Is there a list of failure percentages for the manufactured stuff?
Are the vehicles being tested correctly now?
Are the vehicles being tested correctly now?
Toyota Apologizes for Cheating on Vehicle Testing
- Thread starter The Lube Guy
- Start date
You make a valid point. I was addressing the emissions and how strict they've become, and that choke hold only seems to get tighter and tighter. Diesel engines were once great engines imo, now I really have my doubts about them in passenger cars and light trucks. I'm not advocating cheating, it seems to be more common now.
I asked you to explain what you meant, in your post I quoted. You have yet to do that.
Little known forgotten history, as a prior tri-5 Chevy owner.
In the mid fifties, ford caught up to Chevy and began to overtake them. The race was on to improve performance. Both were trying to lighten their chassis, both were trying to get bigger engines out. In 1955 or so, Chevy saw that based on sales, markets, and the competition, 1957 was a critical year. They evaluated that if they didn’t get the 283 V8 out, they would not be able to compete with ford, and they didn’t have the pockets to sustain. They were also very behind in the development of the 283. They took a gamble. The 283 was never tested. It went straight from design to tooling and production. Zero testing. Fortunately, except for soft iron which wore stupid-fast even by 1980s standards, it was a hot motor that could rev and make power.
No, can’t cite the source - it’s been many years since I owned one and kept up with it. But hedges and bets get made.
In the mid fifties, ford caught up to Chevy and began to overtake them. The race was on to improve performance. Both were trying to lighten their chassis, both were trying to get bigger engines out. In 1955 or so, Chevy saw that based on sales, markets, and the competition, 1957 was a critical year. They evaluated that if they didn’t get the 283 V8 out, they would not be able to compete with ford, and they didn’t have the pockets to sustain. They were also very behind in the development of the 283. They took a gamble. The 283 was never tested. It went straight from design to tooling and production. Zero testing. Fortunately, except for soft iron which wore stupid-fast even by 1980s standards, it was a hot motor that could rev and make power.
No, can’t cite the source - it’s been many years since I owned one and kept up with it. But hedges and bets get made.
Yes. I'd argue that the current and proposed standards, collision, emissions, etc. are excessive and so far beyond the point of diminishing marginal returns for cost and complexity to make any sense. Stepping down from soapbox...
It's interesting that you mentioned that. From my understanding of vehicle testing most companies use prototypes for three years before a new vehicle hits the market. I'm not sure if it's still true but supposedly Christian Von Koenigsegg said that the NHTSA required something on the order of a million miles of testing which I'd never heard of.
The VW corruption was designed in and approved by top level people, this Toyota thing looks to me to be an admission by Toyota that their standard practices were not followed before releasing a design to the market, entirely different types of bad practice.
If all levels of Toyota engineering signed off on this then it would be just as bad as VW's lying. As to how Toyota will repair damages to their reputation and customer relations is TBD, but they have a good record for making things right (Frame failure example)
If all levels of Toyota engineering signed off on this then it would be just as bad as VW's lying. As to how Toyota will repair damages to their reputation and customer relations is TBD, but they have a good record for making things right (Frame failure example)
No one outside of engineering seems to understand this concept, especially the ones that make the regulations. They believe everything follows Moore's law.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2024
- Messages
- 780
While I am not entirely familiar with the specific NHTSA requirements, I believe that a million miles of testing is relatively modest, particularly when conducted in parallel using multiple test mules. For a company like Koenigsegg, achieving this might be more challenging compared to a mass automotive producer.
For instance, Chrysler subjected the original Pentastar engine to four million miles of testing before it went into production. This engine is well-engineered, with a robust bottom end. Notably, any issues with the Pentastar have been related to suppliers cutting corners to save costs, rather than flaws in its design. This is why I previously emphasized that Toyota should have conducted tests on production engines.
You realize the OEM has to approve any and all changes to spec, and can and do reject parts on delivery? If the supplier delivers a different part, its been approved as equivalent.
No, it's Elon's fault. He's wack.
Either that or it's a plan to overthrow the ... Or maybe the end of the world?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2022
- Messages
- 835
How does FCA detect insufficient/improper heat treatment or hardening on some needle bearings in lifters on an order of 1+ million lifters?
How would they detect a cam lobe is soft?
This is well outside my wheelhouse but from a laymans perspective it would seem there are many ways parts can slip through the system that are not produced per spec.
I read Good to Great many years ago and then sometime later realized a third of those "great" companies do not exist anymore. Ultimately, Toyota is only as good as their current executives and products plus some goodwill for historically being reliable since reputation lags current reality many times. I'm sure the boys at Circuit City thought they'd be a great company forever but at some point things changed.
Last edited:
The OP stated that FCA issue's were related to suppliers "cutting corners". Possibly true but that does not absolve FCA. The OEM can do their own quality testing, either sample testing or non-destructive testing such as x-ray or vision systems, and those can and often are provided on site to the supplier for critical parts, and are maintained by the OEM's own quality people.
In the case of FCA's, if the heat treat process is bunk then it should be pervasive and show up in testing. Who BTW made the cam's - asking only out of passing interest?
Not saying this absolves the supplier, or that suppliers don't screw up, but the OEM owns it just as much. You can't hand a critical part to a 3rd party, forget about it, then blame the 3rd party when it goes South. That's why Henry Ford himself made everything from Rubber to Glass at Dearborn.
Boeing?
I argued vigorously in my business law class that some degree of business regulation is needed because focus on profits used to mean sustainable profits and medium to long-term thinking but now the thinking is so short-term many businesses will happily cut off their nose to spite their face.
It amazes me since warranty expenses still make it onto the income statement, just farther down. A company can skimp on R&D and testing to save money on the top line and then just spend it on warranty expenses which many times greatly exceed the original amount saved above.
Last edited:
Possibly...time will tell but they seem well on their way.
....and this doesn't even factor in the harm to reputation and sales from having a reputation of skimping on R&D and making unreliable products.
Well they are hung on the balance sheet, so analyzing the accrual vs. the timing and amount of recognition of the expense should provide some insight to quality, or at least Management's estimation of product quality.
I owned the technical acctg. function for an at the time $15B company, including the warranty accrual. It was actually a fascinating process and calculation; essentially a massive 3d waterfall spreadsheet w/ layers of new prod rolling on, layers rolling off and expected costs/unit as a function of probability of failure, service and component costs, and adjusted for extended warranty giveaways, etc. Fascinating, but mind numbing....
"We ain't got time to build it right, but we sure got time to fix it later!"
Then Deming and Toyota changed the world.
Then Deming and Toyota changed the world.
