mmarshall

It used to be that the small Fords here in America were not the same ones as the ones engineered by Ford's European branches. The lone exceptions were the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique of the 1990s, which was generally the same car as the European Ford Mondeo sedan. But that was the exception rather then the rule.....and, of course, after the Merkur XR4Ti / Scorpio debacle of the 1980s, Ford was very cautious about transplanting Euro-designs here. The last-generation American-market Focus, for example, IMO, was sloppily-built, used El Cheapo materials inside and out (even that was overstating it), and drove with the road manners of a worn-out appliance....you could clearly tell it was designed and built to a strict budget. Fortunately, with today's new Focus, Escape, C-Max, Fusion, and others, it is obvious that that is no longer the case.....we are now getting Fords with real Euro-engineering and design. It's too bad, with the exception of the nice MKC, that Lincoln hasn't been able to take better advantage of that.

T0ked

iTrader: (2)

Both designs have struts which will eventually wear down. It's more the complicated hinge design vs the more simple nonarticulating gooseneck.

A more complicated and/or newer design has higher chance of something going wrong. There's a reason why Lexus had kept certain designs for years and years. A lot of members here complain about old engine designs and not enough power from Lexus/Toyota powertrains but this is the reason for its rock solid reliability. The more innovation is incorporated into a design, the more points of failure you introduce. A wagon with nothing but a couple of axles can be extremely reliable and last forever, is one extreme. A Veyron utilizing the epitome of engineering that needs constant attention and maintenance is another.

'Best built' is finding a good compromise between these extremes. German engineering doesn't necessarily mean best built.

Toys4RJill

You are full of it. The failure point is sort of true but all of that can be overcome. Toyota reliability is because it is designed to last a certain amount of miles. Any manufacturer can do this. If you ever see true data from the car maker, it will tell you straight up when a part will fail and how long it will take etc etc. It really has nothing to do with a new part vs old part

chikoo

^ not quite. When new parts are designed from ground up, esp with new materials, you can only test for what you are aware of based upon the historical data on the old parts using the old material. The new part and material will and always does exhibit unique characteristics that will need to be ironed out during the subsequent years. A classic example is the iron block vs the Al. block.

T0ked

iTrader: (2)

So every part that fails is engineered to fail at that specific moment and time? That's idiotic. Of course there are hinges, button, switches that are designed with frequency of use in mind. There are parts that are designed to run a certain a distance. But there are things that only become apparent after use. The sludging issues in the 3.0 V6 in Lexus/Toyota engines? Or the self destructing nature of the BMW twin turbo 6? As a car gets more complicated and is filled with new tech, the more variables that can't be tested for.

mmarshall

Correct. No automotive component is totally free from wear or deterioration.

chromedome

It could be that Toyota engineer their cars and components to last for years under a single owner, whereas most German manufacturers don't aim as high as their cars get swapped every 3 or 4 years. That said, with the number of E-class diesels running around as taxis in Western Europe, I would expect their reliability to be pretty good.

Japanese manufacturers also tend to be very conservative when it comes to adding new tech. It could be because of reliability and cost/warranty concerns. VWs had LED DRLs and brake lights before everyone else... I assume they had the first warranty issues with LEDs too

Sulu

Unless our definition of "strut" is different, I do not believe that the traditional gooseneck hinge has a strut; it does have a spring to help pop the trunk lid off the latch, but not a strut. Looking at the good picture of the articulating hinge above, the strut is the rod with the silver-coloured piece extending from the bottom.

And that picture shows just how complicated the design and construction (and therefore more likely to fail) the articulating hinge is. Counting the arms, struts and hinge points:

1. There are 2 arms on each side, for a total of 4.
2. There is 1 strut on each side, for a total of 2. And struts are known points of failure (just ask Sienna owners about failed tailgate struts): they are filled with oil and have to be properly sealed to prevent oil leaks.
3. There is 1 hinge point at the top and bottom of each arm and strut, for a total of 6.

Each separate component is a point of failure. Each moving part (or pivot point) has a greater likelihood of failure. And a piece as complex as a strut (hydraulically and mechanically) has an even greater likelihood of failure.

With so many components operating harmoniously together and each arm rotating along different arcs, the engineering design of the articulating spring is complicated. It would not be impossible to design this part on paper, but it would be much, much easier to design with the aid of computer-aided design (CAD) software. This is expensive.

In comparison, the old gooseneck hinge is simplicity itself:

1. There are only 2 curved arms, one on each side.
2. There are only 2 hinge points, 1 for each arm, up underneath the rear parcel shelf. The other end of the arm is fixed to the trunklid, not another hinge point.
3. There is an assist spring but it is a simple twisted metal spring (perhaps as simple as a torsion bar), not an extending strut.

The gooseneck hinge has lived on from when cars were designed on paper.

Simplicity brought about from fewer parts and fewer moving parts, brings durability and reliability. The complicated spring can be made more reliable, with the spending of more money to buy more design time, buy higher strength components and buy more testing time.

mmarshall

Design/engineering and tech are not the only things that determine reliability or how well a vehicle is built. You also have to have a competent dedicated work force in the plants, and the quality of the machines and robots in the plants have to be up to snuff. We saw that for several years with the Nissan Armada/Titan and Infiniti QX-56, otherwise well-designed vehicles that were let down by numerous problems in the Canton, MS plant where they were made.

This is one reason why Japanese-sourced vehicles have traditionally been built so well.....a cultural issue, and a strong work-ethic among the population. Work, in Japan, is considered to be a privilege, not a drudgery that you endure for eight hours a day just to get a paycheck. Workers, even after their own long working days, often get together at night, in their spare time, and discuss ways of improving the plant and work/assembly procedures.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Japanese-engineered vehicles can't also be built well in other countries, too, as the Toyota/Honda plants in the U.S. prove. But, in many cases, those plants are run and overseen by Japanese managers.

chromedome

Maybe, just maybe, Japanese workers take pride in their work and they're rewarded well for their effort, whereas most US companies emphasize the bottom line first, with executive compensation second and worker well-being nowhere. I support unions but a unionised workforce should also make good products, not the old crap that GM and Chrysler used to make. It's interesting that German auto factories have strong worker representation while Toyota is anti-union in its US factories.

T0ked

iTrader: (2)

You're correct. Some gooseneck hinges have struts, some just have the twisted metal springs. I was thinking of my SC which had struts with a gooseneck hinge, which had to be replaced. Also I remember adding struts to our Camry because those twisted arms which ran the length of the rear deck wore down and wouldn't support the trunk any longer.

mmarshall

There's no maybe about it.....that's pretty much a fact. But it's not just because of the way that specific companies treat them. The work ethic, and loyalty to one's superiors, is a firmly engrained part of Japanese culture, though there are signs that with the latest generation of Japanese younger people, more exposed to Western customs and life-styles than their ancestors, that old system is starting to break down.


Generally true, but with a number of exceptions.


Well, for the umpteenth time I've had to say it, UAW people in America are NOT making the junk anymore that once did. That is not only because of better design, but also because of better quality work in the plants from both hand and robots. And, of course, after the massive layoffs and reorganizations of several years ago, many workers are simply glad to have a job.

You can't really compare UAW, people, money-wise, though, to those making really low wages. UAW salaries today are much less than they once were....but still much higher than what we typically see in many other parts of the American economy. Even more the case in Mexico, where the auto plants, though low-paying by U.S. standards, are head-and-shoulders above most of he Mexican economy.


Anyhow, I don't want to get too far off topic....German engineering.

chromedome

I agree about UAW plants making much better cars now, it's just that I feel good labor relations and good products go hand in hand. I wouldn't buy a car from a unionized factory just because of the union factor.

Anyway, what about German engineering? German auto factory workers are well trained and paid well, have representation in management, yet some German cars still have reliability issues. It's down to poor engineering and/or interference from bean counters Marketing wants new tech to pull in new customers, engineers have to make it work within a specific timeframe and budget, new buyers enjoy their fancy toys while secondhand buyers are the ones who feel the pain a few years down the line. The days of the bombproof W126 Benz are long gone.

JDR76

Interesting article, thanks for posting. As an engineer, I'm always interested in different approaches to design solutions.

viperdoc

My uncle was the "second in command" of one of the major American manufacturers' Europe divisions. When my dad asked him which car he should buy back in 2001, a Lexus RX or the comparable American vehicle from my uncle's company, he said, hands down, the Lexus. "The quality and reliability" of the American brands were not there, he said. As he was overseeing the European operations, he also commented that the European brands do not compare to Toyota/Honda from a quality perspective either. His take (not sure how truthful it was, but I figured he would know), is that American and European manufacturers have a much higher acceptable failure rate on a given part....on the order of a factor of ten....compared to the Japanese manufacturers. It is apparently that simple.