"Steven M. Scharf" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Seamus's Stuff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> No doubt the accountants weighed the extra cost of the polymer panels
> against the number of lost sales that they believe will result from
dropping
> them. The polymer panel over sub-frame approach was supposed to be
cheaper,
> but never was. The manufacturing cost of the polymer panels, the yield,
and
> the problems associated with painting them, made them more costly than
> steel. The need for a sub-frame also raised the cost. Furthermore, there
was
> no safety increase with polymer over steel, versus steel alone, just look
at
> the crash test results.
>

It did involve cost...but not those. It was the cost to convert every other
plant from steel to polymer...and the cost of having only one plant that can
build polymer panel cars/trucks. Since we were the only one out there. We
can not build any other product GM makes at our plant. With GM moving to
the flexibility of any plant being able to build most any product. We were
becoming a large cost to the company. So either we change....or the
accountants get rid of the dead weight. I think you can figure out why we
said change...

Jim