Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: A focused 6-case static test matrix is provided for seat cushion + frame covering central, front-edge, lateral, rearward, recliner, and rail/attachment loads; each case lists recommended application location and magnitude, key instrumentation points (strain gauges, LVDTs, load cells), measurement types, and pass/fail acceptance checks demonstrate structural integrity.

Detailed Analysis: Below is a concise, program-ready 6-case static test matrix for cushion + frame. Replace example load magnitudes with program target loads where required.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: Critical engine-casting features are the primary machined datums (main/cylinder/cam bores, deck and mounting faces), thin/shrink-prone sections, and internal passages; first-piece inspection must verify datum geometry, geometric relationships, material integrity, and surface condition using CMM/dedicated gauges plus non-destructive checks and documented FAI output.

Detailed Analysis: Below are domain-focused lists a Product Engineer would use for engine castings & machined components.

• Primary datums and machined bores: main bearing bores, cylinder bores, cam bores (size, roundness, concentricity, axial location).
• Deck and head mating surfaces: flatness, perpendicularity to bore axis, surface finish.
• Crankcase alignment and webbing: inter-bore spacing, straightness, twist.
• Mounting bosses and threaded holes: position, thread class, boss wall thickness.
• Oil/water galleries and core prints: open/blocked passage, wall thickness, orientation.
• Thin sections / ribs / fillets: local wall thickness, risk of porosity or cold-shuts.
• Parting line, flash, and gating remnants: affects assembly and sealing.
• Casting surface integrity: porosity, inclusions, cracks, heat-check zones.
• Machining allowance and datums for secondary operations.

• Visual: overall surface, parting line, gating, flash, obvious defects, correct part ID.
• Dimensional (CMM preferred): verify primary datums, inter-bore distances, bore diameters, concentricity/coaxiality, flatness/parallelism, hole/boss locations to drawing tolerances.
• Bore-specific: roundness, taper, surface finish (profilometer), cylindricity.
• Geometric tolerances: perpendicularity, parallelism, coaxiality, runout per drawing.
• Wall thickness / thin sections: measured at risk locations (ultrasonic or sectioning for validation if required).
• Thread checks: go/no-go gauges, helix, minor/major diameters.
• Material integrity: NDT (dye penetrant for surface cracks, X-ray or CT for internal porosity where critical).
• Hardness / metallography: confirm casting heat treatment/chemistry where specified.
• Functional checks: trial assembly of mating components, leak checks on passages, torque checks on fasteners.
• Documentation: full FAI/CMM report, calibrated gauge IDs, inspection photos, disposition for any nonconformances.

Guidance on acceptance: use drawing callouts/tolerance stack as source of truth; flag any datum shift that impacts downstream machining or assembly. Prioritize hard-to-rework features (bores, decks, sealed passages) for the strictest checks.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: For wheel-end NPI, require a complete APQP program with PPAP deliverables—this includes a First-Article (FAI/first-piece) inspection report; given wheel-end is safety-critical, expect full documentation (APQP items + FAI) before production release.

Detailed Analysis:

• Relationship: APQP is the program framework (planning, FMEA, control plan, process flow, validation) that defines what must be proven. FAI (first-article / first-piece inspection) or equivalent PPAP submission is one of the required outputs/deliverables used to verify the part and process meet requirements.
• For wheel-end components (hubs, bearing assemblies, seals, wheel studs), treat as safety/ride-control critical: mandate full APQP with PPAP deliverables including an FAI/dimensional report, material certifications, process capability (initial Cpk), MSA, control plan, PFMEA, process flow, and functional test results.
• Recommended PPAP level: typically Level 3 (part submission with supporting data) unless program/Q-team documents an approved deviation; waivers should be extremely limited and justified by low risk (rare for wheel-end).
• When to require: new part numbers, new supplier, significant tooling/process change, or return-to-production after extended dormancy. Also require re-FAI when drawing revisions change critical dimensions.
• Buyer actions (practical next steps):
  • Insert explicit APQP/PPAP + FAI requirements and required PPAP level into PO/sourcing package.
  • Define submission gate: PPAP/FAI approval required prior to first shipment / production release.
  • Specify timeline and sample quantity for FAI and acceptance criteria (dimensional, functional, material).
  • Coordinate with Quality/Engineering for any additional test or run-in requirements.
• Risk note: skipping APQP or FAI on wheel-end raises acceptance, warranty, and safety exposure; avoid blanket waivers.

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: A late ECR that affects HVAC duct routing must be treated as a controlled scope-change with immediate cross-functional triage, a focused impact assessment (package, thermal/flow, assembly, NVH, safety), and a short, milestone-driven mitigation plan that minimizes launch disruption while preserving verification evidence and supplier alignment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Immediate triage (24–48 hrs)
   • Convene CFT (Program, HVAC systems engineering, Package/BD, Tooling, Supplier Quality, Manufacturing, Validation/Testing, Purchasing).
   • Classify the ECR: scope (routing only vs. duct geometry), change type (fit, function, safety, tooling), and urgency (launch-critical, retrofit).
   • Record baseline: current BOM, drawings, 3D CAD link, affected build stages, outstanding dependencies.
2. Rapid impact assessment (3–7 days)
   • CAD interference check with vehicle packaging and adjacent systems; identify minimal re-route options.
   • HVAC performance risk: run targeted CFD/flow/pressure-drop review or request supplier input on expected performance delta.
   • Manufacturing/assembly: identify jigs, fixtures, tooling changes, cycle-time impact, rework needs.
   • Validation: list required re-tests (thermal comfort, defrost, NVH, crash, leakage) and estimated durations.
   • Cost & schedule: capture estimated engineering hours, supplier costs, and calendar impact to launch milestones.
3. Options & decision gate
   • Option A: Implement design workaround with minimal routing change (preferred if it passes fit/flow/validation quickly).
   • Option B: Release full design change with tooling updates (if necessary and schedule allows).
   • Option C: Temporary on-line rework or retrofit kit for early builds (documented and tracked).
   • Present options with trade-offs to Program Control/Change Board for approval.
4. Action plan & controls (post-approval)
   • Issue controlled ECO with clear disposition: drawings, affected lots, effective dates, and accountability.
   • Supplier action package: redlined CAD, first-article requirements, process change instructions, inspection criteria.
   • Short validation plan: define minimal test matrix required to release (risk-based), test owners, and sign-off gates.
   • Update risk register, schedule (Gantt with critical-path updates), and cost-to-complete.
   • Implement temporary containment (hold points, MRB plans) if in-production units are affected.
5. Communication & governance
   • Weekly CFT status with visible KPIs: days-to-decision, validation days remaining, supplier readiness %, cost-to-implement.
   • Escalate to Program Sponsor if launch milestones exceed threshold risk or cost above contingency.
   • Capture lessons learned and update design/packaging checklists to prevent recurrence.

• CFT convened & ECR classified
• CAD interference sign-off
• Supplier feasibility + quote
• Validation scope and schedule defined
• ECO released with lot control
• Production containment instructions (if needed)
• Cost/schedule recorded and approved

• Minor routing tweak with supplier support: 2–4 weeks
• Major reroute requiring tooling/test: 6–12+ weeks

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.

Ask: ACE: AI™ Key Insight: Typical production targets for brake rotor lateral (axial) runout are ≤0.05 mm (0.002 in); many OEM validation limits accept up to ~0.08–0.10 mm (0.003–0.004 in) depending on vehicle class and NVH requirements—anything above ~0.10 mm is generally considered reject and a likely root cause for brake judder complaints.

Detailed Analysis:

• Definition: lateral (axial) runout = peak-to-peak axial movement of the rotor friction surface relative to the hub centerline as the rotor is rotated under normal assembly conditions.
• Typical tolerance bands (use as validation starting points; confirm with the vehicle/OEM spec):
  • Target (production / best-practice): ≤0.05 mm (0.002 in)
  • Engineering / acceptance upper bound: ≤0.08 mm (0.003 in)
  • Reject / corrective action threshold: >0.10 mm (0.004 in)
  • Note: heavy-duty or specific brake system designs can have different limits—confirm on a per-vehicle basis.
• Measurement best-practices for repeatable results:
  • Fit rotor to hub/wheel assembly exactly as in service (clean mating surfaces, fit any hub-centric rings if used).
  • Torque wheel studs/nuts to specified sequence and torque before measuring (use final torque value used in vehicle assembly).
  • Use a dial indicator (resolution ≤0.01 mm / 0.0005 in) with the tip on the rotor friction surface near the pad contact diameter.
  • Rotate rotor slowly and record peak-to-peak axial displacement; measure at multiple circumferential positions and record the maximum runout.
  • Record ambient temperature and note if rotor is new, machined, or in-service.
• Common root causes and controls:
  • Hub face runout, dirt/corrosion between hub and rotor, improper torquing/wheel seating, rotor manufacturing/thickness variation, warped/machining errors.
  • Controls: clean mating surfaces, establish bolt torque procedure, machine/replace rotor, specify hub machining tolerances, use hub-centric designs where appropriate.
• Validation recommendations:
  • Define target and acceptance thresholds in the validation plan tied to NVH goals.
  • Include installed-runout (as-assembled) checks and correlate with vehicle-level brake judder NVH tests.
  • Define sampling plan (e.g., initial sample size, ongoing SPC limits) and corrective actions when runout trends approach the upper bound.

• Organization: OEM/Vehicle Service Manual — search: "brake rotor lateral runout specification" + vehicle model.
• Organization: Supplier engineering standards or chassis NVH specification — search: "rotor runout tolerance" + "brakes NVH spec".
• Organization: SAE / industry guidance — search: "SAE brake rotor runout" (verify with the applicable OEM standard).

If you want deeper detail, ask for an expanded version.