From what I have seen through the years, the V6 cars have always been built with lesser quality. Mustangs, Camaros, challengers, SUVs, trucks, etc. If there's a V8 option, it's built better. Even if you consider looking at all the engineering and testing of the ecoboost, the V6 is just a zero effort offering. It's just an affordable option to sell a nameplate. The car was designed, then they decided to throw a V6 in it for an affordable option. Drivetrain, suspension, braking, everything subpar.

 

OK, but almost the entire car is exactly the same as the GT, outside of the drivetrain...gearbox is the same, even (well, almost exactly the same).

So what's lesser quality? Parts are all pulled out of the same bin as the GT...

Engine is the same as many different vehicles in the lineup, would they make a different engine for the lincoln lineup that is built better?

FWIW, my V6 has the same rear end and suspension as a GT of the same model year.

In years past, I'm sure you are 100% correct.

 

Hard parts are mass produced on production lines. Rear ends, transmissions, engines. They are all tested for tolerances and noises/vibrations then graded. Yes the lower scoring parts go on certain vehicles. You see where I'm going with this. This is just how it works. GM puts the noisy transmissions and rear ends in pickups and the better ones in the SUVs.

 

No, it's not how it works. I've been in the industry for over a decade.

It'd cost the manufacturers too much to try and track all that throughout assembly anyways.

 

I agree the v6 got crap parts until 2010. The 2011 v6 is a 2010 gt with the new transmissions and engine

 

Exactly! My first job in the auto industry was with American Motors so I go back a long way. To say that manufacturers redirect parts/assemblies to different vehicles based on individual testing is just ridiculous conspiracy theory. If the same part/assembly is used on multiple vehicle models (e.g. V6, GT), they just get installed in the order they arrive at the assembly point from the parts bin.

 

I pseudo agree with ya there, Alex. But then again, pretty much every vehicle manufacturer is getting cheaper and cheaper with their builds. I don't doubt the OP with his venting and how he feels. I think I'd feel the same way if it happened to me. But that being said, I am "lucky" that I don't have any issues.

 

Sorry buddy but that's how it works for GM and I'm sure the rest of the manufacturers also.

 

It might, I've only worked in two gm plants. It most certainly doesn't for Ford I've been in most of the plants in the US. Also no for Honda and Chrysler. I could certainly ask my friends at Nissan and Toyota but I already know the answer...

 

I'm willing to bet if you looked farther into it, you would see how these parts are graded and what facilities they are sent to from the factory.
And let's not forget the lack of engineering effort gone into the V6. The new one was built around the ecoboost and GT. The V6 was just a make it work type option.

 

I do not believe this, because it would cost more to do this "grading" than it would be worth. Most manufacturing lines these days use statistical quality control. That means they sample some parts for key measurements during the process. They don't measure or check every part because that is too time consuming / too expensive; they rely on the statistical control to make sure that only a small portion of the parts that make it through, do not meet specifications.

More likely, the OP just came out on the wrong end of the statistics. The chances of a defect are small, but they will happen every so often. The chances that you will get several defects on the same car are even smaller, but again it can happen.

Take an objective look at the overall quality level of cars these days, and what you get for the money, and I think you'll agree that we are getting more for our money than ever. For a dramatic example, take a look at the GM's and Chryslers of the early to mid '80's . . . good Lord, now THOSE were some real POS'es.

 

True but I'm primarily talking about shared parts. Transmissions, rear ends, stuff like that. There was a definite difference between trucks and Tahoe/Yukons which shared everything for years at GM. Back to mustangs, I don't see many shared parts between models. Not even rear ends. Sure the housings are the same but I don't believe even that is the same anymore.

 

Aren't we also PAYING much more for a car than we were, ever? I mean, if my wife had her way, we'd get a Minivan, be it a Toyota or Honda, and we'd be paying close to $50k for a loaded minivan. A MINIVAN!!!

 

I'm not sure why you think the models are very different in recent Mustangs. My V6 shares a TON of parts with the GT. Especially when you include the performance pack, where they basically just bolted up a bunch of GT parts and charged a couple grand.

My rear end is the same as a GT (yes even the internals) . Suspension is the same. Brakes are the same save for rotor and caliper bracket (fronts only, rears identical). You can look at part numbers for a lot of the car and find that they are the same as the GT.

It makes sense to do it this way as it saves a ton of money on assembly costs. Why have a difficult assembly process with graded parts, and complicated tracking that requires significant (and expensive) tech being available to all the workers? It adds a lot of cost and zero value for Ford, unless the notion is that the ford's sit in the glass house looking for ways to blow money on screwing over the customer...

 

Joey... I think what Al is trying to say is, he agrees that they're all the "same" parts - the same part #'s that is. So, for example, a V6 bracket or housing, is the same as the GT's bracket or housing. But what he's saying (I believe), is that of those "same" parts, the V6 gets the parts that fall further out of the "ideal" curve. So imagine a bell curve, the ideal is -.01 to +.01 for example, they go to the GT. The parts that fall in the -.05 to +.05 gap, go to the V6, and so on.

I think of it like the Jelly Belly candy marketing scheme - which I think is brilliant by the way. You guys know what Jelly Bellies are right? Delicious things my kids eat. Anyways, I was at Walmart the other day, and guess what I saw? BELLY FLOPS!



I mean come on... how BRILLIANT is that. Use the "throw away" products to make more money. LOL. I laughed and had to buy a pack for the kids, because they were cheaper.

I'm not saying the V6 parts are Belly Flops - but I'm saying I "think" that Al is implying that the V6 uses parts that are of lesser quality overall.

Do I agree with Al or you? hmmmmmmmmm... I need to ponder this more.

 

That would require the inspection process to be considerably more thorough than just "pass or fail". Again, added costs for zero benefit to the manufacturer. While I don't doubt that components like like engine and gearbox assemblies are "graded", I do know that information doesn't make it to assembly and is only used to determine if the assembly passed or failed. A lot of data is needed to determine if an engine passes, and that data is certainly collected and analyzed but grading components and expecting that system to actually work on the floor is a pipe dream. I've worked in enough auto plants to know that it's far too complicated a setup to not have a lot of issues. Everything done on the floor is as simple as possible. It reduces worker costs and increases work flow.

ETA - in the first sentence I don't mean that every component only gets a pass or fail and no other testing is done, rather if it passes its released for assembly, if it doesn't its either reworked or scrapped and doesn't see the assembly floor. Just a clarification.

 

That is for a LOADED minivan, like you say. Think about that . . . loaded with WHAT? It is loaded with stuff that we didn't even have 5 or 10 years ago. Nav system; multiple video screens; wifi; bluetooth; satelite radio; multiple power and USB ports; backup camera; automatic sliding doors; new safety standards; multiple air bags; collapsing third row seating, etc. etc. etc. . . . it's a very different animal from the original basic minivan that had none of that stuff.

If you can survive without all that stuff, you can get a used one that is practically new and still very reliable for a lot less money.

Also if we adjust for inflation (value of the dollar) I'm pretty sure we are getting more for our money than we did in the past. We can thank competition for that.

 

Yup, adjusting for inflation, a 2005 base V6 cost more than a 2014 base V6 that has more features (air bags, more powerful engine, 6-speed transmission, etc.).

The base price in 2005 was $19,890 and in 2014 $22,510. The value of $19,890 in 2014 dollars was $24,110 according to the government CPI calculator.

 

But you only see them once they hit the assembly plant. Not the plant building the rear ends. Not the plant building the trans or even engine. If these parts are shared with other vehicles, they will be tested and graded. Transmissions are not just built and not tested or engines and rear ends. They are not all perfect but still used being close enough but not in the Lincoln. Maybe it's not this way for every manufacturer but shortcuts are taken on the base models. And cheaper parts are used to make the cheaper cars.

 

Like I said, if that's how gm does it then great. Not a ton of experience with them. I KNOW Ford does not do it this way. I've worked in Livonia transmission. Worked in all the Michigan assembly plants. Romeo engine, Woodhaven stamping, Rouge, Wixom, etc.

I'm also sitting next to a former American axle employee and they never used such a system while he was there.