Bad Designs
- Thread starter Nicad
- Start date
Oldbmwcoupes
Well-Known Member
modern trash. this really proves the fact that cars are produced in the accounting department rather than in the engineering department.
Having been an engineer, sales and business, and back to engineering for the last 42 years (in that order), here is how it usually/mostly works
- modern engineering of everything is done as a balance in the tension between sales, accounting (business finance) and engineering. All three of these functional entities have a role to play, and rarely are products brought to market without one of the 3.
- Sales wants the max number of desirable features and attributes for free and instantly.
- Business wants the minimum number of needed features/attributes to achieve a target revenue and margin/profit.
- These 2 groups put together the "impossible ask" that gets sent over to engineering.
- As a result, engineers make design and manufacturing compromises that they would most likely not make if profit and time to market were left out of the decision making.
Belt vs chain vs gears to drive the oil pump.
The video complains about having to remove the timing cover to replace a belt.
Seems like an unfair complaint because I have to remove the timing cover to replace lots of key wear parts on my BMW's and other cars. And, belts are commonly used in automotive engines, and work just fine if the design and maintenance plans are well matched. For all we know, that belt is designed to last long enough to be replaced at a prescribed maintenance event (60k or 100k miles).
So, why a belt and not a chain? Cost? Noise? Weight? Wear on the drive sprockets? Ease of manufacture (e.g. less shimming or ?)?
1-time use sump covers: this feels like a cost-dominated decision, but they are also helpful from an NVH standpoint. I believe the automatic transmission pans on BMW's are also one-time use, no?
Having recently rented a Ford Escape, I don’t see myself putting my money on a product that passed their scrutiny for something they considered ready for market. I guess I’d like to think I’m buying a design that maximum math and longevity testing was directed to. Interesting insights JFeng.
Sad and closely related story. Many moons ago my team had designed a wonderful automotive part that handily surpassed the current favorite in performance, packaging, and value. As we were wrapping up the design the sales organization fought me tooth and nail on the cost of anti-corrosion coating. I wanted the good one which cost $0.50 more and increased the selling price by a whopping 2% The sales folks said 2% was enough to cause us to lose the contracts we were pursuing. Both coatings passed had the carmaker’s required corrosion testing (the cheap one just by the skin of your teeth the good one by w wider margin). So, I gave in, we cut 50 cents out of an $25 part, and we won lots of global business. After 3-4years we started to see inordinately high failures caused by … corrosion. These cars only had a 3-year factory warranty. So while it didn’t cost us or the car maker much $, it sure made a lot of unhappy consumers. It was a hard lesson, and the next time the sales team told me to cut corners and go against my engineering instincts I didn’t give in, and in fact got involved in sales to help figure out how to better sell value to carmakers.
The reason there are no US based tire manufacturers any more is because the "Big 3" auto companies didn't want to spend $5 per car on radial ply tires in the 1970s. All the US tire manufacturers had to continue to make bias ply tires to satisfy OEM demand, so all the radial production capacity developed outside the US. When US consumers discovered how superior radial ply tires were, and stopped buying bias ply replacement tires, US tire manufacturers were way behind on both technology and production capability. Ultimately, this drove them into the arms of foreign tire manufacturers.
What is your opinion of how Mercedes used to be run? (In the era of the 300D taxi). Appears to me Engineers ran the show and everyone admired Mercedes.
I didn't get heavily involved with German automakers until 1998. My father had a S-class sedan from the mid 1980's, and that car suggests it was reflective of an engineering driven company that valued their long term reputation over making an additional 1% more profit. IMHO, Merc and BMW are run more business-like today, which has pros and cons. Porsche, in contrast, still has many leaders who reflect old school car-people values and mindsets (but some suppliers take advantage of this and gouge them on prices). To be fair, people buying BMW's & Mercedes are probably more cost sensitive and open to shopping competitive products from Japan/Sweden/USA than people buying a 911, 718 or Panamera. Nevertheless, I still choose BMW for my DD. Despite the unreliability and high ownership costs, the performance and features fit my needs best.