Toyota Trimming Auto-Development Time to 12 Months

[Guest Josh]

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp. aims to slash to one year the time to get new models off the drawing board into production, a pace analysts say would be the industry's fastest and could save tens of millions of dollars annually.

Toyota, the world's second-largest automaker, already holds the fastest production record, building a car or truck within 24 months of completing a design, said Jeff Liker, an engineering professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who studies Toyota's production methods. Cutting the time to 12 months widens its lead over the industry, which takes on average up to three years to get a model into production.

The shorter production time ``enables us to develop a variety of vehicles that reflect market needs and demands while fulfilling the advanced development structure,'' said Katsuaki Watanabe, Toyota's president, at a Sept. 12 conference for analysts and investors in New York.

The maker of Toyota Camry sedans has followed a manufacturing method called the kaizen, or continuous improvement, which refines, improves efficiency or reduces cost at every stage of the manufacturing process. That's helped the carmaker, based in central Japan's Toyota City, set profit records of $10.3 billion and $10.9 billion in its past two business years.

Wider Lead

On Sept. 13, Toyota said all its vehicles will eventually be run by hybrid gasoline-electric engines, of which it's the world's first and largest commercial producer.

``In the future, the cars you see from Toyota will be 100 percent hybrid,'' Executive Vice President Kazuo Okamoto told reporters in Frankfurt, without giving a timeframe.

Toyota's market capitalization of $153.4 billion is more than eight times that of General Motors Corp., the largest automaker. In 2003, Toyota overtook Ford Motor Co. as No. 2 in global sales.

Watanabe didn't cite specific models being developed on a 12- month cycle. Liker said at least two, the bB wagon, sold in the U.S. as the Scion xB, and a minivan for the Japanese market, were completed in under a year. Yasuhiko Ichihashi, president of Toyota's U.S. engineering group, also wouldn't point to a North American model being developed within a year.

The goal is to be able to start production in as little as 12 months from ``design freeze,'' or when the styling and engineering work on a new model is approved, Ichihashi said in an interview in New York.

The industry average for putting vehicles into production is between two and three years, said Ron Harbour, president of Troy, Michigan-based Harbour Consulting. Harbour, Liker, Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Rod Lache and Art Smalley, an efficiency consultant for the Brookline, Massachusetts-based Lean Enterprise Institute, all said Toyota already is a leader in development speed.

Entire Story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...Srkc&refer=asia

:o :o :o

[Northstar]

This is certainly bad news for GM, and it's a shame that GM can't match Toyota's development time with all the global resources it has. However, I don't know how badly this will hurt GM except when Toyota sees a new market emerging and gets a product out a year after it starts to see the market for the vehicle and GM is left 3 years behind. It's not like Toyota is going to make a 2008 Camry then totally re-do it for 2010 or anything like that. I wonder whether the xB had a lot of it already developed in another Toyota in Japan or something... the FJ Crusier is certainly taking more than a year to get to market.

[Guest Josh]

It's not like Toyota is going to make a 2008 Camry then totally re-do it for 2010 or anything like that.

[post="14991"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It certainly does mean that. Because while they may sink a few million (read: 10 or 15) it will begin to recoup that with every sale of the new model they get.

Toyota already makes their money off of reusing parts, platforms, etc. If they can do this in their entire line in 12 months that's huge.

[Northstar]

Are you sure they're actually going to do that? I can see them upgrading it, but a totally new vehicle every two years? That'd cost at least $250-300 million/product to do and it'd be every 2 years or so for every product.

[daves87rs]

The way I see it, it leaves room for mistakes... Doing it in less time is fine, But halfing the time? Something is bound to get left out... :unsure: The question becomes, not only CAN they do it, but can they do it RIGHT?

[Guest Josh]

Northy Toyotas rule of thumb is milk your current platform and design for all that you can and only change what is necessary. Once they have a design down, they tweak it to meet what the market wants. If I recall correctly the Corolla has the same underpinnings as it did about 5 years ago? Toyota has just used and reused so many pieces its cheap.

[wjfox]

I've long thought that the General has been very slow to bring new products to market, even on existing platforms. When did the new Saab 9-3 come out on the Epsilon platform? Was it 2002? When ever it was they aren't getting around to selling the Saturn Aura until 2006. By the time GM gets full use of the platform it will be obsolete. When I saw the Opel Antera / Saturn Vue concept pics I thought - OK GM finally has its design groove back, but if it takes too long to turn good new concepts into reality it won't much matter.

[4gm]

A 12 month time frame is pretty mind boggling to me. I wonder what Toyota is doing differently than all the other automakers? Edited September 16, 2005 by 4gm

[Cory Wolfe]

This doesn't seem possible to me...

[carman21]

Who cares about Toyota really? Big deal 12 months from two years. GM has gone from 7 years to 3 in less than 5 years, by 2010 GM will be at or above Toyota's development time. Toyota is also slow to react to American tastes in vehicles. They took a decade to produce a full-size SUV that didn't match-up to domestics. The Sequoia has the worst MPG of any V-8 in its class and the least std HP. A joke for a continously improoving automaker. Hey, I admire Toyota's leadership but, it is a farse. Toyota will soon be exposed. GM and Ford are learning fast and they are big enough to blow the pants off Toyota. Remember Toyota's success is based less on kaizen and more on that GM & Ford sit on the sidelines as Toyota blows past. Well, GM & Ford have been warming up for 5 years I think its time Toyota is taught how the game is really played.

[frogger]

12 months is a really aggressive target, I would think 18 is tough, but 12? Good luck on that one. Scary if they can pull it off and product quality products.

[97regalGS]

Who cares about Toyota really? Big deal 12 months from two years. GM has gone from 7 years to 3 in less than 5 years, by 2010 GM will be at or above Toyota's development time. Toyota is also slow to react to American tastes in vehicles. They took a decade to produce a full-size SUV that didn't match-up to domestics. The Sequoia has the worst MPG of any V-8 in its class and the least std HP. A joke for a continously improoving automaker. Hey, I admire Toyota's leadership but, it is a farse. Toyota will soon be exposed. GM and Ford are learning fast and they are big enough to blow the pants off Toyota.
Remember Toyota's success is based less on kaizen and more on that GM & Ford sit on the sidelines as Toyota blows past. Well, GM & Ford have been warming up for 5 years I think its time Toyota is taught how the game is really played.

[post="15051"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

i think you need to get your head out of the sand. toyota is kicking GM's butt all over the place with no end in sight. GM will be no where near Toyota's development time, let alone surpassing it by 2010 or even 2015

Toyota made huge profits in the past several years. GM continues to lose money with every vehicle purchased. Toyota is gaining market share and GM is losing market share. it's a lot easier to make improvements when you're making money.

[I hope GMRULES again]

Who cares about Toyota really? Big deal 12 months from two years. GM has gone from 7 years to 3 in less than 5 years, by 2010 GM will be at or above Toyota's development time. Toyota is also slow to react to American tastes in vehicles. They took a decade to produce a full-size SUV that didn't match-up to domestics. The Sequoia has the worst MPG of any V-8 in its class and the least std HP. A joke for a continously improoving automaker. Hey, I admire Toyota's leadership but, it is a farse. Toyota will soon be exposed. GM and Ford are learning fast and they are big enough to blow the pants off Toyota.
Remember Toyota's success is based less on kaizen and more on that GM & Ford sit on the sidelines as Toyota blows past. Well, GM & Ford have been warming up for 5 years I think its time Toyota is taught how the game is really played.

[post="15051"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Is that you Roger Smith? Toyota seems to be unstoppable and this will only add to GM and Ford's woes in the next few years.

[Cadillacfan]

I think GM is slowly heading in the right direction. I mean, look at how fast the solstice came to market. GM pulled a toyota and used a ton of bits and pieces from other GM cars to cheapen the cost and to cut down on time since they didn't have to develop any new technology. If GM can do that with every vehicle, they should be okay. They just need to continue globalizing product and materials to keep up.

[Member55]

It certainly does mean that. Because while they may sink a few million (read: 10 or 15) it will begin to recoup that with every sale of the new model they get.

Toyota already makes their money off of reusing parts, platforms, etc. If they can do this in their entire line in 12 months that's huge.

[post="14993"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Even Toyota couldn't afford changing models every 2 years.

[evok]

All: Do not get your shorts ruffled over this. This is just nonsense and means nothing, especially if you do not know the context. Design freeze is arbitrary to start the clock of program timing. Why, because it does not take into account all the upfront engineering, design, manufacturing, marketing and logistic work that occurred prior to "design freeze". That could be two to four years worth of work depending on to the significance of the program. Design freeze is not, some sketch in a styling studio but, for lack of a better phrase, completed blue prints of a vehicle. And I will say again, from when a program is initiated it still takes app. 4 years or so to bring a vehicle to fruition. That is just the way it is. This article is pure bunk.

[Cremazie]

The speed of getting a product from the board to the street isn't that big of a deal if costs are down, it is reliable, put together well and it is designed with enough foresight to be competetive when it is launched!

[evok]

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...?showtopic=1225

Since these two stories are related, it will help illustrate my points of inconsistancies in timing programs. Edited September 16, 2005 by evok

[cmattson]

This article is pure bunk.

But that would mean an auto publication is knowlingly choosing to marketing fluff from an Asian Marques as a "news" article!?! [sarcasm] Personally, I'm shocked. [/sarcasm]

[regfootball]

to me, the most frustrating thing about domestic manufacturers, and in some instances others like Nissan is this. they lack the flexibility and speed to be able to amke sorely needed changes quickly to a model line after a product launch if they need to. Example..... Saturn Ion got GRILLED for its center mounted IP and crappy interior. Why, 3 years later, do we still not have a new interior for that car? If they were committed to sell the Ion for 4 years or whatever, why throw sales in the tank, fix the fricking interior to make the car desirable! In my opinion, once you release the car if you find it has a negative sales impact, it should only take you 12-18 months to fix the problem. Similar example, the Nissan Quest interior. The Quest was new as a 2004 model. The 2006 should have an all new interior. Seats, dash, trim, gauges, console....etc. It took Nissan far too long to fix the Altima interior. Just now the Malibu is getting some changes in its interior trim colors etc, but they haven't even fixed the cheap center stack yet! Why no 9-3 wagon or v6 until like 3 years after the sedan comes out? Pathetic. Why are so many carmakers slow in getting mp3/aux jacks in the audio systems of cars now that so many folks have Ipods and such? A lot of car lines have issues like this, but I do think that as important as the time it takes them to bring out new models, its just as important for them to learn how to fix tainted models quickly to keep them competitive instead of throwing in the sales towel. I think in general carmakers have been way to slow to respond on the fly to obvious shortcomings in their products.

[evok]

to me, the most frustrating thing about domestic manufacturers, and in some instances others like Nissan is this.

they lack the flexibility and speed to be able to amke sorely needed changes quickly to a model line after a product launch if they need to.  Example.....

Saturn Ion got GRILLED for its center mounted IP and crappy interior.  Why, 3 years later, do we still not have a new interior for that car?  If they were committed to sell the Ion for 4 years or whatever, why throw sales in the tank, fix the fricking interior to make the car desirable!  In my opinion, once you release the car if you find it has a negative sales impact, it should only take you 12-18 months to fix the problem.  Similar example, the Nissan Quest interior.  The Quest was new as a 2004 model.  The 2006 should have an all new interior.  Seats, dash, trim, gauges, console....etc.  It took Nissan far too long to fix the Altima interior.  Just now the Malibu is getting some changes in its interior trim colors etc, but they haven't even fixed the cheap center stack yet!

Why no 9-3 wagon or v6 until like 3 years after the sedan comes out?  Pathetic.

Why are so many carmakers slow in getting mp3/aux jacks in the audio systems of cars now that so many folks have Ipods and such?

A lot of car lines have issues like this, but I do think that as important as the time it takes them to bring out new models, its just as important for them to learn how to fix tainted models quickly to keep them competitive instead of throwing in the sales towel.

I think in general carmakers have been way to slow to respond on the fly to obvious shortcomings in their products.

[post="15160"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If manufacturers took your advice they all would be out of business.

Your interior examples are noted, but do you have any idea, the development cost for a new interior. There is a tremendous amount of testing that goes into an IP. Besides some soft surfaces, it is not cost effective to do what you suggest.

Car companies have limited resourses and they have to balance those resourses over dozens of vehicles that are on the market and all the new programs that are in development.

There are also marketing reasons why manufacturers cadence various body styles and engine offerings over the life of the program. To keep things fresh.

What you rather see GM do, invest good money into bad with the current Ion or divert that money to the next generation Ion or move up the more profitable 900 utilites. Edited September 16, 2005 by evok

[Allante93]

This is a slide from Toyota's "We Can & We Will" presentation last November. It shows development times decreasing to a little over 12 months.

[evok]

This is a slide from Toyota's "We Can & We Will" presentation last November. It shows development times decreasing to a little over 12 months.

[post="15174"][/post]

Again that is from "Styling Freeze", which is misleading.

[regfootball]

If manufacturers took your advice they all would be out of business.

Your interior examples are noted, but do you have any idea, the development cost for a new interior.  There is a tremendous amount of testing that goes into an IP.  Besides some soft surfaces, it is not cost effective to do what you suggest.

Car companies have limited resourses and they have to balance those resourses over dozens of vehicles that are on the market and all the new programs that are in development. 

There are also marketing reasons why manufacturers cadence various body styles and engine offerings over the life of the program.  To keep things fresh.

What you rather see GM do, invest good money into bad with the current Ion or divert that money to the next generation Ion or move up the more profitable 900 utilites.

[post="15170"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

blow it out your tushie, what i suggest is actually what they are going to have to learn how to do to survive in the future.

if they can't do it now, they better learn how. that, and not cheap out and fuck up the designs from the start. I mean c'mon, are the idiots that prevalent at the car companies that would allow the sea of plastic in the Ion? Or the horrendous Altima interior when it came out.

As far as keeping car lines 'fresh', it painfully obvious that now in 2005, a manufacturer has to 'bring it' right at model launch. If not, the car is doomed from the get go and look at what that does to you.

Examples, Ford 500 would have sold much better if it had the 3.5 duratec from the get go. Oh no, let's save it for 3 years so in 2008 we can keep the lineup 'fresh'. Good job, no one will care in 3 years when 10 asian automakers have spit out ten new sedans in that time. Look at all the sales you lose in those 3 years? In Fords case, they probably lost a ton, at least 50,000 units. Or more, due to the media and public criticism from the start. My God, at least pump another 25 hp out of the Duratec 3.0 then. You did it for the Fusion! I can bet the Ion would have sold 100,000 more units or more in its first 4 model years if it had a better interior and IP.

No one cares about cars like the mazdaspeed Protege and Mazdaspeed 6 because they came along so late in their product cycles. Honestly, its pointless for Mazda to even bring that car out.

Ford fixing the oval taurus design allowed them to rekindle sales.

This stratified marketing thing is exactly that, marketing. Cars are like consumer electronics now. You better have a correct product from the start, you better be able to bring it to market fast, you better not fuck anything up, and if you do, make the correction quickly, or you're dead in the water. Product cycles are too short now.

Everything you are saying is spoke from the vantage point of someone in marketing or beancounting and honestly, vantage points like that hinder product development and success. Quite honestly, if we got rid of the marketing and advertising people in the car business, hell, in MANY businesses, i think we'd be a whole lot better off. Too many marketers are more consumed with marketing as a process, rather than having a knack and knowing all about the products they and their competition sells.

The reason the asians are successful is because they bring it all from relentlessly from the model launch and don't do as much of this 'life of the program/keep things fresh' bit. That's all marketing BS.

The days are coming soon when model lines may only have a 2-3 year shelf life before the buying public moves on and doesn't care if you haven't 'kept it fresh'. People's attnetion spans today are extremely short and won't wait for lame ass carmakers.

Its not my fault if GM sells the Astro for 20 years, doesn't improve the product, AND doesn't spend any money on replacing it so they can keep the plant open and not kill tons of jobs. Edited September 16, 2005 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

I suppose it should be fairly easy to develop a car in 12 months when you already have: 1. The engine designed and tested. 2. The transmission designed and tested. 3. Buttons and switches in the parts bin. 4. Major frame components designed and tested. Toyota is designing cars like the housing industry is building houses. They have all the components in built and ready ahead of time. They bulldoze the site, pour the slab, then truck in all the bits, slap them together, and put a pretty skin on the outside.

[VenSeattle]

Reg... I think you chose a very bad example... The Ion debuted as a 2003 model. The Ion received a revised interior (with new steering wheel, redesigned seats, upgraded interior materials, etc) and a refreshed exterior in 2005. Both in response to complaints. Sure the Gauges are still in the center... that's a controversial/unique feature for the Ion, not a quality issue or a hazard. GM offers the Cobalt for those who don't want center mounted gauges. GM responded quicker than ever before to correct several issues on the Ion. A friend of mine traded his 2003 Ion for a 2005 because the changes were so substantial and that his irritations were actually corrected to his satisfaction. GM managed to redeem itself with at least one 2003/4 Ion owner.

[91z4me]

BTW regfootball, The 500 is selling VERY well espeically in my area, I see at least 8-10 a day.

[Petra]

Even Toyota couldn't afford changing models every 2 years.

[post="15094"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They could, but they won't.

Toyota is sitting on a huge pile of cash, but they didn't get there by spending money constantly. They're a far too conservative company to spend the millions upon millions of dollars (which they have) that it would take to completely redesign a model every 24 months. In the short term, they might gain a little more market share, but, in the long term, they'd be financially tapped out.

Interestingly, what I see with the new Toyota models (e.g: Yaris, RAV-4) is a marked upgrade in standard features. This tells me that they're afraid of the competitors (esp. the Koreans), who have begun offering as many or more standard amenities as Toyota does, but for 25% off the sticker price. The Hyundai Sonata and the Ford Fusion are prime examples.

[RichW5]

Balthazar, Evok or Walt probably know the correct development interval, but I believe that Studebaker produced the Avanti, from design sketch to production vehicle in about 2 years. The sketch to prototype took about a year and the production Avanti's appeared as 1963's, about a year later. That interval is at least equal to Toyota's current "claimed development time". Unfortunately, the Avanti didn't save Studebaker. Maybe they tried to put all their money into one car (a low volume vehicle) when they should have been updating their higher volume, profit making cars.

[Drew Dowdell]

Reg, in case you haven't noticed over the past 20 years or so. Engines and transmissions are developed seperately from the cars they are finally put in.

The 3.6vvt was "late" for the CTS and Rendevous, but exactly on time for the LaCross, STS, and Aura.

Toyota almost ALWAYS releases engine updates mid-cycle. The current generation of Lexus ES started as an ES300.... today its an ES330.

The Northstar was first introduced in the final years of the Allante.

The CTS-v didn't come out till the CTS's second year.

The Hybrid GM900s won't be out till about 6 months or so after the standard ones are.

Honda's Accord Hybrid wasn't available till 3 years after the body style came out.

BMW's Bangle M5 wasn't available at the Bangle 5-series launch.

There is precedent for not releasing the new engine with the new platform.

[sciguy_0504]

I agree with Oldsmoboi and Petra. I noticed that Toyota was packing more standard equipment into their newly redesigned cars and allowing people to order upscale options for cars they don't really belong on. For example, a base IS has the smart access system, push-button start. The new Yaris will also have that, I believe, though not standard. Plus, you have to remember that Toyota only has 3 divisions, each of which has a pretty specific market so it's fairly easy to design a car and get it to market knowing who your target market is.

[Drew Dowdell]

Plus, much like GM's 3800, Toyota throws the V6 from the Camry in just about EVERYTHING with a V6 engine! Nissan does the same thing with the VQ Ford does it with the Duratec. Sure the displacements might be a little different, but the overall engine is so similar as to be nearly idential. Edited September 16, 2005 by Oldsmoboi

[Angry Dad]

Just for giggles I searched the story about GM giving rides outside of the Chicago park. If you read the explanation given by the Toyota slappy and the utter garbage he spewed....well let's just say Toyota people have a tendency to lie. It's nice to be quick to market but being right is better.

[regfootball]

Reg... I think you chose a very bad example... The Ion debuted as a 2003 model. The Ion received a revised interior (with new steering wheel, redesigned seats, upgraded interior materials, etc) and a refreshed exterior in 2005. Both in response to complaints.

Sure the Gauges are still in the center... that's a controversial/unique  feature for the Ion, not a quality issue or a hazard. GM offers the Cobalt for those who don't want center mounted gauges.

GM responded quicker than ever before to correct several issues on the Ion. A friend of mine traded his 2003 Ion for a 2005 because the changes were so substantial and that his irritations were actually corrected to his satisfaction. GM managed to redeem itself with at least one 2003/4 Ion owner.

[post="15205"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ven, the Ion did not change in a substantive way. SUBSTANTIVE way. i.e. brand new dash, brand new door panels. The new seats are cobalt seats. That was a good move. After year one they changed the grain on the dashboard top plastic. It had no net effect because it still was cheap looking overall. the IP was still in the center. The center IP and cheap interior were the main criticisms about the Ion. None of the running changes made a dent in rectifying those faults enough so folks would say, "I've changed my mind, now I like the Ion and will buy it."

Even for 2006, they reshaped the center stack so it wouldn't cut into your leg. Nice of them to do that. A useful thing. But that alone doesn't go far enough to CHANGE PEOPLE's OPINIONS from 'yuck i don't like it' to 'yes, now i will buy it'.

So, you're wrong, it is indeed the PERFECT example of why they need to bite the bullet and fix their fuckups.

The process of carbuilding must become streamlined to the point (as toyota is trying to get to) where on the fly design changes to correct miscues, will need to be able to be accomplished quickly and for less cost.

Let me ask the question, the G6 and Malibu climate controls and stereo are horrendously and unforgivingly cheap looking. Is it THAT difficult to make a running change in one model year to improve it so that people's opinions of the car will change and improve? MY GOD I DON'T THINK SO. We can tack on another 500-1000 bucks to the rebate and give them away at employee prices, but we can't change the LED/LCD on the stereo, or make nicer buttons, or a nice center stack plastic design? Blow it out your @$$, GM (Ford, whoever).

[Northstar]

According to what evok said GM isn't very far behind then. If it takes Toyota 12 months from final approval to get the vehicle to market, then GM is only about 6 months behind. guionM over on CZ28 frequently says that it takes GM about 18 months once a program is officially approved (which sounds like the same thing as a design freeze).

[sciguy_0504]

LMAO. That was your best post yet, reg.

[KaliRover]

Toyota will own N. America.

[mrfunji]

The xB was built in 1 year. Big friggin deal. So was the GTO. It sure is nice when you have a car ALREADY BUILT. What's more impressive is the Solstice (original) concept being built in 4 months, and the production concept -> production was 2-2.5 years, and that is from the ground up. Toyota truely is the master of the press.

[clean97z]

I work in a very large medical company were they throw around words like kaizen, lean manufacturing etc... I'm on the engineering end and always laugh when some big exec throws out some ludcrious completion date. If design freeze is like ours, everything is developed by the time it starts with only minor tweaks to product and the actual equipment. To reach design freeze could take 2 or more years. I would be more interested in the time it takes from the drawing board to actually producing cars. We should also remember Toyota isn't making any brand new vehicles, it is just tweaks on an existing design, and really just a bunch of boring vehicles. Also trying to rush a product into production you run the risk of recalls because somewhere along the line somebody cut a corner to save their ass from missing a deadline. It takes a pretty thorough document control system to prevent this. It becomes even harder when you have multiple plants producing the same product. Edited September 16, 2005 by clean97z

[regfootball]

LMAO.  That was your best post yet, reg.

[post="15347"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

every frickin year i go into best buy and look at new car radios for kicks. Pioneer, Alpine, all those guys, they come up with new designs each year. What kills me is that the bottom end Pioneer that sells for like 120 bucks has a much higher quality faceplate, display, and buttons than even the best stereos on even some of the most expensive GM cars.

And they can afford to redesign and add features and update them every year and still sell them for peanuts.

Yet, if you ever have to replace a factory radio in your car they try to tell you its like 500 bucks to do it.

GM, Ford, whoever, must be spending like 5 bucks each on radios because of the complete POS these things are. The handheld LED football game I played when i was a kid and i paid like 18 bucks for back in 1981 or whenever had MUCH BETTER display, much better faceplate, and higher quality buttons.

I CAN'T FRICKING BELIEVE IT WILL PUT GM INTO BANKRUPTCY TO MAKE A CAR STEREO AND CLIMATE CONTROL WITH EQUAL QUALITY TO EVEN THE MOST BASIC AFTERMARKET CAR STEREO.

How fricking pathetic is it to have to see garbage like the climate control and stereo in a Malibu or G6. A group of 20 people labored hours and hours at the behest of some stuffy ass beancounter to see how cheap they could make one million of the cheapest looking radios with super cheesy buttons that no one wants to touch or look at and has no business being forced to compete with nice looking units in the Accord and stuff.

Even look at the radio in the new Impala. It is a definite upgrade FOR GM. It is bordering the bounds of acceptable. It still don't win no prize for being a super quality looking piece. It still has a cheesy look to it. Ford's current radio bunch looks DAMN cheap. Ford's radio are unacceptable.

Would it really mean the end of the earth as we know it if Saturn redesigned the door panels in the Ion to have a decent design and reasonable looking plastic?

Did chevy have to use that cheap horrific looking cloth in the their new Malibus for like 3 years?

How many million of those awful miserable cheap ass T-bar shifters has Pontiac put in their cladmonsters in the 90's and early 00's? ARRRRGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, that's enough, I need to go f-ing smack something before I stroke out Edited September 17, 2005 by regfootball

[regfootball]

:blink: Edited September 17, 2005 by regfootball

[Guest gmrebirth]

All:  Do not get your shorts ruffled over this.  This is just nonsense and means nothing, especially if you do not know the context.

Design freeze is arbitrary to start the clock of program timing.  Why, because it does not take into account all the upfront engineering, design, manufacturing, marketing and logistic work that occurred prior to "design freeze".  That could be two to four years worth of work depending on to the significance of the program.

Design freeze is not, some sketch in a styling studio but, for lack of a better phrase, completed blue prints of a vehicle.

And I will say again, from when a program is initiated it still takes app. 4 years or so to bring a vehicle to fruition.  That is just the way it is.

This article is pure bunk.

[post="15095"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You contradict yourself. Even after design freeze, there is still a considerable amount of work and engineering that goes into making a car. How could everything be possibly engineered before-hand and sit there all ready and waiting for simply the final design, when the design has yet to be approved in the first place?

This article is a little vague, in that "design" is not specifically defined, but I take it as in the overall design and engineering of a vehicle once it is approved.

Like you said, all it basically means is that the blueprints are approved, and specs of a vehicle are basically narrowed.

Cars use many complex and precise parts, which cannot be manufactured or even engineered until they are approved.

On top of that, cars go through several months of testing, some close to a year.

Considering all this, it IS quite impressive to go from design freeze to production in only a year. The new Avalon went from design approval to production in 18 months.

The biggest thing to worry about would be if Toyota can actually maintain quality and reliability in it's vehicles. If they pull off the quality and reliability at such a pace, then it would be a great achievement indeed.

[evok]

You contradict yourself. Even after design freeze, there is still a considerable amount of work and engineering that goes into making a car. How could everything be possibly engineered before-hand and sit there all ready and waiting for simply the final design, when the design has yet to be approved in the first place?

This article is a little vague, in that "design" is not specifically defined, but I take it as in the overall design and engineering of a vehicle once it is approved.

Like you said, all it basically means is that the blueprints are approved, and specs of a vehicle are basically narrowed.

Cars use many complex and precise parts, which cannot be manufactured or even engineered until they are approved.

On top of that, cars go through several months of testing, some close to a year.

Considering all this, it IS quite impressive to go from design freeze to production in only a year. The new Avalon went from design approval to production in 18 months.

The biggest thing to worry about would be if Toyota can actually maintain quality and reliability in it's vehicles. If they pull off the quality and reliability at such a pace, then it would be a great achievement indeed.

[post="15611"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I do not contadict myself though I simplified my comments for the audiance that does not have a working knowledge of VDP. It all depends on when you start the clock as to how long it takes to get a product to market. Tooling can be kicked off before design freeze.

[bcs296]

A 12 month time frame is pretty mind boggling to me.  I wonder what Toyota is doing differently than all the other automakers?

[post="15046"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I dunno, but GM needs to HURRY UP AND TAKE THE HINT. Toyota is already making GM look real bad -- I don't want to even think about what they can do with a 12 month cycle.

[capriceman]

After reading this makes me want to never buy a toyota. In 12 months!!! When do they get the testing done? the solstice would of been done in 12 months if they didnt have to test it. they did 50000000 test to it like 1,000,000 door opening and slamings to see if somthing rattled or would give up. Any one can have a car ready for production in 12 months but they have to test it!! the first solstice off the production line was finished 8 moths ago they test to see if production might affect somthing on it like the case years aago when the works use scotch brite pads top clean the heads of chipps and it left a residue that ate the gasketafter 6 months. so how do the test fatigue of parts and stuff like that? will it be safe? Think about it the first design for the newer style of grandprixs were in 89 so do we need a new style of car every year. am i wrong or do think a car for paper to production in 12 months or less will be road safe? (cause i dont) just a thought.

[evok]

Don't believe the propaganda. Hmm I am thinking "Green Day".

[Member55]

every frickin year i go into best buy and look at new car radios for kicks.  Pioneer, Alpine, all those guys, they come up with new designs each year.  What kills me is that the bottom end Pioneer that sells for like 120 bucks has a much higher quality faceplate, display, and buttons than even the best stereos on even some of the most expensive GM cars.

And they can afford to redesign and add features and update them every year and still sell them for peanuts.

Yet, if you ever have to replace a factory radio in your car they try to tell you its like 500 bucks to do it.

GM, Ford, whoever, must be spending like 5 bucks each on radios because of the complete POS these things are.  The handheld LED football game I played when i was a kid and i paid like 18 bucks for back in 1981 or whenever had MUCH BETTER display, much better faceplate, and higher quality buttons.

I CAN'T FRICKING BELIEVE IT WILL PUT GM INTO BANKRUPTCY TO MAKE A CAR STEREO AND CLIMATE CONTROL WITH EQUAL QUALITY TO EVEN THE MOST BASIC AFTERMARKET CAR STEREO.

How fricking pathetic is it to have to see garbage like the climate control and stereo in a Malibu or G6.  A group of 20 people labored hours and hours at the behest of some stuffy ass beancounter to see how cheap they could make one million of the cheapest looking radios with super cheesy buttons that no one wants to touch or look at and has no business being forced to compete with nice looking units in the Accord and stuff.

Even look at the radio in the new Impala.  It is a definite upgrade FOR GM.  It is bordering the bounds of acceptable.  It still don't win no prize for being a super quality looking piece.  It still has a cheesy look to it.  Ford's current radio bunch looks DAMN cheap.  Ford's radio are unacceptable.

Would it really mean the end of the earth as we know it if Saturn redesigned the door panels in the Ion to have a decent design and reasonable looking plastic?

Did chevy have to use that cheap horrific looking cloth in the their new Malibus for like 3 years?

How many million of those awful miserable cheap ass T-bar shifters has Pontiac put in their cladmonsters in the 90's and early 00's?  ARRRRGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, that's enough, I need to go f-ing smack something before I stroke out

[post="15550"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Oh my god, best post ever. :)

[daves87rs]

Oh my god, best post ever. :)

[post="16498"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

+1

I'm glad reg feels the same way about those shifters,,,, Edited September 19, 2005 by daves87rs

[Drew Dowdell]

Again, it's not really hard to design the car when you already have most of the major components designed and all you need to it put a pretty skin on it.

[regfootball]

you wanna talk bad, just remember all the 80's and 90's chevies with the EVEN CHEAPER looking shifter!