A simple illustration of differences in automotive engineering philosophies...

[Mark]

It's the cheapest way to do it.  They might claim the "safety" angle if someone there actually thought of it while being asked about it, but it's the cheapness that's at the root of it. 

In other cars GM has shoved the battery and other items into other hard-to-access areas.  There's at least one car where the battery is shoved under the front fender, and when the battery terminals corrode it actually shows on the fender.

[Dragline]

My 2010 Chrysler Sebring's battery is in the fender well on the driver's side. Pull the wheel and the the plastic panel. It's on a tray that slides out and allows access.

[johnyrotten]

7 hours ago, Tabbysdaddy said:

The battery is safer towards the windshield. It would be more likely to be ruptured in an accident at the core support. 

Good point 

[Mark]

I can't find it, but there is/was a YouTube short video showing a mechanic trying to remove the cam cover in (IIRC) a Chevy Colorado.

The intake manifold has to come off to get to the cam cover, as it crosses over the top of it.  Somehow that leads to the front cover coming off, and that incorporates the engine's oil pump.  To get all of that off, the oil pan has to come off.  To get to that, he's tearing into the front suspension.

Someone mentioned the first-generation Colorado having been designed be GM and Isuzu.  Actually it was mostly GM, as they reworked most of Isuzu's original work.  I remember test driving one in 2004 when I was looking for a new pickup.  Push the button to roll the passenger side window up/down, and see the interior door panel flexing.  That was the first truck that got scratched off the shopping list.  GM made sure to clear all of the S-10s off the dealer lots before sending out any Colorados (except crew cab 4 X 4s, as the Colorado equivalent wasn't being built yet).  They would have been way smarter to just update the S-10 back then.

[johnyrotten]

12 minutes ago, Mark said:

They would have been way smarter to just update the S-10 back then.

S10's were great little trucks. I briefly owned a '96 long bed, old napa truck. 2.2 had a blown head gasket when I bought it. Common with those. Easy fix as long as the head isn't a pretzel. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

The first really idiotic design stuff I encountered up close and personal was on the Triumph Stag engine, which I worked on at a dealership when they were new. The engine was a SOHC V8 derived from a joint Triumph/Saab inline 4. Saab's little 3-cylinder 2-stroke ring-dings were legendary, but there was just too much reinventing the wheel on their OHC 4-stroke 4, and Triumph really should have known better. The water pump was buried under the intake manifold on the V8 because the designers of the 4 were trying to save length for FWD installations (Saab 99). The timing chains were barely adequate and stretched early. The cylinder heads were retained by studs that went in at different angles. When the heads inevitably warped and blew head gaskets, the studs often seized in the block. Because they went in at different angles, they had to be removed before you could get a head off...but they were too short to get a standard stud puller on. Of course they were provided with a little slot for a screwdriver on the top end, but it failed if the stud was the least bit reluctant to turn. AND...because the head studs went in at different angles, you were severely limited in how much meat could be removed from a warped head.

Engine swaps were almost a necessity. I personally did 3 SBC swaps, one SBF, and have seen aluminum Olds, Buick, and Rover V8 swaps, and a few V6 Buicks.

If you ever encounter a SBC or SBF equipped Stag, IF there's no hole in the hood, I probably did it. I built custom headers for all of mine, so the engine sat lower in the bay, and no need to cut a hole in the hood for air filter clearance. 

Stags had a multitude of other designed-in problems including power steering rack seal issues, window regulators, etc., but I loved them anyway. With styling by Giovanni Michelotti, a full convertible top, an optional hard top, and an integral padded roll bar, they were striking visually and comfortable, and though the OEM engines were junk, they sounded heavenly.

 

[johnyrotten]

10 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

If you ever encounter a SBC or SBF equipped Stag, IF there's no hole in the hood, I probably did it. I built custom headers for all of mine, so the engine sat lower in the bay, and no need to cut a hole in the hood for air filter clearance. 

You take the time to properly troubleshoot the issue and find an appropriate solution with serviceability in mind. They cut the hole for the easy route I take it.

[stitchdup]

I used to help my friend in his auto electric shop. he mainly rebuilt them as being an island means delivery takes a while. we had one guy that had a mildly tuned mk1 mr2. the alternator was tight up behind the drivers seat and bigger than anu of the gaps around it so swapping it meant dismantling the turbo technics kit and engine mounts to make space. we suggested relocating it somewhere with less heat soak but he was adamant that wouldn't work. we pointed out the only other option was to make an inspection panel behind the back seat as 95% of his bill was the dismantling and reassembly. the next time he turned up there was 2 very roughly cut holes behind the driver seat as he cut the first one near the floor when the alternator was by his shoulder, lol. I chucked his mess of a panel away and used one from a bus to neaten it up but it saved him 12 hours of wasted time. i still think moving the alternator to the other side would have been better but it is what it is

[johnyrotten]

18 minutes ago, stitchdup said:

I used to help my friend in his auto electric shop. he mainly rebuilt them as being an island means delivery takes a while. we had one guy that had a mildly tuned mk1 mr2. the alternator was tight up behind the drivers seat and bigger than anu of the gaps around it so swapping it meant dismantling the turbo technics kit and engine mounts to make space. we suggested relocating it somewhere with less heat soak but he was adamant that wouldn't work. we pointed out the only other option was to make an inspection panel behind the back seat as 95% of his bill was the dismantling and reassembly. the next time he turned up there was 2 very roughly cut holes behind the driver seat as he cut the first one near the floor when the alternator was by his shoulder, lol. I chucked his mess of a panel away and used one from a bus to neaten it up but it saved him 12 hours of wasted time. i still think moving the alternator to the other side would have been better but it is what it is

With anything I build,I keep one thing it mind. If it fails,make it easy to change. I can have the engine of my kawasaki out and on the bench in ten minutes. Without a motorcycle jack or stand. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

40 minutes ago, johnyrotten said:

With anything I build,I keep one thing it mind. If it fails,make it easy to change...

I'll have more to say about that later, but that's the way to do things, for sure.

[lucky 130]

I really did not mean for my comets to infer that this was strictly for the auto industry, it does fit, but just about anything. Ever get a chance to see inside of an ATM? The people that designed them never, I mean never planed for the fact the machine to have any maintenace preformed, without taking totally unnecessary parts off, and laying upside down. Thats just one example, there are many many more. Over engeering is real watch for it. It's everywhere.

[Dragline]

Over engineering is as bad as under. The mid 70s saw an ad for Benz with all four doors open and an engineer with his posterior parked on each one. Touting their over engineered door hinges.  Oh there is a lesson GM could have taken from Stuttgart. If you ever climbed into a mid 70's GM anything and felt the door slouch as you opened it then you would appreciate an over engineered door hinge. Wedging and beating GM door hinges is not my idea of fun.

Edited June 24 by Dragline

[johnyrotten]

2 hours ago, Dragline said:

Over engineering is as bad as under. The mid 70s saw an ad for Benz with all four doors open and an engineer with his posterior parked on each one. Touting their over engineered door hinges.  Oh there is a lesson GM could have taken from Stuttgart. If you ever climbed into a mid 70's GM anything and felt the door slouch as you opened it then you would appreciate an over engineered door hinge. Wedging and beating GM door hinges is not my idea of fun.

Some things(vehicle door hinges) should definitely be bomb proof, especially the driver's door. I learned just how heavy an 80's gm g body door was as a dumb 16 year old. 

[Dragline]

I agree with bomb proofing hinges. It just never got done. Even my 2000 Cavalier was not immune. It's a 2 door so they are longer and sure as sugar, the driver's door slouches. Meanwhile the passengers door is like day 1.

[Mark]

If you watched a lot of Supernatural, one thing you might remember is the creaking of the Impala's door hinges.  That car got destroyed and resurrected several times over the course of the series, yet nobody ever thought to tackle those noisy hinges.

[Ace-Garageguy]

13 hours ago, Dragline said:

I agree with bomb proofing hinges. It just never got done. Even my 2000 Cavalier was not immune. It's a 2 door so they are longer and sure as sugar, the driver's door slouches. Meanwhile the passengers door is like day 1.

Late model Ford vans: We do bodywork for vehicles operated by Lockheed here. One common failure is the front door hinge attach points literally ripping out of the pillar at about 30k miles.

We developed a reinforcing retrofit that solves the problem permanently.

Fleet vehicles...like stripper vans...get used and abused hard by people who just don't care.

Seems like Ford might have taken that into consideration during the design phase. Just a little thicker steel in the pillar shell...and maybe a 50 cent doubler plate inside the pillar shell...and there never would have been an issue in the first place.

But I guess their billion-dollar computer simulations never simulated the effect of careless operators repeatedly slinging the doors open against the stops.

Some human with a reality-aware functioning brain has to tell the simulator what to simulate.

The Isuzu Luv trucks had an almost identical problem back in the late '80s-early '90s, which I saw a lot of in my shop, running fleet repair/maintenance for the largest Domino's Pizza franchise on the planet when they still operated small pickups with the 30 minute delivery guarantee.

Back then, by the way, the little Toyota pickups were almost indestructible, well outperforming the little Fords, Isuzus, and Mitsubishis in a variety of areas.

 

 

Edited June 25 by Ace-Garageguy

[stitchdup]

2 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Late model Ford vans: We do bodywork for vehicles operated by Lockheed here. One common failure is the front door hinge attach points literally ripping out of the pillar at about 30k miles.

We developed a reinforcing retrofit that solves the problem permanently.

Fleet vehicles...like stripper vans...get used and abused hard by people who just don't care.

Seems like Ford might have taken that into consideration during the design phase. Just a little thicker steel in the pillar shell...and maybe a 50 cent doubler plate inside the pillar shell...and there never would have been an issue in the first place.

But I guess their-billion dollar computer simulations never simulated the effect of careless operators repeatedly slinging the doors open against the stops.

The Isuzu Luv trucks had an almost identical problem back in the late '80s-early '90s, which I saw a lot of in my shop, running fleet repair/maintenance for the largest Domino's Pizza franchise on the planet when they still operated small pickups with the 30 minute delivery guarantee.

Back then, by the way, the little Toyota pickups were almost indestructible, well outperforming the little Fords, Isuzus, and Mitsubishis in a variety of areas.

 

 

in my area the ford transit was king and there were very few other brands around except a few renaults the council ran. within the last 15 years the vw transporter (t5 and up) have taken overbecause the vw can still be sold after 3 years while the fords are near scrap. the fords got smaller too which didn't help. strangely the fiesta based little transit has lighter doors than the car version, yet the car doors dont damage the hinges while the vans do exactly as you describe. seems an odd thing to copy on both size vans when its casting them thousands of sales

[johnyrotten]

52 minutes ago, stitchdup said:

strangely the fiesta based little transit has lighter doors than the car version, yet the car doors dont damage the hinges while the vans do exactly as you describe. seems an odd thing to copy on both size vans when its casting them thousands of sales

Frequency of use comes into play, the van doors probably see 300% more use and abuse.

[Dragline]

To illustrate, Ace comes along with real world and crushes it.

And the big three were not alone. Smaller companies, wishing to emulate the big CO's go ahead and incorporate all the good things and the bad without even bothering to ask "Is that really the best solution for that?"

Nope, just copy it, warts and all.

Just imagine your job as a small companies Engineer. Copy the good, improve on the bad. A win-win if I'm asked. But why bother? Bean counters AND lazy Engineers.

Now that's 2.

Edited June 25 by Dragline

[Tabbysdaddy]

The GM G series vans have excellent hinges. I've never seen one that the doors don't operate properly. The doors on mine, all six, still open and close like brand new. 

[tbill]

On 6/17/2025 at 8:29 AM, ksnow said:

As a roadside Cadillac tech, I didn't mind the starter under the intake on NothStar's. I could do them in a garage with no jack. Now, the huge battery under the back seat? I didn't like that near as much.

The worst for me was an alternator on a mid 90s Olds cutlass with the 3.6L DOHC. Have to disassemble the entire right front suspension to replace it. 4ish hours and a front end alignment for an alternator.

The 3.4 DOHC alternator job is cake😎

remove tire, lower right side of sub frame, the key to the whole operation is removing the fan and pulley after frame is lowered, then you can slip them right out….., did a ton of them back in the day…..

[Dragline]

6 hours ago, tbill said:

The 3.4 DOHC alternator job is cake😎

remove tire, lower right side of sub frame, the key to the whole operation is removing the fan and pulley after frame is lowered, then you can slip them right out….., did a ton of them back in the day…..

Really? Or my old Cavalier. 13mm socket and a couple of smaller ones for the wires. 10 mins of all tools are present.