Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
Sagging rear bumper fascia issue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ANGREY" data-source="post: 15773263" data-attributes="member: 188865"><p>The tolerances of component parts is only a symptom of the problem.</p><p></p><p>The problem is largely cost. Ford (and any other manufacturer) could employ a design that accounts for manufacturing tolerances, but that usually involves other costs/tradeoffs.</p><p></p><p>In the construction world, what Ford has done is called a "zero tolerance detail" or a detail that's nearly (if not practically) impossible to achieve a good finished product. This is why in construction details you have things like baseboard and crown molding, which may seem to be a decorative piece but is really an add on to account for variance and tolerances in the underlying surfaces/materials. Can you lay tile all the way up to and razor sharply against a wall? Sure, but the cost and time and fitment is prohibitive. So what do you do? You put in baseboard or quarter round at transition points to accommodate for the varying nature of the edge/transition.</p><p></p><p>Ford could probably solve this probably more easily through different attachments that are more forgiving and allow for the valence to be snugged or relaxed, based upon the inherent dimensional tolerances in the mating surfaces. The concept of adding a "trim" or cover piece really isn't practical or desired in this case. But as the other gentleman pointed out, getting a really good fit would require numerous assemblies (the body, the light assembly, the rear bumper) to all match up perfectly OR at the very least have fasteners that can attempt to soak up or give back the gaps and jams.</p><p></p><p>The factory "tabs" aren't an effective solution.</p><p></p><p>There's many other approaches that manufacturers use to reduce or eliminate fitment tolerance issues. The Japanese for example, used to take transmission parts and "mate" them in a custom fashion, whereas the American solution is to typically build the parts, check them for spec (+/-) and throw them in a bin for assembly joining to other components of the final assembly. When actually taking a part that has a - variation and mating it to it's corresponding part with a + variation would be the best fit. Unfortunately, under the "American" solution I outlined, over 50% of the assembled final product are going to be out of compliment because it's a coin toss whether the inherent manufacturing tolerances or going to compliment or compound the problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ANGREY, post: 15773263, member: 188865"] The tolerances of component parts is only a symptom of the problem. The problem is largely cost. Ford (and any other manufacturer) could employ a design that accounts for manufacturing tolerances, but that usually involves other costs/tradeoffs. In the construction world, what Ford has done is called a "zero tolerance detail" or a detail that's nearly (if not practically) impossible to achieve a good finished product. This is why in construction details you have things like baseboard and crown molding, which may seem to be a decorative piece but is really an add on to account for variance and tolerances in the underlying surfaces/materials. Can you lay tile all the way up to and razor sharply against a wall? Sure, but the cost and time and fitment is prohibitive. So what do you do? You put in baseboard or quarter round at transition points to accommodate for the varying nature of the edge/transition. Ford could probably solve this probably more easily through different attachments that are more forgiving and allow for the valence to be snugged or relaxed, based upon the inherent dimensional tolerances in the mating surfaces. The concept of adding a "trim" or cover piece really isn't practical or desired in this case. But as the other gentleman pointed out, getting a really good fit would require numerous assemblies (the body, the light assembly, the rear bumper) to all match up perfectly OR at the very least have fasteners that can attempt to soak up or give back the gaps and jams. The factory "tabs" aren't an effective solution. There's many other approaches that manufacturers use to reduce or eliminate fitment tolerance issues. The Japanese for example, used to take transmission parts and "mate" them in a custom fashion, whereas the American solution is to typically build the parts, check them for spec (+/-) and throw them in a bin for assembly joining to other components of the final assembly. When actually taking a part that has a - variation and mating it to it's corresponding part with a + variation would be the best fit. Unfortunately, under the "American" solution I outlined, over 50% of the assembled final product are going to be out of compliment because it's a coin toss whether the inherent manufacturing tolerances or going to compliment or compound the problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
Sagging rear bumper fascia issue
Top