Just curious, why it is that certain cars turn out more reliable than others?
Where in the process from design, testing and build do the best cars get it right?
I often wonder if some of the blame lies with bought in components aswell as those specific to the car.
Maybe the otherside of the question, ie where do car makers get it wrong, is as relevant?
|
Reliable cars are designed by engineers.
Unreliable cars are designed by accountants.
Better reliability means better quality of parts and high standard of design.
Latest design doesn't always mean good design - rather a good way of getting money from consumers.
|
|
|
Design and quality of material I suppose.
My background is electronics and I had a go at repairing a neighbours Renault ECU. It wasn't properly sealed and water had got in. The PCB was unprotected and some of the tracks had corroded.
I also have an ECU off an old Honda that was written off. The enclosure is much more solid and sealed. The PCB is also covered in a conformal coating to protect it.
Its things like that that make a difference.
|
>>My background is electronics>>
Then you are probably aware that the Japanese companies who came to Britain, such as Honda, Nissan and Toyota, along with Sony and Toshiba (TVs) quickly began to educate parts and component suppliers about overall quality and reliability.
Sony, for instance, who built TVs at Bridgend, didn't take all that long to compel suppliers to consistently manufacture and deliver components that had a failure rate not of one in a thousand or so, but no worse than one in a million or more and preferably zero.
Nissan, Honda and Toyota were equally as vigilant in their approach to suppliers.
That's what reputations are built on, along with the fact that warranty claims are drastically reduced.
It was nothing new - every top brand name in Japan, whether it be cars, electronics or whatever, had had the same philosophy at home for many, many years.
I've got Japanese built transistor radios, hi-fi, clocks, cameras etc built 30 or more years ago that are still used on a regular basis and have never required any form of repairs.
|
When I was doing my Manufacturing degree, we were told a lovely story about a Japanese supplier of electronics working for Rover some years ago. Rover had rigidly specified a failure rate for some circuit board being supplied, I can't remember the rate, but it was something like 1 in 10,000.
Apparently the Japanese repeatedly questioned this, and Rover were even thinking of cancelling the contract if they couldn't manage this. However, eventually the supplier capitulated, and the deal was done.
When the parts turned up, the defective boards (I seem to remember that there were 10 of them) were packaged separately, and came with a note detailing what had been done to them to make them not work. The Japanese supplier had been unable to comprehend that Rover might have wanted some duds, but had eventually complied as requested.
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the reason for the consistent reliability of Japanese cars is that they put a higher proportion of their budget into the oily bits, rather than the interiors. The same perhaps applies to Skoda: it and the Japanese brands get the highest ratings in surveys like JD Power and Auto Express.
|
|
Thats what always confuses me about Skoda - I thought the parts were common to all VAG products so why should Skoda fare any better?
|
Was just having a conversation with my B-I-L this week and he was saying that at work they were putting a lot of time and effort into looking at Toyota's all round work ethos, from R&D to build. He is not in the automotive business, in fact works for a very large International plc, but apparently Toyota methods are recognised as being world leaders in what they do and that much of the ethos can be transferred to any industry.
They have some motto, which I can't remember exactly word for word, but its along the lines of make a product that meets the customers demands and they will be happy and come back.
They put a lot of effort into wanting happy customers, B-I-L was told that there was no point spending zillions on R&D and advertising if an owner tells all his neighbours that the car is rubbish!
|
looking at Toyota's all round work ethos from R&D to build. >>
I understand that Toyota is a VERY profitable cmpany. Just possibly some connection!!
|
You should see how passionate toyota get about the most minor things.
They have everyone from directors all the way down to junior technicians all in board rooms discussing exactly which type of tubing for the electric should be used.
Technicians rolling around on their backs demonstrating why they should fix it like this. Directors peering into bonnets and in footwells looking at the handy work.
|
I remember reading some years ago when Honda-san was still alive and running the company, he very often was not in his office when required to sign something or make a decision. He would always be found somewhere on the factory floor or in R & D.
|
|
All very impressive and no doubt true. But read item on warranties in latest Telegraph motoring section.
|
From my experience watching experiences of others' cars a lot of the "reliability" issues on cars over 1 or 2 years old are due to how well the car is looked after by the owner rather than the parts used...
However there are certain makes that do seem to suffer more than others which I suppose would be made worse if not properly serviced, etc...
Edited by b308 on 13/04/2008 at 13:19
|
From my experience watching experiences of others' cars a lot of the "reliability" issues on cars over 1 or 2 years old are due to how well the car is looked after by the owner rather than the parts used...
Most cars these days only need rudimentary service work in the first three years (oil, filters, checking for worn brakes). I think most breakdowns are caused by failure of parts that should last the life of the car, like sensors and actuators. I don't see how lack of servicing would necessarily cause them to fail. In fact I think 99% of cars do get regular dealer servicing in the first three years on account of the warranty.
As I type this my neighbour with the Renault has got a mechanic working on it on the drive. It was towed back from Morrisons yesterday. Something gone wrong with the immobiliser apparently and it wont start now. I won't be buying a Renault in a hurry.
|
Most cars these days only need rudimentary service work in the first three years (oil filters checking for worn brakes).
Thats true, but doesn't the service also include a check on the laptop to see if any fault codes have shown up - if a car isn't serviced or checked regularly (which is what I meant) then there's more chance of a fault developing beyond something simple because it hasn't been spotted? Same principle as flat tyres, duff batteries, etc, in fact a link I followed from the AA actually says regular servicing and checks by the owner will prevent 80% of breakdowns they attend to:
tinyurl.com/3m34kc
|
|
Like anything we build, cars will go wrong from time to time. If we build in numbers, probability suggests there will be a real rogue every so often. The problem arises when the dealer won't acknowledge it and make the manufacturer see sense. I was talking to a workshop manager recently who told me that what gets done as warranty work depends on "who you talk to" at the manufacturer.
As someone said above, the zillions spent on ads goes down the swanee when a dealer and manufacturer let someone down badly.
The Toyota ethos includes "lean thinking", getting quickly to the solution. That's what dealers need to when problems occur.
|
|
There was an article in Stern, the German news mag, last year I think, on Toyota in Japan. When a problem comes to light with a component or manufacture, the production line is stopped until it is resolved. I would say quality control is probably the difference - problems are corrected as soon as they emerge, it is not left for the consumer to chase up the dealer to resolve a fault.
|
|
Sure, but if you don't have a Toyota you have to chase unless the dealer does his stuff.
|
Well I drive a Toyota. It is my first one, bought when 3 years old and a full Toyota S/H. I've had it nearly 2 years.
My comments:
1. Nothing has gone wrong. Nothing. Not a light bulb . All the internal trim/doors/etc work perfectly.
2. I am pernickity.. I can find nothing wrong. (look for my comments on Ford Fiestas' paintwork).
3. The underbody design of pipes and wiring is neat , tidy and clean.
4. Toyota dealers are cheap (!), helpful, clean, efficient and helpful. They make bargains on price and stick to them - even when sometimes they may lose out due to a pricing error. Nice to deal with.. I have spoken to five or six and they were ALL very good.. most unusual in the motor trade.
5. When the car is serviced, I can find nothing wrong.. no dirty prints, unchanged filters, overfilled oil etc.
6. Working on them - changing filters and oil is easy. The handbook tells you how to do it.
I have never found a combination of reliability and service like it.
The Fiesta I had was reliable but the paint finish was appalling, it started to rust and the standard of Ford dealers was... variable.
The Audi A4 was well finished but expensive to service and expensive things went wrong.. and lots of them.
I had a Mercedes: well finished but VERY expensive to service and expensive things went wrong.. and a few of them.
I had a series of company Rovers: words fail me. Dreadful.
|
|
Good car buyers slogan - "It's got to be Far Eastern".
|
"It's got to be Far Eastern".
Oo lang iyan sa akin.
|
One of the reasons I wondered if it was outside components was that my mums Hyundai Coupe had trouble but with the Cobra alarm fitted by the UK importer, which was then completely upgraded to solve the problem.
I also wondered who makes the ABS pump on these as it was the only component outside of normal service items that has been replaced, but more by way of caution than due to a fault being demonstrated ( we had the brakes lock on with TC light showing on a random patch of road at slow speed ). Just curious if it is Hyundais own part or if its common to other makes?
|
>>Nissan, Honda and Toyota were equally as vigilant in their approach to suppliers.<<
Stuartli is correct. Standard practice for most UK companies when selecting suppliers is ensuring they were ISO approved.
Unfortunatley ISO was written to give WW2 suppliers a standard to work to and hasn't changed much since in reality.
The Japanese spend along time training and educating their suppliers. And the irony is they learnt most of their trade from the US and UK just after the war. (Deming - he travelled to Japan after the US industrial giants ignored his systems thinking) Toyota have since spent years educating rival car companies the Toyota Way - but they do not really understand how it should be implemented.
In reality the reason some cars are more relaible starts from the very top of an organisation. The leadership have to be prepared to invest time and money in designing and producing the best quality products. This does not always manifest itself in short term profits which is what western companies like to see. If you read books like The Toyota Way and The Machine that Changed the World - it will become very apparent why the Japanese manufacture more reliable products in general.
It tells a story of a GM Manager that gets a job in a Toyota factory. At the end of his first 2 weeks in his job managing the production line he gets a visit from his seniors. They ask him how many times the line has been stopped to fix problems during his time in charge. He is delighted to tell them that he managed to NOT stop the line at all - drawing on his training from GM and making sure that cars got built quickly. The seniors are appalled at his behaviour and recall all the cars for checks as they do not believe each car could get built to the right quality. They know that stiff goes wrong and the operator has to have the ability to stop and fix to protect the customer from a sub-standard car.
I have also had the priviledge of seeing design documents for older Japanses car models. The lengths they go to are very impressive. They focus on reliability and durability - sometimes at the expense of soft touch plastics because they do not believe they are durable enough. They also bench mark and strive to be better at everybody at everything. This was evident when they launched Lexus.
The problem is some of the public and motoring journalists can't see past the soft touch plastics and handling systems that feel great but need new bushes or subframes fitting after 3 years.
So in short - it starts at the design stage and carries on all the way through to the customer experience - that's how the successful companies manage it.
If you are really interested in this subject treat yourslef to one of the books I mention above (although you may turn into a bit of an anorak).
Edited by Pendlebury on 13/04/2008 at 19:34
|
My understanding which might be wrong is that also the Japanese have tended to be very careful about the introduction of new technology into their models especially for the bits that the customer doesn't see. Ie that they continue to use tried and tested parts and suppliers for many of the basic things that could breakdown even if some of them are perhaps a bit basic. As opposed to deciding to fit every latest gizmo or device from suppliers the moment they are being developed. I do worry when you see car makers whose cars were always fairly basic and had shown problems with Electrics eg mid range Fords and Renaults suddenly loading them with alot of electrical kit like Sat Navs and climate control etc when in fact their factories were not fitting such things barely 5 years ago.
|
Having spent my working lifetime in automotive R&D I can tell you that unreliability is largely the result of the company employing incompetent Engineering Department (design and R &) staff.
|
>>My understanding which might be wrong is that also the Japanese have tended to be very careful about the introduction of new technology <<
I have to agree with you beefy - they prefer to rely on the tried and trusted.
Typical examples include the electronic parking brakes instead of the good old handbrake and also electronic key fobs that have no blade. I have seen a few posts where these have caused problems on some makes and I think that is why they don't bother and stock to the stuff that works - if ain't broke.......
The other interesting point is that they buy in less parts than any other manufacturer - prefering to rely on their own manufacturing and design processes instead of offering it to anyone else.
|
Madf,
A friend had a succession of Rovers and the odd bit of warranty work was required on each one.
They went bust and he bought a Toyota Corolla 1.4D which needed, among other things, a new engine.
Neither make left him stranded, but just as you've got a reliable Toyota, there are plenty of other owners out there who are on first name terms with dealer's service manager.
NB: No big deal, but my attempt to put this post under the one to which it referred failed.
Someone else reported the same problem the other day, perhaps webmaster could look at that sometime.
Edited by ifithelps on 14/04/2008 at 18:39
|
There`s an interactive site in the States...
tinyurl.com/6lxz9a
If its fair game to keep knocking Fiat even when they come up with a 5 year warranty.......;)
Bottom line is they are all cars. I think the forum would benefit from less badge snobbery. Not pointing at anyone but i`m tired of what seems like self righteousness at one`s `own badge` and almost a gloating at other peoples cars/manufacturers.
(waiting to be struck off)
regards
Edited by oilrag on 14/04/2008 at 19:01
|
|
|
|
|
|
