I got a question on how the sequence works. I bought a 1970 GS. VIN is 434370K108532. I know that 4=Buick, 34=GS350, 37=2 door Coupe, 0= 1970 and K is the Kansas plant. The question is the rest of the number The Sloan Museum shows the first numbers for a but the Kansas plant started at 100001. How did they number the cars. Mine is 108532 from Kansas. Could there have been a 434370H108532? When they were producing the cars are the GS numbers grouped? Where they built in batches? Say 108500 - 108700 were GS cars and then they went back to plain skylarks? Could number 108533 from Kansas be a Skylark? Just asking how the numbers work from all of the plants.
I'm not a Buick expert (Pontiac's are my speciality) but in general: There is no correlation between the VINs from the various assembly plants. In fact, I started at Chevrolet Flint Assembly and there was no correlation between VINs within the same plant (ie, Chevrolets started at 100001; GMCs started at 500001 - going down the same line). The numbers start at 001 and work their way up; some plants build in VIN order and some do not. Yes, there could have been a vehicle number 108533 built at another assembly plant. No, vehicles were not normally "batch built". Typically they were inserted into the middle of the more humble regular production vehicles. K Here's a picture of the Framingham plant, showing the model mix:
Thanks. I just find it hard to fathom production like that. It couldn't have been very efficient. At least if you batch stuff down the same line you could have inventory for those specific models on hand than. If you do it the way you are talking you need to have GS specific parts on hand 365 days a year.
The advantage of not building one type of car in batches is that it balances out the assembly line so you can keep it moving at a constant speed. Here's a bad example: Say that one station on the line is responsible for installing steering wheels. And say that it takes twice as long to install a sport wheel as it does the plain-jane steering wheel. If most or all GSs reveived a sport wheel, and if you tried to build 50 GSs in a row, then that station on the line would fall behind, and the line would have to slow down. To prevent this from happening, the planners intentionally mixed up the cars and options within the scheduled sequence. If some GS-specific parts were not available for some part of the year, it was up to the planners to know that and not schedule any GSs until parts were available again. You can imagine similar situations happening with A/C cars and many other work-intensive options. If only one out of every three cars gets A/C, that station can keep up. But if they got ten A/C cars in a row, they might fall behind. As for VIN sequences, I don't know about Buicks in particular, nor the "mixed" assembly plants in general, but in Lansing circa 1970, Oldsmobile built every stinkin' model on one assembly line with the exception of the Toronado, which had so many differences it needed its own line. On the main line, the VIN sequence kept incrementing for each car, regardless of model. So 100001 might have been a Cutlass S, 100002 might have been a Delta 88, 100003 a Vista Cruiser, etc. The Toros started with 500001. Was building all these models and options on one line inefficient? You tell me: Dave H., who worked at the Lansing plant at the time and is active in the Pure Stock forum, has posted that the Olds line was running at the rate of about 102 cars per hour at the time, with a final sell-off of 98 per hour. (Don't quote me on those numbers; I might be off a couple.) This was the highest rate of any GM division. And some people think that UAW workers sit on their butts all day .....
Most of my customers don't run multiple platforms down the same line because the inventory issue is a nightmare. This would be like saying the production line in question only produced "A" Body cars. That way the bulk of the components would be the same. Even the items that are different will assemble in the same manner. Cutlass fender/Skylark fender not much different. The second benefit is the workforce can focus on one platform. The workers would be more efficient if the line only ran one platform. The same reason as above. While a GTO and a GS have different sheet metal and dashes they would assemble in a very similar manner. A "B" Body car my need different methods to assemble some items. The workers could just focus on being the best on their platform.
There some exceptions to the not in batches concept. There are several examples of promotional cars being assembled in batches. And early in a production year where there are changes in style or production processes. I have a production management textbook from college that actually has a case study of a GM plant and deals with a lot of the issues that you are wondering about. The concept is simple, how to produce the most vehicles in the lowest amount of time while keeping a specific level of quality assurance all the while. The sequential portion of the VIN for 1971 starts at 100001 for Skylark and GS. Each plant has the letter in the VIN but I'm relatively sure that the sequential portion is assigned in lots to each assembly plant. I'm sure there are some former GM plant management or employees that can verify that.
Well said, Brian. The fastest plant I have every worked in was Flint Assembly; it was 60 jobs per hour at that time. That is fast enough that when the line starts up, if you are standing on the flattrack it will throw you off balance! I can not imagine what 102 cars per hour was like... K
That's true; even today we do build some special builds in batches but the constraints Brian mentions above would need to be taken into consideration. No. The VINs are not related between plants. I have been with GM since 1979 and have built product in every truck plant in North America, in roles with both Engineering and Manufacturing. K
