Do automakers REALLY test long-term durability on engines and transmissions or is the consumer the ones who are the testers. Ford explorer 2001-2010 4.0 3-4 timing chains in that engine that had issues. Ford 5r55s/w transmission servo problems steel piston s moving in aluminium bores. GM Colorado bad cylinder heads. Why do so many years go by before the issues are resolved if they ever are. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them. How many cars or trucks have to be affected before a recall? If manufacturers really tested the items i mentioned don't you think they would find the problem BEFORE they sell them to the consumer. You guys can probably list so many more examples then i can.
Do automakers REALLY test long-term durability?
- Thread starter littleant
- Start date
- Status
no they don't test, and some deny faults even when it is obvious
like BMW for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles...facturing-fault
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-styl...maker-1.2869493
the first sign of failure is a faint rattle (if you can hear it over the diesel rattle) then the engine skips a tooth and tosses the crank or cam out of the block, how nice
like VW , BWM in it's infinite wisdom, put the chain and guides AT THE BACK OF THE MOTOR, so you have to pull the engine, transmission, drop the driveshaft etc to get to the chains.
a cheap 8-10 thousand dollar repair
like BMW for example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles...facturing-fault
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-styl...maker-1.2869493
the first sign of failure is a faint rattle (if you can hear it over the diesel rattle) then the engine skips a tooth and tosses the crank or cam out of the block, how nice
like VW , BWM in it's infinite wisdom, put the chain and guides AT THE BACK OF THE MOTOR, so you have to pull the engine, transmission, drop the driveshaft etc to get to the chains.
a cheap 8-10 thousand dollar repair
Last edited:
My wife's Samsung Galaxy's battery hasn't exploded yet. it's more like luck of the flaw. But yet there's plenty of Galaxy phones that have exploded.
Only so much testing can be done and it takes one over looked flaw in a parts machining process to cause these problems. No one sets out and designs a product to fail initially or prematurely. Just check the bottom of Forest Gump's running sneaker "it happens"
Only so much testing can be done and it takes one over looked flaw in a parts machining process to cause these problems. No one sets out and designs a product to fail initially or prematurely. Just check the bottom of Forest Gump's running sneaker "it happens"
Or how about the Tesla major suspension failures, the car is usually a total loss at that point
http://teslabears.club/t/tesla-suspension-hall-of-shame/78/12
http://teslabears.club/t/tesla-suspension-hall-of-shame/78/12
Would you prefer any new car by any major manufacturer out there today?
Or would you prefer a brand new 1978 Chrysler Cordoba with Corinthian leather?
Pretty easy choice, I'd say.
To your original question, of course they do, just maybe not in the ways you think.
If you think the only way to do long term testing is to test something for 10 years, then the answer is an emphatic No because it's not fiscally responsible.
There are ways to perform accelerated life cycle testing by applying statistical methods to test protocols.
This probably isn't the straightforward answer many here are seeking but it is well understood and proven to work quite well.
That being said, there are always examples of OEMs screwing up, but don't be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater in these situations.
ALWAYS ask the proponent of the notion that OEMs don't do long term durability testing if they would like that shinly new '78 Cordoba over a new 2018 Malibu, Accord, etc...
Or would you prefer a brand new 1978 Chrysler Cordoba with Corinthian leather?
Pretty easy choice, I'd say.
To your original question, of course they do, just maybe not in the ways you think.
If you think the only way to do long term testing is to test something for 10 years, then the answer is an emphatic No because it's not fiscally responsible.
There are ways to perform accelerated life cycle testing by applying statistical methods to test protocols.
This probably isn't the straightforward answer many here are seeking but it is well understood and proven to work quite well.
That being said, there are always examples of OEMs screwing up, but don't be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater in these situations.
ALWAYS ask the proponent of the notion that OEMs don't do long term durability testing if they would like that shinly new '78 Cordoba over a new 2018 Malibu, Accord, etc...
The closest you get to what you are looking for is with Toyota. They sell new models in Japan for the first few years before selling them in America.
Originally Posted By: Imp4
... To your original question, of course they do, just maybe not in the ways you think. ...
There are ways to perform accelerated life cycle testing by applying statistical methods to test protocols.
This probably isn't the straightforward answer many here are seeking but it is well understood and proven to work quite well.
That being said, there are always examples of OEMs screwing up, ...
Gross screw-ups that should've easily been avoided were more common in the 1970s than they are today, I believe. I can think of several examples that haven't been listed yet.
... To your original question, of course they do, just maybe not in the ways you think. ...
There are ways to perform accelerated life cycle testing by applying statistical methods to test protocols.
This probably isn't the straightforward answer many here are seeking but it is well understood and proven to work quite well.
That being said, there are always examples of OEMs screwing up, ...
Gross screw-ups that should've easily been avoided were more common in the 1970s than they are today, I believe. I can think of several examples that haven't been listed yet.
Originally Posted By: CR94
Gross screw-ups that should've easily been avoided were more common in the 1970s than they are today, I believe. I can think of several examples that haven't been listed yet.
Are we agreeing? I think we are?!?
In that case I agree.
Automakers (US in particular) of 40 years ago hadn't gotten on the statistical analysis bandwagon and/or widely used good engineering techniques to improve vehile durability.
The Japanese dragged them through it by nearly bankrupting Chrysler and the big 3 woke up to the buyers requirements for a quality product. Unfortunately this took 30 years.
Again, anyone can point out singular instances of a bad product but by and large all vehicles are better today than the '78 Cordoba (and by extension long term durability is better), Corinthian leather or not.
Gross screw-ups that should've easily been avoided were more common in the 1970s than they are today, I believe. I can think of several examples that haven't been listed yet.
Are we agreeing? I think we are?!?
In that case I agree.
Automakers (US in particular) of 40 years ago hadn't gotten on the statistical analysis bandwagon and/or widely used good engineering techniques to improve vehile durability.
The Japanese dragged them through it by nearly bankrupting Chrysler and the big 3 woke up to the buyers requirements for a quality product. Unfortunately this took 30 years.
Again, anyone can point out singular instances of a bad product but by and large all vehicles are better today than the '78 Cordoba (and by extension long term durability is better), Corinthian leather or not.
I have seen them driving those tarped cars around here and in death valley in the summer.
Yes they do. They also test for weird stuff, like NVH. I have worked in Automotive Industry for over 23 years. Once we made a bracket for a Tier 1, the bracket was related to EGR function - this was over 15 years ago. The bracket had to be re-designed because the thing made a ringing noise at a certain engine RPM. Scrap the stamping die and start over.
Toyota is famous for introducing new sheet metal with carry-over powertrains. They try to avoid too much new stuff in a launch for clear reasons. That new engine usually has some carry-over stuff for same logic.
From the durability testing, the analysis of failure modes has to be balanced by probability of occurrence and then potential of warranty claim versus cost to redesign the item that fails in the testing stage. New model testing is extremely time sensitive, bad news will throw a wrench in the launch timing.
So yes, durability testing is done. The results don't always prompt changes for production.
Toyota is famous for introducing new sheet metal with carry-over powertrains. They try to avoid too much new stuff in a launch for clear reasons. That new engine usually has some carry-over stuff for same logic.
From the durability testing, the analysis of failure modes has to be balanced by probability of occurrence and then potential of warranty claim versus cost to redesign the item that fails in the testing stage. New model testing is extremely time sensitive, bad news will throw a wrench in the launch timing.
So yes, durability testing is done. The results don't always prompt changes for production.
I'm consistently amazed at how long late model vehicles last compared to the vehicles that I grew up with. I cannot believe that durability has been by luck or accident. It must be the effect of testing and refining design and manufacturing.
Originally Posted By: KGMtech
Yes they do. They also test for weird stuff, like NVH. I have worked in Automotive Industry for over 23 years. Once we made a bracket for a Tier 1, the bracket was related to EGR function - this was over 15 years ago. The bracket had to be re-designed because the thing made a ringing noise at a certain engine RPM. Scrap the stamping die and start over.
Toyota is famous for introducing new sheet metal with carry-over powertrains. They try to avoid too much new stuff in a launch for clear reasons. That new engine usually has some carry-over stuff for same logic.
From the durability testing, the analysis of failure modes has to be balanced by probability of occurrence and then potential of warranty claim versus cost to redesign the item that fails in the testing stage. New model testing is extremely time sensitive, bad news will throw a wrench in the launch timing.
So yes, durability testing is done. The results don't always prompt changes for production.
From your professional experience, do any automakers approach the durability testing more stringently than others?
Yes they do. They also test for weird stuff, like NVH. I have worked in Automotive Industry for over 23 years. Once we made a bracket for a Tier 1, the bracket was related to EGR function - this was over 15 years ago. The bracket had to be re-designed because the thing made a ringing noise at a certain engine RPM. Scrap the stamping die and start over.
Toyota is famous for introducing new sheet metal with carry-over powertrains. They try to avoid too much new stuff in a launch for clear reasons. That new engine usually has some carry-over stuff for same logic.
From the durability testing, the analysis of failure modes has to be balanced by probability of occurrence and then potential of warranty claim versus cost to redesign the item that fails in the testing stage. New model testing is extremely time sensitive, bad news will throw a wrench in the launch timing.
So yes, durability testing is done. The results don't always prompt changes for production.
From your professional experience, do any automakers approach the durability testing more stringently than others?
Originally Posted By: WANG
I'm consistently amazed at how long late model vehicles last compared to the vehicles that I grew up with. I cannot believe that durability has been by luck or accident. It must be the effect of testing and refining design and manufacturing.
One of the major improvements IMO has been polymers for hoses and the like.
All of my 1970s stuff we were chasing hoses all the time.
The 1980s stuff was plastics (engine bay and cooling system).
(90s onwards all these things seemed to just last).
Growing up there were always cars pulled over, steam billowing from under the hood. And they rarely survive a decent overheat unscathed.
I'm consistently amazed at how long late model vehicles last compared to the vehicles that I grew up with. I cannot believe that durability has been by luck or accident. It must be the effect of testing and refining design and manufacturing.
One of the major improvements IMO has been polymers for hoses and the like.
All of my 1970s stuff we were chasing hoses all the time.
The 1980s stuff was plastics (engine bay and cooling system).
(90s onwards all these things seemed to just last).
Growing up there were always cars pulled over, steam billowing from under the hood. And they rarely survive a decent overheat unscathed.
Originally Posted By: littleant
Do automakers REALLY test long-term durability on engines and transmissions or is the consumer the ones who are the testers. Ford explorer 2001-2010 4.0 3-4 timing chains in that engine that had issues. Ford 5r55s/w transmission servo problems steel piston s moving in aluminium bores. GM Colorado bad cylinder heads. Why do so many years go by before the issues are resolved if they ever are. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them. How many cars or trucks have to be affected before a recall? If manufacturers really tested the items i mentioned don't you think they would find the problem BEFORE they sell them to the consumer. You guys can probably list so many more examples then i can.
More and more people expect the auto makers to repair a vehicle when it breaks down with a well known issue long after the warranty expired.
There was a post on here a few weeks ago from someone that owns a 12 year old Chevy Colorado and expected GM to make good on the cylinder head issue or he would never buy a GM product again.
Do automakers REALLY test long-term durability on engines and transmissions or is the consumer the ones who are the testers. Ford explorer 2001-2010 4.0 3-4 timing chains in that engine that had issues. Ford 5r55s/w transmission servo problems steel piston s moving in aluminium bores. GM Colorado bad cylinder heads. Why do so many years go by before the issues are resolved if they ever are. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them. How many cars or trucks have to be affected before a recall? If manufacturers really tested the items i mentioned don't you think they would find the problem BEFORE they sell them to the consumer. You guys can probably list so many more examples then i can.
More and more people expect the auto makers to repair a vehicle when it breaks down with a well known issue long after the warranty expired.
There was a post on here a few weeks ago from someone that owns a 12 year old Chevy Colorado and expected GM to make good on the cylinder head issue or he would never buy a GM product again.
See signature! Of course they don't. We live in a disposable market.
Respectfully,
Pajero!
Respectfully,
Pajero!
Originally Posted By: The Critic
From your professional experience, do any automakers approach the durability testing more stringently than others?
Nothing stands out as so different other than Lexus.
From your professional experience, do any automakers approach the durability testing more stringently than others?
Nothing stands out as so different other than Lexus.
- Status
