Re: GM Dealer Challenges the Toyota Tundra's Ads... AS BULL

Page 2 of 8  


I wonder why their competition is happy with the "excessively tight" tolerances for the exact same engine parts. Any thoughts on that? It doesn't seem to have hurt their business.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You have passed into the realm of making things up. They aren't the exact same engine parts. You have no idea of the design tolerances. For all you know, there were secondary operations involved after your friends' CNC machine did it part of the process. You have no facts, just a half assed tail from a guy who was pissed that some engineer told how him to do his job. If the Japanese are so great at getting "tight tolerances" right, why do so many Tundra V-8 exhibit piston slap? Are "excessively tight" tolerance the reason a Toyota starter for my old Cressida cost $500 when a similar starter for a US car got less than $100? Are those "excessively tight" tolerances the reasons the jump seats on my Frontier keep falling down? Or maybe the "excessively tight" tolerances is why so many Toyotas had problems with rotten egg smells from the exhaust.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not making ANYTHING up. Pistons at this factory, pistons at that factory. Engine blocks here, engine blocks there.
It may help for you to eliminate faith from your thinking on these issues.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I said you were making things up ecasue you said " the exact same engine parts." They are not the exact same engine parts.
Chrysler doesn't make pistons at all. They buy them, jsut like Ford, GM, and Toyota (althoguh Toyota probably owns 51% of the company making their pistons).
Ed

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK. Let's assume the whole machining question is moot for the moment, and focus on the symptoms I've mentioned in other messages:
Please explain:
1982 Tercel: Uses 1/2 quart of oil in 3 years. 1988 Corolla wagon (4 cyl): Uses a quart in 5-6 years. 1996 Camry wagon (6 cyl): Uses 1/2 quart in 10 years. 2002 Tacoma (6 cyl): Uses *ZERO* oil in 4.5 years. I've still got the unopened container of oil I bought when the truck was new.
Contrast: 1992 Taurus (6 cyl): Used a quart every 2-3 months, from the time the car was new until I got rid of it in 2002. The exhaust made it clear what was happening.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I haven't had a car that needed oil added between changes in 35 years that wasn't made in England. How many miles did you drive in 2-3 months? I drive somewhere around 2000 miles a months, so a quart of oil every 2 to 3 months would be trivial.
You need to understand something important -all piston engines consume oil - even precision built, jewel like, made by god, Toyota engines. In fact, I'll wager you that your damn near perfect Toyota engine is probably burning more than a quart of oil between changes, BUT, you say, I never have to add any. So what. All engine also suffer from blow-by to some extent, The stuff that escapes pass the piston rings ends up in the oil. If you have more stuff blowing by the rings that oil escaping past the rings, seals, PCV, etc., you can actually have the oil level increase. We had an old farm tractor that did exactly that. The compression rings were weak, so a lot of stuff blew by them. So, it is entirely possible, that the Taurus you hate actually used less oil than the Toyota you love, but also had better seals so less stuff escaped into the oil (but certainly I don't know this). Without careful oil analysis you can't know. I do that I never had to add oil to my old Cressida, but it constantly dripped oil on to the garage floor. It was clearly making up the lost oil somehow.
One more thing - if your catalytic converter is working, you aren't going to be able to tell your car is burning minor amounts of oil (minor = 1 quart per 1000 miles) by looking at the tail pipe.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great.
Explain the Taurus' fusible link, protected by something akin to $2.00 inline fuse cover like you'd buy at Radio Shack. Mounted low in the engine compartment to be sure it would catch as much road salt and moisture as possible.
Explain the other Ford's defective stick shift design, which required dismantling the entire interior of the car (seat, carpets, console) to replace a cheap plastic ring.
All intentional.
The bottom line here is that like many Americans, you are willing to accept low quality for certain products, but not for others. You're probably know that a cheap bookcase from Staples is not as well made as one from Ethan Allen. But, for many people, cars are part of some sort of bizarre "other way of thinking". You make special exceptions for cars that you'd never make for any other product. You'll rationalize bad quality all day long.
It's your right to do so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's what the crosshatched honing of the cylinder walls are for. At a micro level, they are grand canyons that hold oil. The piston rings ride on the minute layer of oil contained in the lines.
So, by default, all engines use and "burn" some oil.
But, JoeSpareBedroom won't believe this, I am sure.
RCE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe it. But, I don't understand why some cars use quite a bit more than others, and begin to stink like old junkers when they're still relatively new.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom:

I had a 93 Taurus (6 cyl), ran it up to 190k, never used a drop of oil and the only mechanical problem was a water pump went out. Sold it to a Ford mechanic who is probably still driving it.
Don't accept hearsay from a disgruntled employee as god given proof of some conspiracy.
--
Mac Cool

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not sure where you got "employee" from. You're not sure, either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey, Doug!
Your CNC programming acquaintance is full of crap.
RCE (Eisboch)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RCE wrote:

Care to enlighten us on the reason for your outburst?
Dante
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He cannot do that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry it came across as an "outburst". Didn't intend it to be. "JoeSpareBedroom" and I have debated other subjects before and although we often disagree, I enjoy reading his thoughts and opinions.
As to my reasoning ... there is no significant benefit ... cost-wise ... to specifying a lesser tolerance when machining with automated, CNC equipment. The equipment measures and locates to 3 or 4 decimal places as easily and quickly as 1 or 2. So that's not a factor. To suggest that Chrysler's vendors or component manufacturers purposely manufacture to specifications that are different than the engineering specs opens them up to warranty, recall and additional costs. (See Ford vs. Navistar). Nope. Doesn't make any sense.
So does Chrysler purposely build (or have built by their vendors) engines that are substandard to the design? Doubtful. Why?
Truth is ... most small high performance engines are designed with fairly wide tolerances because they are more reliable, long term. Examples: BMW, Porsche.
RCE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Explain, please:
1982 Tercel: Uses 1/2 quart of oil in 3 years. 1989 (?) Corolla wagon (4 cyl): Uses a quart in 5-6 years. 1996 Camry wagon (6 cyl): Uses 1/2 quart in 10 years. 2002 Tacoma (6 cyl): Uses *ZERO* oil in 4.5 years.
Contrast: 1991 Taurus (6 cyl, smaller motor than Tacoma): Uses a quart every 2-3 months. The exhaust makes it clear what's happening.
Let's talk about intentional defects a bit more. Please provide your best cockamamie excuse for these situations:
Example - my sister's 1983 Buick, perfectly maintained, driven normally, transmission has meltdown at 60,000 miles.
Example - my 1992 Taurus. Fusible link located at bottom of engine compartment, completely unprotected from the elements. Link and its connectors corroded and turned to crumbs, preventing car from starting. Since it's common knowledge that electrical connections need to be thoroughly protected in engine compartments, we can safely conclude that the car's designer intended for this problem to occur, perhaps as a prank.
Example - Chrysler mini-vans. I can identify them blindfolded, just by the smell of their exhausts. One year old and they stink like an ancient Blazer. Why? Is it the Japanese engines? Chrysler can order whatever they want from their subcontractors, or choose better subcontractors.
Example - another Ford I owned, mid 1970s. Stick shift held onto tranny by a nylon (plastic) threaded ring. Exhaust located 4 inches from that spot. Nylon ring softens from heat, threads deteriorate, so one day, I downshift from 3rd to 2nd and end up holding a shifter that's attached to nothing, other than being held to the console by the boot. Wait. It gets better: The dealer claims they've never heard of this before. That didn't work, for reasons not important here. They fixed it for free. Six months later, same thing. I decide to fix it myself, since it was summertime and I was curious. Parts guy says "Oh yeah...we always keep that ring in stock. Lots of problems." Why didn't the shop want to fix it for free without being coerced? Because in order to fix it, you had to remove the front seats, remove all the carpet trim, lift the carpet, so you could finally get to the screws that held the console in place. Under the console were hidden the screws that held the shifter boot to the transmission hump. Actual time to replace the melted ring: two minutes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No way am I getting sucked into one of your 100 part essay quizzes.
I thought I was responding to your CNC programming buddy's claim that Chrysler demands that CNC equipment be programmed to machine to looser tolerances in the manufacture of their engines.
I still say that is BS.
RCE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You *were* responding to the CNC question, but you said this:
"To suggest that Chrysler's vendors or component manufacturers purposely manufacture to specifications that are different than the engineering specs opens them up to warranty, recall and additional costs."
Since it made no sense relative to what I pointed out about CNC equipment installed at Chrysler facilities, I ignored it. I'm talking about choices made by Chrysler, not by outsourcing vendors. It was explained that Chrysler chooses looser tolerances than a real car company.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok. Chrysler isn't a "real" car company. Learn something new everyday.
RCE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Learning is good. Glad I could help.
Clue: When it's easy to do great work and you make a conscious choice not to, especially for lame reasons, you've lost touch with reality, and cease to become real. This is what I've described for you via my friend's experience with Chrysler.
You will now say that looser tolerances don't matter, but actual symptoms say the opposite. You know that.
You're retired, aren't you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.