Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by edyvw
SUpra video
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?
No, I am not saying Toyota did not have input in it. It would be ridiculous. But I do disagree with this quality BS. Toyota has in the US very high reliability rate because they are absolutely risk adverse, and that is fine. It caters to certain customer base, and Toyota like every other manufacturer is in business of making money, so they found their way. They offered to US customer simple, practical vehicles, and that is fine. However, when Toyota needs to offer more sophisticated and complex vehicles, they are not anymore reliable than anyone else, but they do offer same experience, catered to those barely alive.
In Europe where gallon of gas is $6-8 and they cannot offer in family minivan or other vehicles with their V6 engines running on 20year technology, because, well, it is expensive to run them, they fall short of their reliability status they have here. You cannot talk about quality standards and have issues with rust on so many models. You cannot talk about quality standards and having major diesel engine, catered for biggest diesel market in the world, basically disintegrating at 100k km (issues with rod bearings on BMW M engines are minuscule compared what issues these engines had), or on 1.4 D-4D having fuel pumps capable running basically only on laboratory clean diesel (I was involved in testing fuel quality with Toyota engineers in Southeaster Europe, and it was probably the least reliable engine available in Europe, maybe better than GM/Isuzu 1.6d in Opel's in 80's).
So, these information that are provided are contradictory. BMW started to develop far before Supra project was launched their B38/48/58 family of engines. One cannot state that BMW completely excluded Toyota from testing, after saying Toyota was checking every part for their own quality standards. That is not how this works.
I personally think that Toyota was far more involved than what sources are saying, but also that Toyota lost know-how long time ago when it comes to these types of cars. They did not want to commit a lot of resources, even developing V6 TT engine for Supra (all thing considered, they would not have an issue selling V6 Supra to Supra fans). But issue why Toyota did not go on their own is IMO, far deeper than just engine. They needed platform that is light (their RC, or whatever, is running on too heavy platform), they needed better transmission than what Aisin can offer (not to mention reliability issues around new Aisin's, which negets all this BS about Toyota quality control, as those transmissions do not have issues in BMW's with transverse mounted engines), etc. and all that in car that is affordable. Toyota could go alone, but it would be less of an product than what BMW could offer.
LFA is great car. But, it is far from reliability people associate with Toyota, and that is understandable as it is complex, sophisticated car. That car is product of a F1 when V10's were available.
Point is, Toyota was involved more than what certain sources claim, but also that they were far less capable in developing their own product than what people think, at least not product that would cost $150,000 catered for $50,000 market.