Quote:
The engineers put it in there for a reason, It took labor to design, test and assemble and install it and it cost to cover it under warrenty. plus the actual cost of the parts them selves and not to mention the logistics of keeping spares in the invantory.
Think about it. thats a very expensive part were it actually to be so unnessassarry. and to be the cause of so much additional part failure.
|
Engineers get it wrong too. Ever hear of recalls? That's when the engineers get it wrong. Getting back to the mount, like Larry said, the 205's lost the mount early in the squarebody production run. They kept drilling the holes, but no mounts on the frame. Later the 205's lost the mount. WHY? For the exact reasons Larry has noted earlier in this OLD thread. You want to crack the adaptor bolt that sucker up like you show.
Quote:
Those adapters faile often in the cucv's. in every case the cause wqas one of two things, either the adapter mounts were too tight and or the t case mounts were tightened up to spec BEFORE the transfere case was installed.
I saw one soldier brake one adapter between 8 and noon, the second one by 2 pm and befor 4 he had broken a third one.
|
Lets see, I'm not an expert on CUCV's, but by that time in the production run GM stopped using the torque mount for close to 10 years. I can see a certain point to getting the order of torquing things up screwed up, but those didn't have the mount you've expounded on at length here.
To go back to the point that GM changed the idea on the torque mount use, please explain why the 208 and 241 t-cases never got the bosses cast into the aluminum cases on them? The 208's were used in the M1009's too.
You've got a point that GM did put a lot of thought into the engineering behind the torque mount in the first place. But warranty claims are the best feedback a manufacturer can get. As GM started seeing the cracked adaptors coming in you can bet a service engineer is going to get assigned to find out why. If what they find is going to lessen the warranty expense they will make a change. GM does this now just as they did it back then. It just took more effort back then due to the lack of computerized data and reporting like they have had for the last 25 years.
But hey, I only worked at GM for a good chunk of my career, International for another and a GM dealer for the last 9 years so I might be wrong too.