This video is posted on discussion about Z4.
I think video is absolute BS, but it seems that same thing is being told by these wannabe "journalists" around internet.
Toyota definitely had its own testing sequence. But, when you are cut out 6 months from testing, that means you are getting car someone else built it for you, and you are getting what that company will let you get. Now, I personally think it is scandalous that Toyota would allow itself to be cut out 6 months from testing. Either that means that Toyota was willing to do anything BMW told them, or they do not have capacity to do it, or sources are lying (I am going with sources are lying). But, people cannot cheery pick these videos and cling on "Toyota check for their quality standards, and returned all parts to BMW not meeting them (can someone come check my car than for that "quality") and than say: that is BS that BMW did all testing etc.
Yes, Toyota could develop engine, but probably engine would be be behind BMW. Problem for Toyota that it is risk adverse for a long time, and especially in last 20 years. You cannot abandon anything that is not resembling microwave and than decide to come back. There is a lot of know-how lost since last Supra and 1st gen. IS. If Toyota kept IS with inline 6, manual transmission etc. they probably would be able to do it. However, as I say, once 1st gen. IS dropped average age of Lexus buyer from 115 to 114.9, Toyota got scared and played it safe, putting their mainstream V6 in Lexus, auto slushbox and RWD with tendency to "Audisteer."
Now, why BMW? Who else has that kind of I6 knowledge? And Toyota is buying engines from BMW since D-4D fiasco in Europe. Also, BMW gets their hybrid technology, so of course they are natural partners.
I have no doubts that if BMW decides to develop minivan, Toyota will lead the project
What's your point, edyvw? Let's try to get down to brass tacks here.
Are you saying BMW did most of the important development, and that Toyota didn't fundamentally change anything? If so, that's fine. It's probably true, and I don't think anyone will say otherwise.
Are you saying Toyota had no meaningful say in the process, or that they did nothing to make sure the engine met their standards? If so, that's contrary to the info out there, so you'll have to substantiate it.
Are you saying Toyota somehow wouldn't have the competence to weigh in? If so, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Again, they designed the LFA, including its V10, from the ground up, all in house. Not a lot of complaints about that engine being "behind" anything, including supercar V10s from companies that have been making them a lot longer. And Toyota is well known for having more stringent quality standards than almost any other manufacturer -- standards which, as you know full well, could apply to literally any manufactured item. So yeah, maybe they'd have had a hard time coming up with the B58 on their own. But once it exists, they're perfectly capable of commenting on it.
Anecdotes mean little. Every manufacturer has duds and ringers, and with hundreds of thousands of cars in the wild, it stands to reason that some people will have more luck with BMW than others have had with Toyota. In this context, what really counts is the on-average reality. On average, just as BMW has a better record in terms of driving dynamics, Toyota has a better record of making long-lasting engines.
As an aside, I have to say I don't understand why people get so exercised over this. An engine with BMW talents and Toyota longevity? Yes please! Why is that so awful?