I believe you know what QC is, but, does GM? There's a few decades worth of evidence that make me wonder.....
Another Ford better idea - they stole GM's concept except reliability
- Thread starter 64nailhead
- Start date
- Status
Oofa - getting off the rails.
My point to this was that Ford’s Godzilla is an overgrown LS, despite why some may say - under head cam, pushrod/lifter deal. I haven’t seen too many in person, mostly because the average guy can’t afford one or doesn’t want to drop the jing on one
I followed Cletus’ McFlurry - two DND events - blown up twice. They started out touting 1000hp until it blew up in day 3 or 4. Then another go ‘round of rebuilds with a forged rotating assembly.
AFM/DOD lifters fail, but not at any crazy rate compared to Ford’s ‘newest’ offering.
My point to this was that Ford’s Godzilla is an overgrown LS, despite why some may say - under head cam, pushrod/lifter deal. I haven’t seen too many in person, mostly because the average guy can’t afford one or doesn’t want to drop the jing on one
I followed Cletus’ McFlurry - two DND events - blown up twice. They started out touting 1000hp until it blew up in day 3 or 4. Then another go ‘round of rebuilds with a forged rotating assembly.
AFM/DOD lifters fail, but not at any crazy rate compared to Ford’s ‘newest’ offering.
Actually, didn't the LS copy a bunch of Ford and other automaker technology in making the LS?
I've never looked deeply at the list, but, have heard that more times than I can count.
Last edited:
There are definite similarities in the LS from engines before it. Was it a copy or just repeating a great design.
The raised crankshaft is something seen since the 60's in a big block Dodge. The intake, exhaust pattern in small block Ford and everyone used a single camshaft with pushrods and rocker arms.
I take no credit away from an LS just because it shares features from other engines.
Lifter failure is vast in the LS world too. Since 05 the 5.3L have multiple failures. I have an 08 Buick that will probably fail one day but I still think they are a great engine for hot rodding.
The raised crankshaft is something seen since the 60's in a big block Dodge. The intake, exhaust pattern in small block Ford and everyone used a single camshaft with pushrods and rocker arms.
I take no credit away from an LS just because it shares features from other engines.
Lifter failure is vast in the LS world too. Since 05 the 5.3L have multiple failures. I have an 08 Buick that will probably fail one day but I still think they are a great engine for hot rodding.
You left out that lovely piston slap that was so bad gm was replacing engines for that and the oil loss...
That's the story - they copied a Cleveland head. If that's the case, which I can't argue for or against, then they never had a 5 main block with 4 bolt caps that were buttressed. And they definitely never made a 1000+whp capable stock block and crank, let alone rod and piston. FWIW, I love the claims of the head copies because I remember so many Ford heads with cathedral ports (wink, wink). I have a friend (hard to believe)/aquaintance that argues this Ford superiority/GM theft argument non-stop..............and it's laughable.
I will be the first to admit that the Coyote and modern Hemi platforms are superior, but until I can find one in a JY for $200 that can whoop me with a cam and set of springs, then I'll rest my case. A coyote and $15-20k can definitely kick my butt, but give me $20k and I'll throw a can whoopass at them like I'm the Water Boy.
p.s. trash talking is fun, hopefully no one gets butt hurt because that's all I'm doin' 😉
These days, i kinda shrug and ignore the rantings of a brand-specific zealot. I've really come to appreciate different automakers platforms for what they are and offer.... except the Asian imports. They're just too cheap, everything is hard seats, cheap looking plastic everywhere. The argument for being a stiff platform when light weight just doesn't hold appeal to me.
I can grab an old v8 Archie kit off the shelf and toss whatever I want in the back of a fiero and whoop em cheap in a stiff, lightweight platform that at least can have cushy seats dumped in that look right.
But, Mercedes? Ford? GM? Dodge? Each have things I'd enjoy driving for what they are and were built as. BMW loses out because they didn't come with blinkers.
There is a very simple answer to this. GM lays out the specifications required for the product they want. Multiple vendors bid to make the part. GM choses one and if the part in this case, lifters are subpar. It is up to GM to not accept the part or not.
The purchasing company can and will refuse a subpar part. Walmart will not even accept a skid if it's not stacked properly. I work in the industry and see 1000's of examples of this everyday.
If Lincoln says 6 staples in their package tray and the company making them uses 5 or 7, they are refused. In reality, they do not even make it past quality control. This is a strong example of this because the same tray that goes into a Ford does not have the number of staples used in the quality check.
Say a company makes wheel bearings and they have cheapest to the best available. Ford may buy them, Honda may buy them, GM may buy them and they all have different levels of quality.
So one company buys the cheapest and one company will only accept the best. Even though they were all made at the same facility and not to sound like a ********, but in the same country.
If you're talking about the end product, your statement above isn't really how it works. At least not in the U.S. If it were, then how did all those faulty lifters and cams get through QC from different companies?
I would agree that the commercial buyer should do due diligence and do their QC spot checks on the vendor-manufactured parts to ensure quality is still meeting standards on a consistent basis. This is true. So one could argue what each buying company's GMP-like policies should be followed in that regard. But it's not usually the buyer's responsibility unless contractually obligated. Which is highly unlikely since the buyers have the upper hand ($$) when drawing up the RFQs/contracts. Everything is spelled out in the contract, and every one I've been involved with made the VENDOR contractually liable for meeting those standards laid out by the buyer. If the buyer screws up and sends the wrong specs and the vendor meets them, the vendor is still delivering the quality product as spec'd and the buyer still has to pay the bill. I've never been involved with any situtation where the vendor was off the hook for meeting the standards.
One of the big drawbacks in many contracts though is the SOURCING of materials. If the contract only says the parts will be made out of 5% chromium, 30% molybdenum, etc., and so forth, and the parts meet those specs laid out, then the contractual obligations hold. But as such, the contract doesn't hold the vendor from buying from a different source for the raw materials. And if the buyer doesn't stipulate, the vendor doesn't have to tell. So this week the vendor gets supplies from Nevada, and next month they get a better deal on the same type of materials from say, Bangladesh for something that may or may not be the same quality it once was. This is the diluted supply chain I was talking about. Also, there must be a return on the investment. You can QC yourself into paralysis if you overdo it and in turn, make parts cost-prohibitive. So making the vendor responsible for meeting quality requirements makes more sense.
What seems to be happening with these lifter/cam issues seems, IMO, hit or miss. Meaning there were issues in the vendor's manufacturing process, Ford's final assembly process (compounded by a blind or lazy QC inspector?), or materials quality. And it doesn't have to be a long-term thing. A bad batch of materials could make crappy parts that delaminate because maybe someone transposed a number on a scale somewhere when measuring ingredients which only affected a handful of parts. Or they put the wrong quality materials in the wrong bag or whatever because the experienced guy was out sick and a temp filled in that day and screwed up. If that kind of stuff can be tracked, this is usually why sometimes they can say they could limit the problem cars with VIN breaks in the service bulletins rather than recall all of them. I know for sure FDA standards dictate that batch numbers, or some sort of tracking means will be used to aid in recalls if ever needed in pharma land. A complete autopsy analysis would need to be performed on the failed parts to determine the root cause. Until then, one can only speculate as to why.
- Status
Similar threads
