Mustang Rear Stabilizer Bar Bushing Squawk

1. Mustang Rear Stabilizer Bar Bushing Squawk Project Leader: Rod Watts Project Champion: Jeff Check Commodity Manager: Brent White Process Owner: Mike Wroblewski Organization: Chassis / Vehicle Engineering Project Location: Flat Rock Assembly Plant Project Completion Date: Feb 28th, 2013

2. D M A I C R DEFINE VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER Chassis Suspension Flat Rock Assembly Plant 2013 S197 Mustang Rear Stabilizer Bar Assembly CR33-5A771-A BAR ASY RR STAB PROJECT CLASSIFICATION: Quality Issue Rear Stabilizer Bar Bushing Squawk 2013 MY Max of R1000 = 0.56 VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER: From initial concern notice verbatim “CUSTOMER STATES SQUEAKING NOISE REAR OF CAR OVER BIG BUMPS” CTQ STATEMENT (Customer Requirement):No audible bushing noises for life of the stabilizer bar assembly. DEFECT DEFINITION for Y (Objective Metric):Audible squawk inside of vehicle from rear stabar bushings. COST OF POOR QUALITY:Cost TBD, collected from containment, replacement, disposition, repair. Average cost to date $106 per repair. PROBLEM STATEMENT, SCOPE, AND GOALSquawk noise in vehicle from rear stabilizer bar link bushing. Issue effecting all parts built since May 2013 change. Goal is to reduce stabar bushing noise in vehicle to zero.

3. D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Cause & Effect Diagram w/ Ranking: Process ElementsElement OK AInvestigating BElement Not Capable CElement Removed D CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required):Process OwnerDateBefore DataAfter Data Each rubber batch is audited for squawk noise on bench 14FGrant Massey 10/1/2013 All Zero

4. D M A I C R MEASURE CTQ (y) CAPABILITY Noise and Force Measurement of BOB and WOW: CONTAINMENT (state reasoning if not required): Testing shows noise present at low temperature for all bushings. Above data is for bushings using normal soapy water installation at MSSC.

5. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) • Warranty return vehicle parts along with normal non noisy parts were sent to Akron Rubber Development Labs for complete analysis of the following: • Pyro-GC/MS • Polymer ID by FTIR • Thermogravimetric Analysis for composition comparison • Crosslink Density – state of cure Vehicle warranty returns showed evidence of reversion and high friction on noisy bar surface under the link Testing showed that moving the noisy link / bushing to the opposite side resulted in the noise moving along with it.

6. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) Dimensional Comparison: Dimensional studies revealed no difference between bushings that made noise in a cold test vs. bushings that did not. The only noticeable item was slightly more distortion present in the as received parts from Zhongding.

7. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) ARDL Analysis of BOB and WOW: BOB = No noise found, part pulled from OK build WOW = Noisy bushings from high rotational force build No differences found – the slight difference evident in crosslink density was within typical rubber tolerances

8. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) ARDL Analysis of Warranty Returns vs. Quiet Parts: Part 1,3 were quiet with no noise. Parts 2,4,5 are noisy warranty return parts. No unusual differences found in these compounds

9. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) Link Rotational Force vs. Bushing Squawk: Typical production variation in bushing forces shown below did not directly correlate with audible bushing noise in MSSC cold testing of full bar assemblies.

10. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) Theoretical Bushing Rotational Forces and Friction Simulation: Link bushings were sent to Axel Products in Ann Arbor, MI for rubber property analyses. This friction and hyperelastic data was utilized in Ansys as a basis for simulating the expected link rotational forces.

11. D M A I C R ANALYZE y=f(x) Theoretical Bushing Rotational Forces and Friction Simulation: The theoretical force values of 10.1 lbs (45.0N) for 22mm and 11.3lbs (50.66N) for 24mm were lower than what was measured at MSSC and FRAP. The difference shows us that there is another factor causing of higher efforts apart from simple geometry and the material variation.

12. D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) DOE Screening Study – Installation Lubricants: Initial testing at Zhongding showed the change from soap installation lubricant to NYE Gel recommended by Keith Aubuchon kaubucho@ford.com was successful in eliminating the squawk noise in a lab test!

13. D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) DOE Screening Study – Installation Lubricants: MSSC testing of full assemblies built using the NYE 880 lubricant also had no noise, and installation efforts with significantly improved.

14. D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) • Bushing Noise DOE – Three high importance factors from cause and effect diagram: • Time of wax addition 1st pass or 3rd pass • State of cure – high or low • Install lubricant – soapy water or alternative. DOE #1 – Soapy water vs. NYE 880 DOE #2 – Soapy water vs. Naphthenic Oil

15. D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) • DOE – Results: • Raw data recorded at Zhongding

16. D M A I C R IMPROVE y=f(x) • DOE – Results:Assembly lubricant is main factor affecting noise. Both NYE 880 and Naphthenic oil eliminate bushing squawk noise in this experiment. DOE #1 – Naphthenic Oil vs. Soapy Water DOE #2 – NYE 880 vs. Soapy Water

17. D M A I C R CONTROL X’s ADDITIONAL INTERIM ACTIONS LONG TERM PERMANENT CORRECTIVE ACTION

18. D M A I C R Corrective and Preventive Actions Replicate:Who else at Ford can benefit from the project findings? What has been done to update the corporate knowledge? (Six months later…) Is the improvement sustained? REPLICATE REPLICATION (who else across Ford Motor Company could benefit?):Key ActionsIs this Replicable?If Yes, Where?Responsibility Note: Recommend initiating Global Corporate Learning E Tracker and complete Prevent Action Health Chart to assure replication AND corporate memory is updated and critical x’s are replicated in current and future models. http://www.etracker.ford.com/apps/AddIssues/AddIssue.asp?ProjectID=GCORPLRN • UPDATES TO CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE BASE (what core documents or processes require update?):Core BookChange MadeOwner Agree?Document/ E Tracker #Completed • Requirements (SDS/VDS: Trustmark, GAP, Spec.) • Foundation FMEAs • CETP • GPDS • MDS • LQOS • Warranty Savings Checklist • Other (Specify): List available at web link: http://www.quality.ford.com/warranty/html/gcl_pr.htm PROJECT END – PROOF OF SUSTAINMENT: Project Leader & Commodity / Process Owner (LL5) Sign-off: By signing this document, I agree that the project has been completed and that the design requirements / process standards have been implemented as declared above. Project Leader Name……………………………..Signed…..……….…..…..Date………… Commodity Manager (LL5)………………………Signed…………..……..…Date….…….. Process Owner (LL5)………………..……………Signed…………..……..…Date….……..

19. D M A I C R UPDATE REPLICATE REPLICATE Checklist for Warranty Savings Opportunities: • Are warranty costs associated with the issue? • If no, do not continue w/checklist • 2. Has causal part driving the issue been identified? • If no, return to checklist when causal part identified • 3. Does the QB/Function responsible for the part have the • causal part on their top spend list and/or IFR list? • (For contacts, see Quarterback Functional Matrix link on 6-Panel website) • If causal part not on QB’s lists, do not continue w/checklist • Name of Quality QB rep contacted: • 4. Has the QB/Function reviewed the warranty spend reduction • tools for additional warranty reduction opportunities? • 5. Has the QB/Function identified potential warranty reduction • opportunities through the warranty spend reduction tools? • 6. Has the QB/Function engaged FCSD to support delivery of the • identified warranty reduction opportunities? • 7. Has the QB/Function identified savings and developed action plans • for implementation of the opportunities? • 8. Have the opportunities been implemented and can warranty spend • savings be booked in project’s 6-panel? • 9. If the causal part is supplied by outside resource, has the QB/Function • engaged the supplier in the spike recovery process? NOTE: When causal part is determined to be on QB top spend pareto, problem solver is required to ensure follow up with QB/Function for closure on the identified warranty savings opportunities. 6-panelUnXchecklistv2.ppt 02/27/2009