Industry-wide engine failures: the whys, at least some of them...

[Ace-Garageguy]

NOTE TO MODS: PLEASE don't focus on the mention of gubmint and delete or lock this for being "political", as has been done before.

You simply can NOT address the state of today's automobile industry and the engineering and production issues faced by same without acknowledging the root causes.

This is primarily important factual information that any owner or prospective buyer of a newer vehicle needs to be made aware of, and information they're just not going to get from legacy media or the web without digging for it.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:08 AM by Ace-Garageguy
punctiliousness

[stavanzer]

Great Information!

I think his thoughts about the lifting of the Obama/Biden CAFE standards are accurate.

Trucks are going to get weaker and more complex. 

Suddenly, keeping  my 2008 Chevy running well assumes greater importance.

[maxwell48098]

I understood everything this guy was saying about the demands that EPA regulation have had on engine durability. I too subscribe to Automotive News and have for 55 years. But then he got to the dooms day prediction about increased engine failures because the Trump administration is lower fuel economy standards in 2031 that probably would allow auto companies to go back to improving durability without fear of hurting fuel economy resulting in fines for not meeting the radical standards.  The 2031 standards 50.4 MPG would have required nearly all vehicles sold to be battery electric even though the public remains skeptical of them as their sole vehicle.  Lowering the standard to a more reasonable 34.5 mpg, the US industry claims will save at least $35 billion (which includes warranty costs) through 2031 and the average upfront vehicle costs would decline by about $930/vehicle. The revised stand will also eliminate the stop/start cycle the video claimed was a major contributor to the engine failures, and is actually despised by nearly 80%of current ICE powered vehicle per AN articles. owners.The best thing is for the industry to provide vehicle choices for the customers base3d on their wants and needs, and not government regulation limiting vehicle power train choices.

I spent 45 years of my life with a career in the auto industry in all aspects from vehicle/component design to quality to repair, and I'm still a student of the industry today.

 

FYI - Since EPA fuel economy standards affect nearly all aspects of vehicle design as anything that saves even a couple of ounces can result in fuel savings when spread over a 1,000,000 vehicle fleet.

 

[peteski]

18 hours ago, maxwell48098 said:

FYI - Since EPA fuel economy standards affect nearly all aspects of vehicle design as anything that saves even a couple of ounces can result in fuel savings when spread over a 1,000,000 vehicle fleet.

Remove half of the on-board computers dedicated to the very driver-distracting infotainment and "luxury" features in modern cars. That will be more than few ounces, and provide safer driving experience.

[Lunajammer]

Much of the American car market drives monstrously, gratuitously, excessively large grocery getters and daily commuters. Changing the American attitude about how much is enough might knock half that fleet down to a reasonable, practical size where fleet MPGs might improve without painful sacrifices. Obviously, that's a sweeping, unpopular generalization.

[Deathgoblin]

A lot of engine reliability and the lack thereof also relies on some very poor engineering.  Excessive use of cheap plastic parts in places where they shouldn't be, too-small oil return passages causing sludge buildup and engines starving themselves of oil, too thin/too fine threads on bolts so parts don't hold down correctly, etc.  And an overreliance on the computer to take over for the driver when they aren't paying attention.  

[maxwell48098]

2 hours ago, peteski said:

Remove half of the on-board computers dedicated to the very driver-distracting infotainment and "luxury" features in modern cars. That will be more than few ounces, and provide safer driving experience.

Actually those modules SAVE weight by incorporating functions that reduces the weight of things like switches, relays, wiring and connectors.  As for features included in the vehicles today, they still have hundreds of focus groups with actual/potential customers, magazine writers, on-line influencers , and competitive.  And today's microprocessors have the capability to replace dozens smaller components, thus saving weight while increasing the features that the majority of consumers desire and lower the cost to provide those features.  When's the last time you saw a new vehicle with manual door locks or windows? I have a '78 Dodge Magnum GT in my garage equipped that way right now.  My grand kids loving those gadgets!

[maxwell48098]

1 hour ago, Lunajammer said:

Much of the American car market drives monstrously, gratuitously, excessively large grocery getters and daily commuters. Changing the American attitude about how much is enough might knock half that fleet down to a reasonable, practical size where fleet MPGs might improve without painful sacrifices. Obviously, that's a sweeping, unpopular generalization.

Look at the size of the full size passenger cars of the '50's-'90's and you'll understand that today's vehicles are considerably smaller, with higher fuel economy, nearly zero emissions, and dramatically safer.  Full size pickups have pretty much stayed the same size with fuel economy dramatically higher, emissions 95% less, and outstanding safety abilities.

The nice things is that Americans have the wide array of choices to purchase the vehicle that they want, and not limited by government control of the vehicle market.

 

A.J.

[Mattilacken]

It’s sad that we are hesitating buying used vehicles nowadays due to massive failures. I just traded my 2015 Jeep GC Summit with the 3.0l Eco diesel which is prone to bearing failures, just because I don’t trust it any longer, have had two crankshaft sensors that went. I went with a 2016 Lexus hybrid instead, it’s a Toyota with tested engine at least. And it’s my wife’s DD, and what we will take on the longer trips. Seems god so far but as I said, sad the industry have gone the way it has with damaged engines and sow on.

[maxwell48098]

2 hours ago, Mattilacken said:

It’s sad that we are hesitating buying used vehicles nowadays due to massive failures. I just traded my 2015 Jeep GC Summit with the 3.0l Eco diesel which is prone to bearing failures, just because I don’t trust it any longer, have had two crankshaft sensors that went. I went with a 2016 Lexus hybrid instead, it’s a Toyota with tested engine at least. And it’s my wife’s DD, and what we will take on the longer trips. Seems god so far but as I said, sad the industry have gone the way it has with damaged engines and sow on.

Did you look at the video and all of Toyota engines involved in the massive failures?

[AJ48085]

I was actually surprised by the auto companies involved with this problem,  I guess even the highly regarded Japanese companies can have big problems like any other global manufacturer.  Ever notice that even the highly regarded brands all have sizeable dealership service facilities.............and they're doing more than maintenance in them.

[Mattilacken]

50 minutes ago, maxwell48098 said:

Did you look at the video and all of Toyota engines involved in the massive failures?

I saw that.. just hope it’s not mine 🤣

[Ace-Garageguy]

8 hours ago, maxwell48098 said:

Actually those modules SAVE weight by incorporating functions that reduces the weight of things like switches, relays, wiring and connectors...

That's a popular refrain, and it's simply not true. For instance: You still have a switch. You have to have a high-current-carrying device that functions as a relay, but it's buried in a module. So when the internal relay fails, rather than just replacing a cheap relay, you have to replace an entire module for ten times the cost. The module is also an additional layer of complication between the switch and whatever you want to turn on of off. When its logic fails, or a single non-mission-critical sensor fails, or its connection to the rest of the systems in the car fails, it can brick the entire vehicle. (EDIT: A while back I saw a gas-powered Hyundai that was bricked when the CAN-bus connection to its backup camera failed; how is this possible in a rationally-designed electrical system?) And you still have wires running everywhere, with connectors. Things controlled by modules aren't worked by magic waves. 

"As for features included in the vehicles today, they still have hundreds of focus groups with actual/potential customers, magazine writers, on-line influencers , and competitive." Yeah, people who know zip about how reality works or have even the foggiest notion of basic engineering principles being consulted as to what should be in cars. Makes perfect sense.

"And today's microprocessors have the capability to replace dozens smaller components, thus saving weight while increasing the features that the majority of consumers desire and lower the cost to provide those features." Another popular refrain that's misleading at best, an outright lie at worst. But I see it rebleated constantly. The only things microprocessors need to do in surface vehicles are engine and drivetrain management to achieve mandated fuel efficiency and emissions. Every single other use for them in vehicles is poorly reasoned-out overcomplication. There is simply no need for a microprocessor to run something like...say...windshield wipers. You need a switch that's the driver-interface component. You need a few wires from the switch to the wiper motor. You need a wiper motor. And the simple old delay/multispeed circuits worked forever and were cheap when they failed. All these things are present in a microprocessor-controlled windshield wiper system, PLUS a computer module that costs a lot and only makes the system less reliable and much more costly to repair.

But..."muh technology!!!"

Edited 20 hours ago by Ace-Garageguy
accuracy

[Tim W. SoCal]

42 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

"As for features included in the vehicles today, they still have hundreds of focus groups with actual/potential customers, magazine writers, on-line influencers , and competitive." Yeah, people who know zip about how reality works or have even the foggiest notion of basic engineering principles being consulted as to what should be in cars. Makes perfect sense.

This brings to mind the Scion XB. Basically designed by focus groups for the youth market. After a couple of sales years, the most common complaints were the bass in the sound system wasn't thumpy enough and the air conditioning took too long to blow refrigerated air from the dash vents. (Yeah, leave a black metal and plastic box in the hot California sun with the windows all rolled up tight for a few hours and it just might take the A/C a minute or so to cool the 145 degree ducting in the 145 degree interior of the car enough to blast 45 degree air from the dash vents)

Edited 21 hours ago by Tim W. SoCal

[oldcarfan]

12 hours ago, peteski said:

Remove half of the on-board computers dedicated to the very driver-distracting infotainment and "luxury" features in modern cars. That will be more than few ounces, and provide safer driving experience.

In general I agree about computers and the weight savings, but dash controls are my current pet peeve. Last year we traded our old 2nd gen RX350 for a 4th gen version and I'm not impressed with the interior. The old one also had a lot of electronics, but it was arranged in a relatively intuitive way. You could perform most functions without taking your eyes off the road. Not so much anymore. 

It wasn't that long ago that everyone was making texting illegal because it takes your attention away from driving and they had a point. Things always get more complicated, but the way these systems are engineered is just as unsafe as texting. On a lot of cars, you have to navigate multiple screens to change settings that could be done by a knob or button without taking your eyes off the road.

I sound like an old man yelling at a cloud but this is as bad as texting. 

 

[stavanzer]

 

Our Modern cars are over-complicated, electronic Death Traps.

As you know, weight is the ultimate mileage killer. Yet, all we hear about is "Hybrid-This & Hybrid That" all with Tiny, over revving turbo-charged engines, and heavy battery packs. All decently trained engineers, know the physics, and know that physics cannot ever be cheated. But, Idiot Government Functionaries, and Stupid 20-something Senatorial Aides drive our regulations, not Numbers-Driven Engineers. So we have the current mess.

But, the Quality Problems, Complexity Problems, and Cost Problems are gong to solve themselves in a few more years. The Entire Edifice, will collapse from it's own internal contradictions in that time. (at least here in the USA and Western Europe) The rest of the world neither likes or uses our (Now) Stupid rules. They will be fine.

So will we when the government can no longer regulate automotive designs or issues.    

Edited 18 hours ago by stavanzer
Changed Wording

[oldcarfan]

14 minutes ago, stavanzer said:

 

Our Modern cars are over-complicated, electronic Death Traps.

As you know, weight is the ultimate mileage killer. Yet, all we hear about is "Hybrid-This & Hybrid That" all with Tiny, over revving turbo-charged engines, and heavy battery packs. All decently trained engineers, know the physics, and know that physics cannot ever be cheated. But, Idiot Government Functionaries, and Stupid 20-something Senatorial Aides drive our regulations, not Numbers-Driven Engineers. So we have the current mess.

But, the Quality Problems, Complexity Problems, and Cost Problems are gong to solve themselves in a few more years. The Entire Edifice, will collapse from it's own internal contradictions in that time. (at least here in the USA and Western Europe) The rest of the world neither likes or uses our (Now) Stupid rules. They will be fine.

So will we when the government can no longer regulate automotive designs or issues.    

Our local Chevy dealer has had a new Hummer truck on the floor for a long time. I looked at it out of curiosity and it wieghs over 9,000 pounds. To me that is way past ridiculous. They should have named it the Canyonero.

[MeatMan]

Why these companies putting out vehicles that they had to have known would fail in this fashion. They have cold & hot environment test tracks, millions of miles of test driving on roads, and computer sims that these issues had to have surfaced in one or more of these situations. I believe they are playing the odds, balancing the cost of the fixes and delays in model launch, vs. the cost of recalls, and its reputation damage.

[oldcarfan]

Even Toyota hasn't been immune. They've  over a hundred thousand  trucks with the VC35A V6 twin turbo and I've heard they're having trouble with the small turbo 4 as well. Toyota has always had a reputation for dependability and I have to wonder how they could let something like this happen.

 

[maxwell48098]

"Our local Chevy dealer has had a new Hummer truck on the floor for a long time. I looked at it out of curiosity and it wieghs over 9,000 pounds. To me that is way past ridiculous. They should have named it the Canyonero."

 

Now take out the 3,000 pounds of battery, and it brings it down to a more normal, premium large SUV weight.  All of that battery weight is why EVs tend to ride smoother.

 

A.J.

 

[stavanzer]

4 hours ago, maxwell48098 said:

Now take out the 3,000 pounds of battery, and it brings it down to a more normal, premium large SUV weight.  All of that battery weight is why EVs tend to ride smoother.

All that weight makes for more tire wear, ponderous handling, and worsens the Mileage.

I've ridden in a 1932 Chrysler Phaeton that rides better than any Cadillac I've ever been in, so the "heavy battery/smooth ride' argument holds no water with me.

[Ace-Garageguy]

39 minutes ago, stavanzer said:

All that weight makes for more tire wear, ponderous handling, and worsens the Mileage.

I've ridden in a 1932 Chrysler Phaeton that rides better than any Cadillac I've ever been in, so the "heavy battery/smooth ride' argument holds no water with me.

KInda funny that in what a lot of people view as the dark ages of vehicle design, two of the favorite phrases were "that big car ride" and "a heavy car holds the road".

What kills "ride" to a large extent is a thing called "unsprung weight".

The higher the percentage of unsprung weight to overall vehicle weight, the more something rides like an empty old truck on stiff springs, crashing and banging on every road imperfection.

The huge wheels / tires that are fashionable today are very heavy, account for a good bit of unnecessary unsprung weight, and have a lot to do with many late model vehicles having a rough, jarring ride.

Yeah, making the overall vehicle heavier is one way to decrease the percentage of unsprung weight to make something ride softer.

But it's the idiot's way.

Far as "road holding" goes, weight, any weight, is the enemy.

Just look at Can Am cars for any proof you might need.

700-1000 HP, 1500 pounds.

PS: My light little Neon on 15" alloy rims rides remarkably well for a cheap small car...because its unsprung weight is pretty minimal considering what it cost to build it. The rear suspension is an independent lightweight affair with tubular control arms that would be right at home on a real race car.

 

 

Edited 53 minutes ago by Ace-Garageguy
accuracy