I personally wouldn't have been so quick to laugh it off. I bought a Chrysler product in the early 1980s, having been a Mopar fan. My bad experience with it led me to Toyotas and Hondas. Once bitten, twice shy.
Oh yes... the "K" Chryslers were awful in 1981, 82 and partly in 83...
But Chrysler engineers (those at THAT time), took those marginal design cars and started improving them steadily. By the second generation, The "K" cars were visibly better in most respects. And By 1990-91 until 1995, the next ones (Dodge Spirit and Plymouth Acclaim) were considered second place ALMOST AS reliable as their competitors (Toyota Camry and Honda Accord) which were the most reliable ones according to several sources, not only "consumer Reviews".
I still have, maintain myself, and truly enjoy my old 1991 Spirit R/T Turbo, which outperforms my (11 years newer Stratus R/T Turbo 2002). The old Spirit is a pleasure to repair or maintain in sad contrast to the Stratus, which is a complete nightmare designed by sadistic monkeys of the worst class. Maybe it is enought to say that the old Spirit has required about half the replacement parts that the Stratus has required in less than half the timespan, but parts are the easy part, not the terrible headache that trying to service the Stratus is. From radiators that cannot be taken off easily, to engine bays that appear to be designed to IMPEDE a human hand (much less a hand with a handtool) to be introduced into them, to hose clamps orientated in the worst possible direction, the Stratus shines as a monument to Monkey genius, or a tribute to Sadistic Design.
Good points Robo Weld. Sounds like a number of things could have caused the weld to hit the wrong spot. The computer running the robot is literal. It will do what it's told, whether the parts are in the right place or not.
I think the type of mistakes is what differentiates robots from humans. A robot is going be more consistent. Therefore, if it is programmed correctly and the task is a repeatable task with little variability the robot will consistently perform the task. However if you program the robot to do the task 1" off. Iit will do it again and again.
Humans on the other hand have the ability to adjust from situation to situation but the variability in human performance can make it not perfect.
These two simple principles are just a few of the things a good design engineer will realize when they are putting together the design of the part. How is the part going to be assembled? Will it be with human labor or automated? What are the strengths and weaknesses of those assembly techniques and how does your design integrate with them?
Robots are only as good as their fixturing. A great robot that has poorly designed or weak end of arm tooling will be non-repeatable and can miss welds or part placement. Part nesting is also a key component to a quality robot cell.
A new service lets engineers and orthopedic surgeons design and 3D print highly accurate, patient-specific, orthopedic medical implants made of metal -- without owning a 3D printer. Using free, downloadable software, users can import ASCII and binary .STL files, design the implant, and send an encrypted design file to a third-party manufacturer.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.