jpd80 Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 (edited) Hi all, I'm trying to work out how the plant is arranged to build the D4s as well as the CD4s. Are the D4 and CD4 made using common body shop, paint shop, assembly line and final trim or are some/all those processes separate? Are the build sequences now mostly the same enabling the use of common work stations? Happy New Year everyone.... Edited January 1, 2016 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banker55 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Hi all, I'm trying to work out how the plant is arranged to build the D4s as well as the CD4s. Are the D4 and CD4 made using common body shop, paint shop, assembly line and final trim or are some/all those processes separate? Are the build sequences now mostly the same enabling the use of common work stations? Happy New Year everyone.... Happy New Year. Paint and Final Assembly(Chassis and Trim) are in line sequence ...all units back to back to back. Body looks to be the same to me. Lots of money spent upgrading to laser welding robotics and dimension controls. Paint has the newest electronic checks for paint quality. Line speed looks slower to me. Maybe low 60's. This place used to be a very fast plant...like the Kentucky Plants...I have not worked there since 1999....Windstar.....further back I worked at Oakville Truck. I think they are running 2 shifts plus a half....to maximize production.....no size constraints as there is lots of square feet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 Thanks for the info banker55, it sounds like changing the D4 products may be less disruptive than I thought previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 "This place used to be a very fast plant ... 1999 Windstar..." Was this why Windstars were so buggy and are hardly seen anymore? Many same era Villagers and Chrysler vans are still chugging along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 "This place used to be a very fast plant ... 1999 Windstar..." Was this why Windstars were so buggy and are hardly seen anymore? Many same era Villagers and Chrysler vans are still chugging along. Doubt it. That seems more like poor engineering than assembly flaws. Remember, DTP, KCAP and LAP are currently the fastest Ford plants currently, and they all move just as fast or maybe slightly faster than Oakville did back in the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 6, 2016 Author Share Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) The three pillars of virtue, good products, logical easy build process and properly trained workers. I wonder how much frustration there was with line workers and supervisors arguing over issues with older vehicles that were harder to build and get right without some sort of come back, be that defects or taking too much time... Now that Ford has standardized the build process across most vehicles, maybe some or all of those previous issues are not as pronounced or easier to control or easier to blame on suppliers... Edited January 6, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 "This place used to be a very fast plant ... 1999 Windstar..." Was this why Windstars were so buggy and are hardly seen anymore? Many same era Villagers and Chrysler vans are still chugging along. Doubt it. That seems more like poor engineering than assembly flaws. Remember, DTP, KCAP and LAP are currently the fastest Ford plants currently, and they all move just as fast or maybe slightly faster than Oakville did back in the day.I have to concur with fuzzy. Way too many poor engineering decisions (who would up a u-shaped upward pointing channel anywhere on the underbody of a vehicle ?) Compounded by managements "head in the sand" attitude regarding long term durability issue with the engine and transmission (carried over from the Taurus). Then the Freestar ! What a waste of engineering dollars. Much too few feature and much too late for the marketplace. If I were CEO at the time, a lot of heads would have rolled. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banker55 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I have to concur with fuzzy. Way too many poor engineering decisions (who would up a u-shaped upward pointing channel anywhere on the underbody of a vehicle ?) Compounded by managements "head in the sand" attitude regarding long term durability issue with the engine and transmission (carried over from the Taurus). Then the Freestar ! What a waste of engineering dollars. Much too few feature and much too late for the marketplace. If I were CEO at the time, a lot of heads would have rolled. If I remember right, it was a 600 million dollar expenditure to basically change the nameplate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 If I remember right, it was a 600 million dollar expenditure to basically change the nameplate. Didn't they also make the driver's door longer to make up for not having a driver's side slider? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Didn't they also make the driver's door longer to make up for not having a driver's side slider? Yep. What a joke that was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Yep. What a joke that was. On the plus side, it led to the demise of the Ford minivan which freed up resources to do other more important projects. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 The current Transit passenger van is a Mini-van to me, so Ford still sells one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) The current Transit passenger van is a Mini-van to me, so Ford still sells one. Transit Wagon and Transit Connect wagon have the market covered. I'd love to know the break out of wagons in Transit and TC sales.. Edited January 7, 2016 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horseman Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Happy New Year. Paint and Final Assembly(Chassis and Trim) are in line sequence ...all units back to back to back. Body looks to be the same to me. Lots of money spent upgrading to laser welding robotics and dimension controls. Paint has the newest electronic checks for paint quality. Line speed looks slower to me. Maybe low 60's. This place used to be a very fast plant...like the Kentucky Plants...I have not worked there since 1999....Windstar.....further back I worked at Oakville Truck. I think they are running 2 shifts plus a half....to maximize production.....no size constraints as there is lots of square feet. Agree with most of this post, except with "lots of square feet". As an MP&L driver, I can attest to the fact that square footage is a huge factor for warehousing and delivering stock. Here's your stock, find a place for it!! Parts are constantly being lost, misplaced, wrong, or late to the line. Things are only going to get worse with the launch of of right hand drive, and diesel.(CDX). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banker55 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Agree with most of this post, except with "lots of square feet". As an MP&L driver, I can attest to the fact that square footage is a huge factor for warehousing and delivering stock. Here's your stock, find a place for it!! Parts are constantly being lost, misplaced, wrong, or late to the line. Things are only going to get worse with the launch of of right hand drive, and diesel.(CDX). Chicago is 2.8 million square feet .Oakville is 5.5 million square feet. Sounds like poor management , not a shortage of space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Didn't they also make the driver's door longer to make up for not having a driver's side slider? Nope. That was the first gen. Windstar, wherein Ford badly misjudged and mistimed the market. The 2nd gen. Windstar had dual sliders, as did the Freestar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibinubu12 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Chicago is 2.8 million square feet .Oakville is 5.5 million square feet. Sounds like poor management , not a shortage of space. Oakville also is an amalgamation of 2 previously separate plants - Ontario Truck Plant and Oakville Assembly Plant were previously two independent plants on the same site that has now been reconfigured into the Oakville Assembly Complex That's why it's so huge in comparison. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.