

In other words, the number of GMT800s still on the road should not be viewed as competition,
but rather as adverts. (Some of us will never be able to afford any new vehicle with a V8 ...)
So even my Z71 (which I do NOT take pics of for good reason) still speaks well of GM
when it's hauling enough stuff that the rear hatch is tied down ...
But GM (Mary Barra?) seems to be willing to foist the consequences of squandering that
reputation on her successors by favoring complexity over longevity.