"zeontestpilot" (zeontestpilot)
08/27/2016 at 13:31 • Filed to: None
6
9|
"zeontestpilot" (zeontestpilot)
08/27/2016 at 13:31 • Filed to: None | 6
| 9 |
I wanted to share something I thought was weird, and obviously cut costs for GM. To the left is a latch assembly and door lock actuator from a ‘04 Pontiac Grand Prix. To the right, the same part but from my ‘07 Grand Prix. This is where things get a little weird.
‘04 version of left, ‘07 version on right.
When I called up the dealership yesterday, they told me there were two versions of this part with one main difference; one with a child safety lock, the other without one. He even told me the child safety lock version was introduced sometime during ‘06, where all new models have the new version. So all pre-’06 ones won’t have it.
So I found it curious that the older version had a place to hold a safety lock, but didn’t have one. It's just missing the part. So I'm guessing GM decided to design the piece with a safety lock in mind, but didn't use it?
‘04 version of left, ‘07 version on right.
‘04 version on top, ‘07 on bottom.
Fits like a glove.
CaptDale - is secretly British
> zeontestpilot
08/27/2016 at 13:46 |
|
Yeah... That’s GM for you. I find fun things working in parts.
|
zeontestpilot
> CaptDale - is secretly British
08/27/2016 at 13:54 |
|
It makes me wonder, if the other similar bodied models had no child lock as well until ‘06.
|
CaptDale - is secretly British
> zeontestpilot
08/27/2016 at 13:58 |
|
Probably
Urambo Tauro
> zeontestpilot
08/27/2016 at 14:14 |
|
Looks practical to me. Leaving a provision for a later update to the assembly was good planning on GM’s part. It’s better than designing a completely new part just to include an extra feature later on in the vehicle’s production.
But when it comes to “cost-cutting”, that’s a term that I like to save for blatant compromises in quality like taking a component and making it less robust. They seem to put a lot of effort into engineering things to be as weak as possible while still being able to survive the warranty period.
|
zeontestpilot
> Urambo Tauro
08/27/2016 at 14:20 |
|
I will admit it's smart, I was just really surprised that GM planned that far ahead.
|
Urambo Tauro
> zeontestpilot
08/27/2016 at 14:25 |
|
Yeah, maybe it was just some feature that they wanted to introduce later in the production run. Maybe they wanted to keep customer costs low for the first few years, or maybe it was part of a plan to keep introducing new features year after year to entice buyers... who knows.
|
zeontestpilot
> Urambo Tauro
08/27/2016 at 14:46 |
|
Probably the last thing you mentioned, new features to entice customers. I feel it’s awkward not to include it on a sedan, especially one where GM should of known better.
Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection
> zeontestpilot
08/27/2016 at 16:03 |
|
Why would you be surprised? Their product life cycles ran into the decades.
The W platform under your car ran from 1997 to 2015. They were still making the rental-fleet-only Imapala Limited last year.
Same with the J-cars from 1980-94 and 95-05. Same with c3 from 68-82 and C4 from 84-96.
Saturn s-series 1991-2002
And I’m sure there are at least 5 more.
|
zeontestpilot
> Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection
08/27/2016 at 16:14 |
|
When the 7th gen of the Grand Prix came out, they changed the actuator; it’s a new unit that’s different from the previous gen and it’s not backwards compatible.
So what surprised me is that the new actuator and latch assembly was designed for a safety lock; but they didn’t put one into production until two years later, at least for the Grand Prix. I would of thought a child safety lock when be put into a sedan.