spazdog has good idea. case in point in 1967 i bought a 1965 Chrysler 300 L. the amp gauge in the dash had all the current going through it. but they did not make the fiberglass panel beefy enough, so had to rig up a mickey mouse fix. also the same year was the first year for a new ball joints. they was easy to install, but cost two times as much as the old ones, but the old ones are VERY hard to put in. if they could mix the two, that would be good. i could go on, but you get what i mean
What does quality mean to YOU?
- Thread starter Nick R
- Start date
- Status
There's two different meanings.
Our company was going for ISO 9001 in the early 90s, and I asked a senior bloke why. He responded to make our business better, which I didn't accept.
My analogy at the time was that as long as we had a procedure to collect a piece of dog doo, paint it pink, weigh it, put it in a box, and stamp the exact weight on the box, that would be a compliant quality system, but not indicative of a quality product.
Our company was going for ISO 9001 in the early 90s, and I asked a senior bloke why. He responded to make our business better, which I didn't accept.
My analogy at the time was that as long as we had a procedure to collect a piece of dog doo, paint it pink, weigh it, put it in a box, and stamp the exact weight on the box, that would be a compliant quality system, but not indicative of a quality product.
Quote:
My analogy at the time was that as long as we had a procedure to collect a piece of dog doo, paint it pink, weigh it, put it in a box, and stamp the exact weight on the box, that would be a compliant quality system, but not indicative of a quality product.
+1
I worked at a company 10 years ago that was going to ISO 9000. It wasn't to make the product better (no quality changes occurred), it was simply for marketing. All it did was add a bunch of paperwork and cost.
They didn't' go at it real hard so I started asking if they were going for ISO 8000 instead...
My analogy at the time was that as long as we had a procedure to collect a piece of dog doo, paint it pink, weigh it, put it in a box, and stamp the exact weight on the box, that would be a compliant quality system, but not indicative of a quality product.
+1
I worked at a company 10 years ago that was going to ISO 9000. It wasn't to make the product better (no quality changes occurred), it was simply for marketing. All it did was add a bunch of paperwork and cost.
They didn't' go at it real hard so I started asking if they were going for ISO 8000 instead...
I had the same thoughts about ISO 9000 certification; it always struck me that even if you exhaustively documented a process, set everything up so you could repeat it exactly every single time, and trained everyone to do it just right, it doesn't stop you from having a cruddy process, cruddy parts or cruddy design.
It just means that you documented the cruddy process and followed some guidelines in making your cruddy design.
(as for whether or not the process of documenting things brings the [censored] to the light of day or not, that, I can't answer.)
It just means that you documented the cruddy process and followed some guidelines in making your cruddy design.
(as for whether or not the process of documenting things brings the [censored] to the light of day or not, that, I can't answer.)
Good question! Quite a few things actually, but off the top of my head, I tend to consider the following as far as build quality is concerned:
- Materials used - does it have a solid feel to it?
- Paintwork - is it even and matched?
- Trim pieces - are they aligned properly? Any imperfections? Do they look the way they should (matching paint or shiny chrome)?
- Hood/trunk lid/doors - do they open and shut the way they are supposed to? Are they aligned properly?
- Rattles and squeaks?
- Does everything feel solid?
- Any important/minor recalls?
- Anything known to fail early?
- What spare parts are available OE and aftermarket, and the reputation of those
Other thing is not really a quality issue, but how innovative the engineers were as far as ease of maintenance is concerned, when they were designing the vehicle.
As far as the mechanical aspects are concerned, take a look at the engine/transmission's history - are they known the fail? Are they reliable? I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now...
- Materials used - does it have a solid feel to it?
- Paintwork - is it even and matched?
- Trim pieces - are they aligned properly? Any imperfections? Do they look the way they should (matching paint or shiny chrome)?
- Hood/trunk lid/doors - do they open and shut the way they are supposed to? Are they aligned properly?
- Rattles and squeaks?
- Does everything feel solid?
- Any important/minor recalls?
- Anything known to fail early?
- What spare parts are available OE and aftermarket, and the reputation of those
Other thing is not really a quality issue, but how innovative the engineers were as far as ease of maintenance is concerned, when they were designing the vehicle.
As far as the mechanical aspects are concerned, take a look at the engine/transmission's history - are they known the fail? Are they reliable? I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of right now...
- Status
Similar threads
