TTAC Commentator and sometime author Niky Tamayo gives us insight into New GM’s new Carmaro’s tranny probs, thanks to this technical bulletin (first published on Camaro5.com).
And here I was giving people crap for complaining about weak Camaro gearboxes suggesting, in all likelihood, hoonery was the cause of failure. But when GM itself cites the torque handling capabilities of the Camaro transmission as being a gnat’s hair higher than the engine’s peak torque. Then you can’t help but wonder how many more will blow before the uprate the transmission. While GM is in no way obligated to build indestructible transmissions for street cars that it has to warranty, you’d think they’d either allow themselves a little more leeway in transmission strength, given the fact that anyone buying a V8 Camaro isn’t likely to NOT hoon the hell out of it, or program the traction control or launch control to limit torque on hard launches . . . y’know . . . just in case.
2010 Tremec TR6060 (MM6/MZ6/MH3/MG9/M10) car transmission
2010 Model Year Summary
Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual car transmission
New Features and Benefits for 2010 model year
Second gear synchronizers using carbon material
Second gear synchronizer design with advanced and asymmetric teeth (CTSv in 2009)
Improved transmission pump pick-up
Implementation into the V-8 Camaro
Second gear synchronizers using carbon material
The change to carbon material on the second gear synchronizer will improve the durability of the synchronizer. Carbon also protects the synchronizer during WOT shifts with the wheels spinning. The shift feel improvements made in 2008 are refined further with the implementation of the carbon material.
Second gear synchronizer design with advanced and asymmetric teeth
Implementing advanced and asymmetric teeth on the second gear aynchronizer system improves the shiftability of the transmission during cold temperatures. This is accomplished by the advanced and asymmetric teeth contacting the second gear dog ring in less distance and with increase stopping power. The shift feel is significantly improved in cold weather. This design also improves the warm shifting comfort.
Improved transmission pump pick-up
As the performance vehicles improve in handling and on-track performance, an improvement to the transmission pump fluid pick up was needed to maintain an acceptable fluid temperature during limit handling and on-track events. In order to enhance operation, an ‘S’ tube design was introduced into some TR6060 applications for 2010 model year. The features of the ‘S’ tube are twofold. First, the tube is lengthened to put the pick-up point further rearward in the fluid sump. Second, the tube has an ‘S’ shape to put the pick up location in the middle of the sump as compared to the current design which is offset to the left slightly. With the introduction of the ‘S’ tube, fluid temps are reduced by 5 degrees Celsius.
Implementation into the V-8 Camaro
The TR6060 is mated to the LS3 engine in the 2010 Camaro. The TR6060 used in the Camaro will use the M10 gear set. A transmission pump will be standard. The TR6060 used in the Camaro is very similar to the TR6060 used in the 2009 CTSv.
Another example of “good idea, bad execution”. GM’s calling card.
What about the Vette 6-speed tranny?
Once again, like the Solstice, a pie that didn’t stay quite long enough in the oven. Maybe the new GM needs a new chef…
But when GM itself cites the torque handling capabilities of the Camaro transmission as being a gnat’s hair higher than the engine’s peak torque.
Good question, Is the safety factor built in by Tremec or GM?
I can’t find that gnat’s hair “fact”.
Where is the link?
GM finally found its slogan: “We Build ’em Almost Good Enough”.
@juniper
The Wikipedia page for the TR6060 says it’s rated for 600ft-lbs, so I don’t know how that’s only a “gnat’s hair” higher than the 420ft-lb output of the LS3.
baldheadeddork
I totally agree
Robert
Please explain this “gnat’s hair” comment.
the Truth please.
…anyone buying a V8 Camaro isn’t likely to NOT hoon the hell out of it, or program the traction control or launch control to limit torque on hard launches…
And that’s stock. Because those cars remain stock maybe 2 days after leaving the stealership.
Then it’s time for: nitrous, supercharger, turbo, cams, heads, and a long long etc…
The gearbox should be rated for 600 lbs/ft at least.
This case reminds me the WRX’s “crystal” gearbox…
The reference (a GM press release) at the bottom of the wikipedia article states:
Both the Corvette ZR1 and the CTSv use the TR6060 designated as MH3 and MG9, respectively. The MH3 is validated to 620 lb-ft of torque, while the MG9 is validated to 560 lb-ft of torque.
So clearly the TR6060 comes in multiple flavors. To save money did GM specify a TR6060 for the Camaro with a lower torque rating? Only GM and Transmission Technologies Corp know for sure!
The TR6060 used in the Camaro is very similar to the TR6060 used in the 2009 CTSv
Doesn’t the CTS-V have 550 lb.ft of torque?
The Camaro is rated at 408 lb.ft isn’t it?
Farago is dead on on his observation.
Search the proof here:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/10car_us.htm
Not giving links, don’t be lazy. It’s there ;)
Thanks for the guy and his wiki link :)
Even GM (old or new – take your pick) couldn’t stuff this up in design or the necessary torque specification.
It will be a materials or batch problem of some sort.
Thanks for the link Stingray.
From teh spec sheet(s) for the Camaro SS
Maximum engine troque: 420 lb-ft
Maximum gear box torque (Tremec 6060): 430 lb-ft
Not exactly the safety factor I was taught to apply as an engineering student (or since). I can pretty much bet that the engineers were told to do this by management, as no sensible engineer would design it with that narrow of a margin for failure.
@Lumbergh21
You’re welcome.
I think the reason for all this is cost optimization LOL… you should love PC hahahahaha.
But that BS in a muscle car is a recipe for FAIL. If stock they’re already breaking, imagine when customers slap some slicks and a healthy 200 or 300HP shot of nitrous. KABOOM!!!!
Of course it’s not the safety factor we were taught as engineering students.
It’s funny reading, say, Autoblog, and witnessing people who dumped on Toyota for the handful of Tundras with camshaft issues trying to explain this away.
Memo to GM – this is NOT how you build a legendary car. For example, when you hear Supra, you automatically remember that the powertrain can handle 1000hp. Honda Civic powertrains can handle pretty drastic turbocharging on stock powertrain components. This is the stuff of legends.
Will the new Camaro be remembered as fragile? Unreliable? Compromised? Not good labels for a performance car.
psarhjinian: Re Tundra camshafts. The funny part about the whole episode is that a US supplier, located in MI no less, was responsible for providing defective parts. In the case of the Camaro, the decision was made by GM to spec a transmission and driveshafts that cannot handle the engine torque. That’s a big difference in philosophy between the two companies.
A perfect example of the GM “good enough” engineering.
Another great product from the company you can trust…
Remember, guys, this was done by the “Old GM.”
The new one would have spec’d the transmission for at least 435 ft-lbs!
There I am. It’s autumn, 1976. We’re under a new Caprice on the lift getting its PDI.
“Gus, c’mere!”
“The morons at the factory stuck a Chevette tranny in this Caprice!”
From the spec sheet(s) for the Camaro SS
Maximum engine troque: 420 lb-ft
Maximum gear box torque (Tremec 6060): 430 lb-ft
Not exactly the safety factor I was taught to apply as an engineering student
To state the obvious – There IS no safety factor.
Any given engine is likely to vary in specific output by at least 5%. Well 5% of 420 is 21 lb-ft. Thus any given perfectly normal unmodified engine may will be beyond the maximum capacity of the transmission.
I can’t speak to variations in transmissions but even assuming a 3% variance in torque handling capacity any given transmission may be below the torque output capability of a “normal” engine.
Further peak torque occurs WELL BELOW the redline.
Torque (SAE net) 420 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm
Redline 6600 rpm
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0903_2010_chevrolet_camaro_ss_vs_2009_dodge_challenger_rt_vs_2010_ford_mustang_gt/specs_and_road_test_data.html
Thus failures are going to occur for drivers who don’t believe that they are really stressing their cars. If you’re shifting at 4600, you probably think that you’re accelerating ‘briskly’ but not ‘flat out’.
Bad, bad, bad, GM.
I never thought I’d register to defend GM, but you guys need to look deeper before playing gotcha with the Camaro’s Engineers. Look at the same spec sheets for the CTS-V and the Vett:
6.2L vette: 430 lb-ft engine, 430 lb-ft gearbox max torque.
7.0L Z06: 470 lb-ft Engine, 500 lb-ft gearbox.
CTS V: 551 lb-ft engine, 560 lb-ft gearbox.
There are more examples like this if you care to look. The point being, other GM vehicles that are generally lauded as being great cars, and certainly don’t have reps for exploding gearboxes, have even less wiggle room than the Camaro. Some cars have more. This number obviously can’t tell us much by itself.
The issue may very well be some sort of design flaw – who knows? But this degree of allowance seems pretty standard for GM’s performance vehicles.
I’d be curious to see what kind of buffer Lexus, Acura, and Hyundai give their engines, although I’m not sure how to go about finding that information…
I could be reading it wrong, but it seems like the “peak torque” and “peak hp” figures in that link Stingray provided are simply peak torque and hp figures for the ENGINE installed in the car, not the rated capacity of the tranny. I looked at a few other examples on that page and that seems to be the case.
@Sisyphean :
Hmmmmmm. Verrrry Interesting.
Gentlemen?
Back to the defective parts theory?
Absent data to the contrary (which we’ve just had to discard), Occam’s razor suggests defective parts. We also have to note that – if this was a design problem- it should have surfaced very early in testing.
This is the perfect time for the “new” Garbage Motors to prove that they are not the “old” Garbage Motors, and start to close that “perception gap” that they are constantly going on about.
Yeah, and I am a Chinese jet fighter pilot, too.
Bruce
thanks for the link
I still wonder where the safety factor is. Is it built in the transmision? or? Notice the Corvette is rated the same way, and doesn’t seem to have a problem. Or does it?
Actually on a launch it is a big single cycle spike of torque (impact) not a “rated” operating torque issue. I hope we actually find out what happened.
If you’re going to build a bridge designed to hold a maximum of 1000 tons, but want a 1.5 safety factor, you’re not going to list 1500 tons as the maximum allowable weight. You’re going to list 1000, since that is the maximum weight while still accounting for your margin of error. For example, the maximum weight listed for a 747 is not the point where it can’t fly – it’s normally related to the average runway length, accounting for a hefty margin of error.
So if GM states the maximum allowable torque is 430, and 560 or 620 is where the transmission fails (according to this blog), roughly speaking, that is a 1.3-1.44 safety factor. Not a gnats hair. As many have speculated, given the lack of issues with other GM models with similar specs, this is probably a bad batch of parts.
That said, interesting comment about maximum torque at low rpm. Not sure I’ve heard of normal driving conditions messing up these transmissions, but that would certainly be a problem if it were true.
Honda Civic powertrains can handle pretty drastic turbocharging on stock powertrain components. This is the stuff of legends.
no, they can’t. B- and D-series engines don’t take well to turbocharging unless you reinforce the block. The open deck design of these engines is very weak against turbocharging. The transmissions aren’t that strong either. If you put more than 200 up through them, you’ll have metal soup.
I guess they didn’t let Maximum Bob Lutz drive the new Camaro during testing. I’m sure that hoodlum of an Old Fart would have blown the stock tranny during his first smoky burnout!
Not so fast conspiracy guys. The CTSV is rated at 550 LBS torque and the Camaro at 420. Both use MM6 transmissions made by Tremec. Both Vehicles use PN 19178534 RR Mainshaft. This is the part in question. Given the CTSV and the Camaro use the exact same PN in the transmission for the output shaft that means the shaft is at least rated to 550 LBS output. This means that there is a distinct possibility Tremec jacked the heat treat on a batch of output shafts for the MM6 trans.(however I don’t know, there may be an issue their may not be) This is also the same trans and part number for the G8 GXP which uses the same powertrain/trans combo and there has never been a out put failure of any type on one of those cars nor on a CTSV and Henessy has already pounded a CTSV with a 620 HP upgrade.
FYI: Comments are my personal opinion and not any kind of official statment by GM
From what I understand transmission rating is a foggy science. It depends a lot on the weight of the vehicle and the tires and suspension.
My TR3650 is rated at 360 lb-ft, stock tq on my car is something like 320-330 lb-ft, tuners sell versions hopped up well over 400 lb-ft and I have never read of a single transmission failure on the S197 bulletin boards. The clutch and tires are the fuse.
I am waiting for these failures to be attributed to binding or prying of the output shaft, or to a materials flaw that put the parts put in production gearboxes outside of spec. I have seen pictures of these broken output shafts and there is plenty of cross section.
Theres a big difference between an engineering design flaw and a Quality spill due to a supplier screw up. This is not unique to manufacturing. It happens to all manufacturers day in and day out, foreign and domestic. Its a fact of life in the manufacturing business. Thats why their is an army of quality engineers in essence chasing down supplier errors day in and day out.
JG your right. A transmissions torque capacity has little bearing on its ability to handle instant shock load. Usually the components are at least 50% greater in capacity handling than their max torque rating implies. The weak link is usually the input shaft or gears and is rarely if ever a function of output shaft torque handling capacity which is usually way overkill.
I think that logic dictates that it is a quality issues with a part rather than a design flaw. While I can’t be sure, one could assume GM would coninue using the formula they did for the G8, Corvette, CTS-V et al. and pick a transmission with a certain safety margin or at least whatever they picked in the past without a problem. Now, is the issue definitely within the transmission box or could placement of the transmission in design of the car cause this shearing? I have no idea.
Quasimondo, I thought that the non-vtec civic engines…particularly the b18a in the non-vtec integra did well with turboing. The vtec cars operate a too high of a compression to have forced induction without upgrades or problems.
They do well after you Install a block insert to reinforce the open cylinder walls. And use high stregnth head studs. And use a multilayer steel head gasket.
Theres a big difference between an engineering design flaw and a Quality spill due to a supplier screw up.
Isn’t part of the engineers job to deal with the expected level of supplier quality. You would need to determine what they could actually deliver and if the failure rate is going to be high then you need to build in more redundancy.
As for quality control I hope GM is testing and x-raying a representative random sample of parts to ensure they meet the specs. If they aren’t and are instead relying on their underpaid nearly bankrupts (or actually bankrupt) suppliers… well then it is 100% GM’s fault.
Engineers do their best to spec components from suppliers, but suppliers make mistakes or get faulty components from their vendors.
_If_ the new Camaro SS manual trans max. torque rating is only slightly higher than the engine’s maximum torque rating, then GM’s asking for trouble.
There are potentials for transient bump loads, wheel hop due to road friction, wind buffeting and other stresses on the driveline that would add to peak engine torque, and break the transmission.
smart’s comment illustrates the difference between engineering and marketing. For a 1000 lb bridge with 1.5 load factor, the engineer would say the design limit is 1000 lbs, while marketing would say 1500 lbs.
…and I well remember one GM clinic where the engineers were openly hostile to marketing, because the latter clearly screwed up the vehicle’s design.
Engineers do their best to spec components from suppliers, but suppliers make mistakes or get faulty components from their vendors.
Then isn’t it incumbent on the manufacturer to have quality control checks in place to ensure these kinds of things don’t happen?
The quality of commenting here is going down a lot lately. Lots of folks talking about safety factors trying to sound smart; implying some understanding of design elements and how those ratings actually compare. I ignored these crazy comments it in the first post about this problem with folks talking about validation but I can’t stand it anymore.
The rated torque capacity of the transmission is not an ok/not ok break point. If the transmission is a properly built (if), that torque rating is reflective of what level of torque can be put through it in a regular service environment. Violating it once won’t make a broken trans. The actual peak (hard parts breaking) torque is influenced by about a hundred other factors and is well in excess of that rating.
Those of you implying that having the engine torque rating quite close to the transmission’s rated torque capacity is a huge fundamental idiotic oversight don’t understand the ratings you are looking at or how they are derived – any more than the dimwits in the first post yelling about how these things weren’t caught in testing due to some management related issue at GM.
Yes, the ratings are close, perhaps closer than typical. But I can assure you that if there are a contained batch of cars out there with infant (very fast) shaft breakage issues, it’s a part quality issue. Likely there are about three or four possible companies responsible, be it the trans supplier, shaft supplier, heat treating company, etc.
BTW – I’m not implying that I wouldn’t be IRATE if I dropped 30k on a new Camaro and had a dead car. I would be. It’s just that those of you implying this issue is because of some retarded GM engineer are doing nothing but showing you have no idea how the car in your driveway came to be.
if there are a contained batch of cars out there with infant (very fast) shaft breakage issues, it’s a part quality issue.
And it is entirely the responsibility of GM to ensure that systems are in place to ensure those parts are never put on a car. The buck stops with GM – they can’t afford even the hint of such an issue at this time.
Slare,
It’s just that those of you implying this issue is because of some retarded GM engineer
What would the title be of the person or people at GM resonsible for QA of incomming parts. I would assume the person who decides if a visual inspection, ultrasound inspection, or x-ray inspection for a given class or part is some kind of engineer? It seems that dropped the ball – No?
Slare +1
Lets get into the issue of Fault VS Responsibility.
As a GM employee we are responsible to correct the faulty part in question within warranty in a timely mannor with minimal impact to the customer. That is the responsiblity of GM.
Is GM at Fault? GM is at fault if they knowingly sent a part to production with prior knowlege of its failure. In this case their is no evidence of this. GM is at fault if they don’t fix it with minimal impact within the defined warranty contract entered into by the customer and address this issue with the supplier. There is no evidence of this, in fact their is evidence to the contrary of this.
In this case the supplier is at fault for not suppling the part to defined specs.
GM is responsible for the administration of its impact to the customer.
Parts are designed and validated by the part engineer. Once validated the supplier quality engineer is responsible to insure that any parts that don’t meet spec are addressed with the supplier. This is how it works. It is not an indicator of a design issue, In fact given the track history of the Tremec 6060 it directly points to a process issue that developed.
This is no different than Toyota’s camshaft issue. Was it a engineering flaw or a supplier quality spill??
It was a spill. Toyota is responsible, the supplier is at fault. If toyota swept the issue under the rug then Toyota becomes at fault.
Example: Toyota is at fault for sludged engines due to a design flaw in their engines under warranty. Out of warranty No
Gm is at fault for failed intake gaskets under warranty. YES. Out of warranty? No because It would mean they owe me for somthing I didn’t pay for.
Outside of warranty I hold the manufacturer blameless as nowhere in any contract does any manufacturer promise ownership of fault or responsibility.
This is no different than the battery in my Ipod croaked after it went out of warranty. Can I balme Apple?? No they covered the battery under their stipulated warranty.
Does it change my perception of Apple?? Thats an individual thing.
JMO
parts meeting spec is the suppliers responsibility. EVERYONE DOES IT THIS WAY IN THE INDUSTRY TODAY.
sample check and certification is the suppliers responsibility after the final production part is validated and durability tested. All parts are delivered with certification documentation in most cases verifying a random sample from the supplied batch was tested and validated by the supplier
parts meeting spec is the suppliers responsibility
And you wonder why you went bankrupt.
The buck stops with you!
Outside of warranty I hold the manufacturer blameless as nowhere in any contract does any manufacturer promise ownership of fault or responsibility.
Are you f*ckign serious? My car s*its the bed at 75k miles and I should hold the manfacturer blameless?
Do you really work at GM or are you a troll? No rational human could possibly belive what you are saying.
Its their responsibility to us. Our responsibility is to the end customer. Don’t confuse the two. The buck does stop with us. attacking me does not change the process.
JMO is it under warranty? Did you pay for coverage beyond 75000? What is with the sense of entitlement?? If you have coverage beyond 75000 then yes the manufacturer is responsible.
Is this expected from you from every manufacturer you purchase product from? (Entitled to coverage beyond what was paid for?)
A rational person would stand back and say thats whats wrong with America. (Entitlement Mentality)
Do you think Toyota is responsible to cover Prius headlamps out of warranty??
Do you think Toyota is responsible to cover Prius headlamps out of warranty??
Of course I do. If I buy a Toyota and have any problems before 100k miles, I will consider my self as having been cheated and will be far less likely to buy a Toyota in the future.
I’m not a Toyota driver, but for those who are, the whole point of getting a Camry is so that for tens of thousands of miles after the warranty expires, you still won’t have any problems.
A rational person would stand back and say thats whats wrong with America. (Entitlement Mentality)
If I buy a Camero I’m entitled to hoon the hell out of it for at least 100k miles before the transmission s*its the bed.
I would understand you feeling being cheated. However if you bought the car and the coverage on the headlamps was 36,000 why should they owe you? You think the piles of prius owners paying 800 for a hew headlamp feel cheated? I’m sure many of them do. However the reality is they didn’t pay for headlamp coverage beyond 36,000.
And like I said attacking me dosen’t change reality. What I said is truth about how the process works be it foreign or domestic.
JMO your right, you can hoon it until the cows come home. GM has never denied a warranty for hooning a camaro. You could break the trans 20 times and its covered to 100,000 miles so wheres the issue.
Your post comes across as if you have some proof that GM has denied to take responsibility for a broken transmission. Hasen’t happened.
Is GM trying to Identify the issue and correct it. I think the answer is yes so whats the issue.
if you bought the car and the coverage on the headlamps was 36,000
No one buys a Toyota for the 36,000 mile warranty – many other companies offer far better warranties. They buy a Toyota because they feel it will last at least 150k miles with a minimum of problems.
What I said is truth about how the process works be it foreign or domestic.
The long term durability numbers for Toyota and Honda are indicative of companies that put more effort into ensuring the long term durability of their vehicles. GM chose to go with your thinking and use parts that were substandard, or QA processes that are substandard and as a result drove millions of customers into the arms of other manufactures, thus resulting in the bankruptcy of GM.
You could break the trans 20 times and its covered to 100,000 miles so wheres the issue.
Um… cause 20 times I’ll be stuck at the side of the road?
Indication of reliability has nothing to do with what your entitled to under warranty. This is an indication of what drives your decision to buy. Your being irrational.
As for the GM past yes there were many mistakes we are ashamed and sorry for. That was yesterday and today is today. We made our bed and we’ll lie in it. However yesterday was yesterday and tomorrow is tomorrow. Its a different game now and the dog that misbehaved and has been kicked all over when its down has stood up and promises to turn over a new leaf. unfortunatly some find it sporting to continue to kick the dog because its the in thing to do.
Slare: Likely there are about three or four possible companies responsible, be it the trans supplier, shaft supplier, heat treating company, etc.
Before this thread devolves into stupidity, I’d like to clarify what Slare said above. Are there really that many suppliers, i.e. subcontractors? Someone to to fabricate the shaft, someone to heat treat the shaft, someone to build the transmission, and finally someone to build the car? Is such a supply chain too unwieldy to manage efficiently? On small misstep and the whole thing is fubared! Do all auto companies (read Toyota) do things the same way, i.e. outsource as much as possible?
Indication of reliability has nothing to do with what your entitled to under warranty. This is an indication of what drives your decision to buy. Your being irrational.
Now I know you’re a troll. If the customer demands a car than goes 150k miles with out any problems, GM needs to provide that or they will go out of business. Blaming the customer for being “irrational” won’t get them to buy your cars.
People didn’t stop buying GM cars because GM resisted paying warranty claims – they stoped buying them because things that shouldn’t have gone wrong did for years after the warranty expired.
@gmemployee : Thanks for speaking up to help us understand what the truth is.
Good debate. jmo, regardless of what your expectations may be, a manufacturer’s responsibility ends with the expiration of the warranty. The automaker guarantees a fully functioning vehicle for a set period, after that period they have few responsibilities, whatever your expectations may be. Like everything there are some exceptions, safety recalls etc.
I do not work in the automotive field, however I am a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry. To expect any automobile manufacturer to perform an incoming inspection as rigorous as would be needed to determine that a transmission is faulty near it’s rated operating limit is sheer lunacy. No industry operates like this today. gmemployee is correct that for modern manufacturing and assembly industries, the supplier of the components is responsible for the quality of the components.
And yes, the supplier should have a quality control process to find the defects before they are shipped. Every automobile manufacturer audits and approves their suppliers quality systems. Most are probably audited by third parties as well (ISO etc…). However, mistakes will still happen. It may be human error, it could just be bad luck (random sampling inspections may have all been acceptable), it may not have been Tremec’s fault at all, but the steel supplier.
My point is, from GM’s perspective; they found a transmission that was rated for the load, from a reputable and approved supplier, using a design that had been validated in other platforms previously. To accuse GM of idiocy or negligence based on the little we know of the actual root cause is premature and foolhardy.
JMO you saw my prevoious post. I acknowledged that many mistakes were made. You followed up with another kick to the dog. Thats OK. You can call me a Troll but everyone else knows better. I’ve read your opinion and respect it. My promise to you is to do whatever is within my circle of influence to correct it and to insure that the items/product I am responsible for does not let our current and future customers down.
Morea Thanks
It takes a big set to stand up and say I won’t give up and I’m sorry my company let you down. Winning is hard but Quitting lasts a lifetime. I refuse to quit!
To accuse GM of idiocy or negligence based on the little we know of the actual root cause is premature and foolhardy.
It doesn’t matter why it failed. All that matters is that it failed at a time when GM can’t afford failure. It was incumbent on GM executives and engineers to ensure that something like this didn’t happen. That it did seems to indicate something is wrong with their supply chain management.
Boeing Co. is taking steps to fix serious delays in production of its new 787 Dreamliner by acquiring a 50% interest in a major supplier of fuselage components.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28745
If GM has a problem with its supply chain it needs to move aggressively to deal with them as Boeing did. Ideally it should detect the problem, acquire the supplier, and ensure a steady supply of components before the customer is left stranded.
I do not work in the automotive field, however I am a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry.
Is supply chain management not part of what a manufacture does? I’ll try to find the link… but, it is generally accepted that part of the reletive success of Toyota has to do with the close relationship it has always maintained with its suppliers.
As an example of how manufactures deal with supply chain issues:
“Boeing Co. is taking steps to fix serious delays in production of its new 787 Dreamliner by acquiring a 50% interest in a major supplier of fuselage components.”
If you have a problem with a supplier providing substandard components, it’s incumbent upon the manufacture to deal with that problem aggressively. This is even more important when you’re GM and any hint of unreliability in a new product can have a catastrophic impact on your reputation.
They should have detected the problem and fixed it before even one customer was left stranded at the side of the road.
JMO
if the process specs are set and the supplier employee has a bad day and sets the anneal temp to 1300 degrees instead of 1000 degrees it is undetectable to the manufacturer that is supplied the parts. If the Supplier misses the potential issue in their quality checks and passes the part it is impossible for the manufacturer to detect by sight.
That said in this case tremec has a stellar reputation for quality. There is no reason based on past performace to question tremecs quality documentation.
If you think you can pull off 100% perfection using a first, second and third supplier in succession covering 1000 seperate parts then you are worth millions and I suggest you submit your resume.
I don’t know what you do for a living but I gurantee whatever it is you does not come off with 100% perfection.
P.S. we are dealing with our issues with aggression.
JMO if you work in the airline industry should I take the position that Boeing makes junk because a chunk fell off a 737/300
.
Thats not reality because I garuntee the engineer and the supplier tested and tested and tested those components and had no expectation they were going to fail. However they did. So if I take your attitude toward the auto industry and apply it to the airline industry Boeing makes Junk.
what about Bombardier q400 propeller pitch modules
how bout the 737/200 that crashed at cranbrook with thrust reverser failures or the one that crashed in taiwan due to structural failures
your industry ain’t clean and green.
Wheres your apology to the world??
Thats sarcasm because as an engineer I know better.
gmemployee,
Boeing is buying up its suppliers due to their inability to produce the quantity and quality of parts that building the 787 requires. If GM is in a similar position, suppliers dropping the ball, it needs to be doing the same.
Ideally, with so much riding on the Camero, these actions should have been taken years ago during the initial development phase of the vehicle.
JMO if you work in the airline industry should I take the position that Boeing makes junk because a chunk fell off a 737/300
No, if a A320 and a 737 both cost $50million and the Airbus is in service 99.9% of the time and costs $2.5 million a year to maintain and the Boeing costs $50 million and is in service 96.5% of the time and costs $3.5 million to maintain, can Boeing complain when the airlines stop buying?
Its a different game now and the dog that misbehaved and has been kicked all over when its down has stood up and promises to turn over a new leaf.
Quite seriously, while I’m sympathetic to that, what we have here is a case where the dog has misbehaved dozens of times in the past, and the instinctive reaction is to expect that to be the situation yet again. So far there’s absolutely no evidence that it’s a different game now. So far it looks exactly like business as usual.
That’s the new GM’s cross to bear, and handling this problem like it’s been handled in the past isn’t going to work – right or wrong.
Outside of warranty I hold the manufacturer blameless as nowhere in any contract does any manufacturer promise ownership of fault or responsibility.
Certainly true from a legal perspective. You get what you pay for. However, ask yourself why people are willing to pay list for Toyota’s and Honda’s while GM has had to continously offer discounts.
Seriously….. What is your honest response as to that question? I don’t ask this to be mean, but to set up my next question:
What should GM do to show that it’s a new ball game?
Talk is cheap. We have to take the Missouri tact. Show me!
Until that occurs I have no expectation of forgiveness nor do I expect it.
I can’t promiose I’ll be perfect but I’ll walk across fire trying.
There is no other way.
Thats my honest response.
Did you just mention a320’s and their faulty airspeed sensors that results in crashes?
Based on this ancedote, I conclude that airbus passenger airplanes are junk. Just what I expect from a government owned entity.
Look I have a friend that works for Honeywell/Lockheed and he writes service information for the aircraft industry. (If you only knew) That said he has a saying and I agree with him. “If it ain’t Boeing I ain’t going!” But I’ve heard plenty of horror stories
Given that I was just trying to point out that whatever industry we all may be in we all are not perfect and we all make mistakes.
The question is did we learn anything.
I have a 2 saying’s my father taught me.
1. I don’t know anything, everything I know I learned from somone else.
2. Your word is your bond, If your not going to do it don’t say your going to. If you say your going to do it you better do it.
P.S. Thank all of you for your candor. Contrary to what you may think we employees (even us little fish) are reading and listening and taking it to heart. Its been painfull but any kind of reality check is good for personal growth. We can do better, we will do better.
@gmemployee…..As a GM retiree its goood to know
that there is people like your self,involved in the building and marketing of our product.
@gmemployee
Well said.
Keep up the good work.
And that’s why I like cars!!
Morea, yes, it’s absolutely possible four or more suppliers were involved in the bad part by the time you get to the finished product. Any issue at any stage could result in a suspect finished part, and I promise human error could have an influence at any step. GM’s example about a wrong heat treat temperature is spot on.
I don’t work at the trans supplier but know problems at any tiered/sub supplier could be responsible all the way up to GM’s final assembly. And I can say from experience there is a rather large number of people with that exposure all scrambling to prove “not it”.
– Steel supplier
– Steel certification lab
– Machining/forging supplier
– Heat treatment supplier
– Assembly (components)
– Assembly (trans)
– Assembly (final)
There is really no way to say it without sounding dickish, but people who are not intimately familiar with the automotive industry or at least the development and production of manufactured products are missing 99% of the picture about issues like this. I don’t have a problem with this, but it annoys the hell out of me to see so many posts from people (not you) putting on their pretend development engineer hats and acting all knowing when their very posts expose they have no idea what they are spouting off about.
Before this thread devolves into stupidity, I’d like to clarify what Slare said above. Are there really that many suppliers, i.e. subcontractors? Someone to to fabricate the shaft, someone to heat treat the shaft, someone to build the transmission, and finally someone to build the car? Is such a supply chain too unwieldy to manage efficiently? On small misstep and the whole thing is fubared! Do all auto companies (read Toyota) do things the same way, i.e. outsource as much as possible?
As I said in the other thread, how GM handles this is where we see what the newGM is worth. So far, the jury is still out though, from my perspective, their forthcoming info on this has gained a few kudos. They haven’t tried to hide the problem or run down the new owners. So far, so good.
I am amused by the warranty back and forth up above. Do any of you remember that warranties were just a sales ploy in the dirty thirties to try and get the somulent car industry back on its feet. Sound familar?
@gmemployee Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. A little reality check for us, and for GM, is a good thing. Your presence here is a very visible sign of the new GM. Keep it up.
As I said in another topic, there would be a lynch mob mentality about this.
I truely wish people would sit on their hands until some real world numbers come out about the number of actual defects.
Good info on Tremec’s other models: http://www.ddperformance.com/
gmemployee,
Imagine every product was built based on your philosophy, a year’s worth of warranty(most things are covered by a year warranty) and we owe you nothing. Would anybody buy a $2K Samsung or Sony LCD TV knowing that the 1 year warranty is the actual expected lifetime of the product? For Christ sake my shoes, good shoes, are still going strong at 14 years of age. The warranty is the minimal probably government mandated responsibility that the producer needs officially to support the product. Unofficially most people expect the lifetime of the product to be at least 3-10 times the warranty.
Actually… while I’m the one who came up with the memo… I actually agree with gmemployee on one thing… the manufacturer’s responsibility for warranty ends where the manufacturer says it will end… as the buyer is made fully aware of the warranty limitations upon purchase.
–
Granted, I’m not an expert on transmissions… but I did find it funny reading through the literature… the reason for the specification of which torque-rated gearboxes go where includes the fact that the ZR1 Corvette gets a lesser rated box because of the longer gears. Logical. The CTSV is less of a problem than the Camaro with the same rating, since you expect an older set of customers not given to tomfoolery. Still logical.
But here, you have an entry-level sportscar that’s supposed to herald the “New” GM. Appealing to younger customers, new buyers, new, potential “lifers”. Wouldn’t it make sense to equip it with some heavy-duty hardware, just in case? Given that Camaros are more likely to be drag-raced than Vettes or CTSVs, are probably prone to some pretty bad wheel-hop thanks to those magnificent hoops and will probably eat some mechanical bits for breakfast just five miles out of the dealership… not because of any inherent weakness in the car… these types of buyers break them because they can.
Again, GM isn’t required to build an indestructible car… but if they’re pinning their hopes on the Camaro, it would be a good idea to do so… or at least program a soft torque limiter in first and second gear, just in case.
There is really no way to say it without sounding dickish, but people who are not intimately familiar with the automotive industry or at least the development and production of manufactured products are missing 99% of the picture about issues like this. I don’t have a problem with this, but it annoys the hell out of me to see so many posts from people (not you) putting on their pretend development engineer hats and acting all knowing when their very posts expose they have no idea what they are spouting off about.
Since you’re too nice of a person to say it, I’ll be the a–hole and say it for you: This thread is full of benchracing armchair engineers who are latching on to this one design specification to build an argument around something that they are absolutely clueless about. If I were a design enginer, I’d be equally frustrated.
How did this happen? This new Camaro has taken . . . what 5 years to get to market? In the time since GM first unveiled the car till today, most car makers would have brought a car to market with adequate testing to make sure the product was ready for consumption.
“or at least program a soft torque limiter in first and second gear, just in case.”
Hehe, that’s already there. Torque management is ubiquitous today… there’s more than weight holding the new vehicles with huge power/tq numbers back.
There’s a chance part of the fix for this issue will be a reflash; code is “free”. I don’t know if the Camaro’s have a clutch line restrictor/damper already… that can go in too.