[95 imp]

I do not know of any company who would intentional cut corners so they can save money by:

Getting sued
Paying their lawyers
Cooperating with/providing materials for government investigations
Paying fines
Issuing recalls
Paying for warranty parts/labor
Paying for rental cars/reimbursements
Paying engineers to develop/test solution to the problem
Additional paperwork to locate/notify/track repairs
Repair any other damage the original problem caused
Receiving negative publicity/loss of sales
Possibly extend warranty coverage that may include other repairs that would normally not be under warranty

Automobiles are complex machines and you just can't get every part right every time.
That's why warranties are provided.

It amazes me that people think a "for profit" company would actually want to produce a product in order to lose money.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

I do not know of any company who would intentional cut corners so they can save money by:

Getting sued
Paying their lawyers
Cooperating with/providing materials for government investigations
Paying fines
Issuing recalls
Paying for warranty parts/labor
Paying for rental cars/reimbursements
Paying engineers to develop/test solution to the problem
Additional paperwork to locate/notify/track repairs
Repair any other damage the original problem caused
Receiving negative publicity/loss of sales
Possibly extend warranty coverage that may include other repairs that would normally not be under warranty

Automobiles are complex machines and you just can't get every part right every time.
That's why warranties are provided.

It amazes me that people think a "for profit" company would actually want to produce a product in order to lose money.

Google Ford’s cost/benefit analysis of the Pinto from 1968. They knew people would die and file a multitude of lawsuits and get hammered by the NHTSA but they calculated it would still be more beneficial financially to keep the car’s tank design for production.

The fallout from that car alone, if you think about it, SHOULD have completely wiped Ford Motor Company out of existence.

It didn’t make a drop in the bucket to them.

Whether your statement is true about car companies today I do not know, but the Pinto situation keeps American car buyers at least a little dubious forever.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by puppykat33

My previous BMW 6series wan the biggest POS as are most BMWs 100k price and mutiple major mechanical issues in 3yrs of ownership. so no foreign cars are not better....

European cars have had reliability issues for a long time. Then there is that Volkswagen diesel emissions issue but that’s a whole Nother can of worms.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by puppykat33

My previous BMW 6series wan the biggest POS as are most BMWs 100k price and mutiple major mechanical issues in 3yrs of ownership. so no foreign cars are not better....

It's a Bring My Wallet, no surprise here. Just be glad you don't have any electronic issues.

Never buy one, lease if you want one that much. They are pretty much only good for the lease period.

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Google Ford’s cost/benefit analysis of the Pinto from 1968. They knew people would die and file a multitude of lawsuits and get hammered by the NHTSA but they calculated it would still be more beneficial financially to keep the car’s tank design for production.

The fallout from that car alone, if you think about it, SHOULD have completely wiped Ford Motor Company out of existence.

It didn’t make a drop in the bucket to them.

Whether your statement is true about car companies today I do not know, but the Pinto situation keeps American car buyers at least a little dubious forever.

The death/injury figures for the Pinto tank issue were also inflated by the media, which is why those lawsuits never made a huge dent to Ford.

Engineering is all about reaching a goal at the lowest possible cost. Again, I don't know what GM did differently, but if the specs of the spring they were supposed to get meet the design requirements while being cheaper, they will take it.

Originally Posted by Aragorn

European cars have had reliability issues for a long time. Then there is that Volkswagen diesel emissions issue but that’s a whole Nother can of worms.

From what I have heard, Porsche is actually decently reliable outside of the IMS disaster.

Still, maintenance and parts will cost you more than an American car.

Sent from toaster or something

[impulse]

Originally Posted by Venomcustom

Sounds like it could be quit serious!! You better let me take the car for a week or so to sort it out. Lol

If you were up in the north east I’d let you take it for a spin brother haha

[Venomcustom]

Originally Posted by impulse

If you were up in the north east I’d let you take it for a spin brother haha

[JD64]

Originally Posted by Rayvan

Bullshit. Every car company has had problems. Every. One....

yes sir!! you said it right. i most definitely agree. i see it first hand in the shop every day. unless you work on em, you really have no idea.

[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Google Ford’s cost/benefit analysis of the Pinto from 1968. They knew people would die and file a multitude of lawsuits and get hammered by the NHTSA but they calculated it would still be more beneficial financially to keep the car’s tank design for production.

The fallout from that car alone, if you think about it, SHOULD have completely wiped Ford Motor Company out of existence.

It didn’t make a drop in the bucket to them.

Whether your statement is true about car companies today I do not know, but the Pinto situation keeps American car buyers at least a little dubious forever.

Taken at face value, this might be true of another era.

In today's world, with global competition/shrinking market share and sue happy people/ridiculous jury awards, it just isn't going to intentionally happen, IMO.

[Midnight Rat]

So given the choice of a car built on 9/3 or 9/23, is it better going with the later one to avoid any potential issues?

[ZL1 affair]

Just a thought. Guy's with the cars that fall in the date range of the TSB could sweet talk their dealers in replacing the valve springs before they fail. If they say no, pull the plug wire to set a misfire code and bring it in along with the TSB...

I would hate to have my car within the range, would always be on my mind while driving it.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

Google Ford’s cost/benefit analysis of the Pinto from 1968. They knew people would die and file a multitude of lawsuits and get hammered by the NHTSA but they calculated it would still be more beneficial financially to keep the car’s tank design for production.

The fallout from that car alone, if you think about it, SHOULD have completely wiped Ford Motor Company out of existence.

It didn’t make a drop in the bucket to them.

Whether your statement is true about car companies today I do not know, but the Pinto situation keeps American car buyers at least a little dubious forever.

Why stop there? Why not look at all of the lawsuits that Ford fielded from the tire issues on the Explorers. They purposefully opted to not actually address the issue directly and instead pay the lawsuit settlements for the same reason. In the interim, their "remedy" was for people to underinflate their tires.

[Venomcustom]

Originally Posted by ZL1 affair

Just a thought. Guy's with the cars that fall in the date range of the TSB could sweet talk their dealers in replacing the valve springs before they fail. If they say no, pull the plug wire to set a misfire code and bring it in along with the TSB...

I would hate to have my car within the range, would always be on my mind while driving it.

My new SS 1LE falls right in there. Built in July. Dealers are not going to do the swap. Never gonna happen. They need to have a failed part as GM wants the broken spring or springs back. I never think about it when I drive my car. If it happens it happens.

[Elite Engineering]

Having read through this entire thread RyanR623 has it absolutely correct. Coming from the industry as well, and doing work for Tier one suppliers in the past, he is 100% correct. Valve springs on passenger vehicles are generally a single spring, and a failure will often result in the valve dropping and taking out at the very least the piston, but more likely a catastrophic failure. That's why on race engines we use double or triple spring designs and while these issues are as RyanR623 states most likely caused by a bad batch of steel, incorrect hardening and annealing, heat cycling a new engine before high RPM's a few times helps avoid issues. And no automaker is immune to these. On cam shafts with high lift and long duration springs will fatigue as well over time and need to ne replaced. On our race engines we change half season to avoid issues (and lifters at same time) and also check lash and pressure every race. That's not needed with these, but a defect like this usually does not show up until it becomes an issue after released.

GM's ignition switch debacle as a relatively recent issue for GM. Each department or division has budgets to meet and the risk of a flaw is always discussed and a determination is made whether to do a production halt (C8 Vette right now for brake issues) and correct before release, or to shake the dice and see how it plays out in the real World.


Could go into much more, but again, Ryan has nailed it. Listen to this guy.




Cheers!!


Tech@EliteEngineeringUSA.com