In article Dr6dnXTZotxCAhzFnZ2dnUU7-
, lcb11211@swbelldotnet
says...

On 1/19/2017 7:46 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

Being one of the expensive metals it is a major cost.
Being a heavy metal it is a major cost.
Battery cables are not thin.

So what? I haven't seen a _number_ from you,
just arm waving.

What percentage of the cost of a $20,000 car is
battery cables? What percentage of the weight
of a 2000 pound car is battery cables?

It has been a long standing practice that if a car company could save
two or three cents doing something differently that works they will
reengineer to make that happen.

That's true, but will having two different
electrical systems one on 12v and the other one
48v actually save those few cents?

I'm sorry, Leon, but this is clearly some vendor
of 48v equipment trying to sell his stuff.

Many vehicle recalls are to undo what
saving a few cents during manufacturing caused to be problematic.
Probably with out exception the G body GM vehicles from 1978 on had a
campaign to replace every every rear control arm bolt, both sides. The
cost of the replacement bolt kit, 2 bolts and 2 lock nuts, $1.35.
Every G body vehicle that came into our shop automatically had these
bolts replaced if it had not already been done. It was about a 15
minute procedure that we often never told the customer about.

According to the recall the issue was lack of
corrosion resistance in a specially hardened
bolt and the replacements were actually weaker
than the originals but had more corrosion
resistance. Doesn't sound like a case of
cheaping out to me. There are such, like the
Pinto, but I don't think you've picked one.