Do automakers REALLY test long-term durability?
- Thread starter littleant
- Start date
- Status
Toyota would be as close as it comes. They spend 1 million per hour in research and development. Toyota does not release a whole brand new design at once, they do it in stages.
Toyota is more concerned with reliability than the latest gadgets. Example, 2017 tundra vs 2017 dodge ram in terms of electronics and gadgets the dodge wins easily. Reliability, with motor/transmission, and just overall, toyota wins.
Toyota is more concerned with reliability than the latest gadgets. Example, 2017 tundra vs 2017 dodge ram in terms of electronics and gadgets the dodge wins easily. Reliability, with motor/transmission, and just overall, toyota wins.
Originally Posted By: red7404
they are doing what the computer co did. YOU are the Bata tester.
Would you prefer a '78 Cordoba to a late model Honda or Chevrolet?
Please be honest!
they are doing what the computer co did. YOU are the Bata tester.
Would you prefer a '78 Cordoba to a late model Honda or Chevrolet?
Please be honest!
They have durability testing for parts and components that stresses vehicle trying got simulate 150k driving in short period.
Ford is REALLY bad at this. It's like they only test their engines on paper and then start pumping them out by the millions. Ever hear of a 6.0 Powerstroke? *sigh* Far from the only engine catastrophe Ford has witnessed...
Originally Posted By: Imp4
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...
Call me crazy, but if I could buy a brand new 1978/2018 Chrysler Córdoba with a 400 big block Chrysler and a 727. AC, cruise all the options. I could maintain it on a shoestring budget and fix absolutely everything on the entire car with common tools at my house. I'd take that over a 2018 Accord all day every day.
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...
Call me crazy, but if I could buy a brand new 1978/2018 Chrysler Córdoba with a 400 big block Chrysler and a 727. AC, cruise all the options. I could maintain it on a shoestring budget and fix absolutely everything on the entire car with common tools at my house. I'd take that over a 2018 Accord all day every day.
Originally Posted By: littleant
. 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. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them.
Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. I have a 2006 Ranger with that engine and I fully expect it to go at least 200k with no timing chain issues.
. 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. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them.
Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. I have a 2006 Ranger with that engine and I fully expect it to go at least 200k with no timing chain issues.
The 1970's a tough decade for U.S. auto makers. Trying to play catch up with Toyota -Datson- Honda with the Pinto Colt Vega. Chevy engines in Pontiac's - Oldsmobile. Buick converting a gas engine to diesel. Everything changed with insurance and gas prices. Thanks for the input guys.
Originally Posted By: OilFilters
Ford is REALLY bad at this. It's like they only test their engines on paper and then start pumping them out by the millions. Ever hear of a 6.0 Powerstroke? *sigh* Far from the only engine catastrophe Ford has witnessed...
Try again, The 6.0L Powerstroke is NOT a Ford engine.....
Ford is REALLY bad at this. It's like they only test their engines on paper and then start pumping them out by the millions. Ever hear of a 6.0 Powerstroke? *sigh* Far from the only engine catastrophe Ford has witnessed...
Try again, The 6.0L Powerstroke is NOT a Ford engine.....
Originally Posted By: exranger06
... Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. ...
Eight years is a long time to get around to fixing a serious problem that should've been predictable from basic durability testing. VW took about that long to correct the unusually short-lived valve stem seals in their early (i.e., 1973-80) water-cooled engines that typically guzzled oil after they passed 40k or so.
... Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. ...
Eight years is a long time to get around to fixing a serious problem that should've been predictable from basic durability testing. VW took about that long to correct the unusually short-lived valve stem seals in their early (i.e., 1973-80) water-cooled engines that typically guzzled oil after they passed 40k or so.
Originally Posted By: E365
Because there’s only so much testing you can do. Even with 50 or 100 test cars running basically non-stop for maybe a year. That’s peanuts compared to 500,000 cars in consumers hands for a decade.
You can bet that those parts were built, machined, etc dead nuts on the tolerances too. Once they go to full-scale production, they rely on "statistical analysis". In layman's terms, that means they know, and accept, that so many parts will be out of spec. Will they be caught by inspections ? Not always....
Because there’s only so much testing you can do. Even with 50 or 100 test cars running basically non-stop for maybe a year. That’s peanuts compared to 500,000 cars in consumers hands for a decade.
You can bet that those parts were built, machined, etc dead nuts on the tolerances too. Once they go to full-scale production, they rely on "statistical analysis". In layman's terms, that means they know, and accept, that so many parts will be out of spec. Will they be caught by inspections ? Not always....
Originally Posted By: Blueskies123
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.
Exactly! And the mandatory car inspection program is so rigorous and extensive that Japanese auto engineers get a very good idea of what's going on very early in the product cycle; and well before these models are exported to the US. So, we think their cars are so reliable and ours junk. Japanese consumers are the testers.
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.
Exactly! And the mandatory car inspection program is so rigorous and extensive that Japanese auto engineers get a very good idea of what's going on very early in the product cycle; and well before these models are exported to the US. So, we think their cars are so reliable and ours junk. Japanese consumers are the testers.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: littleant
. 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. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them.
Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. I have a 2006 Ranger with that engine and I fully expect it to go at least 200k with no timing chain issues.
Unfortunately the timing chain issues did continue till 2010 but to a lesser degree. Ford did not update the rear cassette that requires the engine to be removed to repair.2006-2010 can go 200,000 miles. Maintenance is everything.
Originally Posted By: littleant
. 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. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them.
Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. I have a 2006 Ranger with that engine and I fully expect it to go at least 200k with no timing chain issues.
Unfortunately the timing chain issues did continue till 2010 but to a lesser degree. Ford did not update the rear cassette that requires the engine to be removed to repair.2006-2010 can go 200,000 miles. Maintenance is everything.
Many years ago in the early 1980's, I worked as a wrench-tech on a Ford 2.3L turbo roller camshaft design. We did dyno testing, emissions testing and so on. Prob 150 different dyno runs. The engine made 175-205HP depending on year.
Once the camshaft profile was finalized, it was produced and installed in the upcoming Mustang SVO. Sure, a few cars were driven around before they hit the market, some.... The good news is that Ford knew how to make the parts properly and they held up well.
The Ecoboost on the F150 is probably the exception. That engine was tested like crazy before production and it still had unforeseen problems with intercooler moisture condensate and subsequent water ingestion upon heavy throttle.
Once the camshaft profile was finalized, it was produced and installed in the upcoming Mustang SVO. Sure, a few cars were driven around before they hit the market, some.... The good news is that Ford knew how to make the parts properly and they held up well.
The Ecoboost on the F150 is probably the exception. That engine was tested like crazy before production and it still had unforeseen problems with intercooler moisture condensate and subsequent water ingestion upon heavy throttle.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: littleant
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: littleant
. 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. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them.
Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. I have a 2006 Ranger with that engine and I fully expect it to go at least 200k with no timing chain issues.
Unfortunately the timing chain issues did continue till 2010 but to a lesser degree. Ford did not update the rear cassette that requires the engine to be removed to repair.2006-2010 can go 200,000 miles. Maintenance is everything.
Those timing chain issues were blown out of proportion. Yes, they were an issue no doubt, but not the issue they're made out to be. The 4.0 SOHC can easily go 200k, even the early models. A friend of mine has a 2001 Sport Trac pushing 300k, all on regular oil every 3k miles. Does it rattle? Sure. It's been rattling for the last 150k miles. Still runs like a top.
Automakers can only test for so many variables. They use salt chambers to subject cars to 10 years worth of Midwest winter road conditions in a matter of days. The problem is they just don't have the time to let these things play out. You can't possibly plan for everything, even with computer simulations and exhaustive testing. One could argue it's more difficult to make a vehicle last 10 years than it is to make an airliner last for 25.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: littleant
. 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. The two Ford issues i mentioned were resolved 9 years later when they stopped making them.
Ford 4.0 timing issues were 1997-2004. 1997 was the first year they made that engine, and they installed upgraded parts starting in 2005. I have a 2006 Ranger with that engine and I fully expect it to go at least 200k with no timing chain issues.
Unfortunately the timing chain issues did continue till 2010 but to a lesser degree. Ford did not update the rear cassette that requires the engine to be removed to repair.2006-2010 can go 200,000 miles. Maintenance is everything.
Those timing chain issues were blown out of proportion. Yes, they were an issue no doubt, but not the issue they're made out to be. The 4.0 SOHC can easily go 200k, even the early models. A friend of mine has a 2001 Sport Trac pushing 300k, all on regular oil every 3k miles. Does it rattle? Sure. It's been rattling for the last 150k miles. Still runs like a top.
Automakers can only test for so many variables. They use salt chambers to subject cars to 10 years worth of Midwest winter road conditions in a matter of days. The problem is they just don't have the time to let these things play out. You can't possibly plan for everything, even with computer simulations and exhaustive testing. One could argue it's more difficult to make a vehicle last 10 years than it is to make an airliner last for 25.
agreed on one condition, it has to have the opera lighting and the vinyl roof.
Then there's the choice of Halo or Landau vinyl roof with elegant opera windows and slender opera lamps
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1975-1979-chrysler-cordoba3.htm
Then there's the choice of Halo or Landau vinyl roof with elegant opera windows and slender opera lamps
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/1975-1979-chrysler-cordoba3.htm
Originally Posted By: hallstevenson
You can bet that those parts were built, machined, etc dead nuts on the tolerances too. Once they go to full-scale production, they rely on "statistical analysis". In layman's terms, that means they know, and accept, that so many parts will be out of spec. Will they be caught by inspections ? Not always....
Based on you comments it is starkly obvious that you have zero insight into statistical process control for high volume manufacturing.
Here's a great video from the W Edwards Deming institute that begins to scratch the surface on statistical techniques.
Maybe it can help you to begin to get educated.
It's a little long at 38 minutes and Deming is old in the video, but if you can't bear to watch it or you don't know who Deming is, then you're really in no position to talk about the subject.
Full stop.
Looking forward to your response!
You can bet that those parts were built, machined, etc dead nuts on the tolerances too. Once they go to full-scale production, they rely on "statistical analysis". In layman's terms, that means they know, and accept, that so many parts will be out of spec. Will they be caught by inspections ? Not always....
Based on you comments it is starkly obvious that you have zero insight into statistical process control for high volume manufacturing.
Here's a great video from the W Edwards Deming institute that begins to scratch the surface on statistical techniques.
Maybe it can help you to begin to get educated.
It's a little long at 38 minutes and Deming is old in the video, but if you can't bear to watch it or you don't know who Deming is, then you're really in no position to talk about the subject.
Full stop.
Looking forward to your response!
Originally Posted By: FlyNavyP3
Call me crazy, but if I could buy a brand new 1978/2018 Chrysler Córdoba with a 400 big block Chrysler and a 727. AC, cruise all the options. I could maintain it on a shoestring budget and fix absolutely everything on the entire car with common tools at my house. I'd take that over a 2018 Accord all day every day.
Ok, since you asked for it!
You're crazy.
The sad part is your Cordoba will need to be fixed.
Early and often.
No car maker that's getting my money is going to sell me a steaming pile with the promise that it's easy to work on and can be maintained on a shoestring. No thanks!
I'll take one that doesn't break in the first place, thank you very much!
Holy cow, are we actually having a discussion about whether to buy a new 2018 sedan versus a '78 Cordoba and basing the conversational exchange on quality?!?
I think my brain is melting....
Call me crazy, but if I could buy a brand new 1978/2018 Chrysler Córdoba with a 400 big block Chrysler and a 727. AC, cruise all the options. I could maintain it on a shoestring budget and fix absolutely everything on the entire car with common tools at my house. I'd take that over a 2018 Accord all day every day.
Ok, since you asked for it!
You're crazy.
The sad part is your Cordoba will need to be fixed.
Early and often.
No car maker that's getting my money is going to sell me a steaming pile with the promise that it's easy to work on and can be maintained on a shoestring. No thanks!
I'll take one that doesn't break in the first place, thank you very much!
Holy cow, are we actually having a discussion about whether to buy a new 2018 sedan versus a '78 Cordoba and basing the conversational exchange on quality?!?
I think my brain is melting....
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Originally Posted By: OilFilters
Ford is REALLY bad at this. It's like they only test their engines on paper and then start pumping them out by the millions. Ever hear of a 6.0 Powerstroke? *sigh* Far from the only engine catastrophe Ford has witnessed...
Try again, The 6.0L Powerstroke is NOT a Ford engine.....
Try again, the Powerstroke 6.0L is indeed a Ford design. The International VT365 is a different engine and does not suffer from the same embarrassing problems as the Ford. International dealers will not work on the Ford or sell parts for it. Ford made several major changes and added around 100hp to the pickup version of the engine and all of these changes were complete and total failures/stupid designs.
And like I said, far from the only Ford engine to have RIDICULOUS levels of problems. Ford uses it's buyers to do the long term reliability testing.
Originally Posted By: OilFilters
Ford is REALLY bad at this. It's like they only test their engines on paper and then start pumping them out by the millions. Ever hear of a 6.0 Powerstroke? *sigh* Far from the only engine catastrophe Ford has witnessed...
Try again, The 6.0L Powerstroke is NOT a Ford engine.....
Try again, the Powerstroke 6.0L is indeed a Ford design. The International VT365 is a different engine and does not suffer from the same embarrassing problems as the Ford. International dealers will not work on the Ford or sell parts for it. Ford made several major changes and added around 100hp to the pickup version of the engine and all of these changes were complete and total failures/stupid designs.
And like I said, far from the only Ford engine to have RIDICULOUS levels of problems. Ford uses it's buyers to do the long term reliability testing.
This thread is such a study in the availability heuristic...
Guys, any big manufacturer makes TONS of engines. Try doing some quick math to figure out how low their failure rate would have to be so that you wouldn't easily be able to think of a few duds.
Some are better, some are worse. Some are awful. But to suggest that they don't even try is ridiculous.
Unless what you mean by "REALLY test long-term durability" is "test to the point that they're 100% sure that zero engines will fail prematurely" or something. In which case... no, they obviously don't. Because that's impossible.
Guys, any big manufacturer makes TONS of engines. Try doing some quick math to figure out how low their failure rate would have to be so that you wouldn't easily be able to think of a few duds.
Some are better, some are worse. Some are awful. But to suggest that they don't even try is ridiculous.
Unless what you mean by "REALLY test long-term durability" is "test to the point that they're 100% sure that zero engines will fail prematurely" or something. In which case... no, they obviously don't. Because that's impossible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky