> I understand what you are saying, but I find it hard to believe that a
> design deficiency can be "programed" to fail after a specific period
> of time; normal wear and tear is not a design defiecency, it is a
> natural process. further, specific cars and manufacturers become
> legendary owing to an outstanding reliability; whereas lemons become a
> bane that hangs like a necklace for years after the initial debacle.
> No manager, ceo, cfo would tell his crew to make a lemon. this does
> not say cost-cutting measures won't exist- there always is a balancing
> act- but always at the end is the goal of a good product.
>
> ****************
> Of course you can build a life expectancy into a part or into a vehicle.
> Remember the old Sears Roebuck "Good", "Better", and "Best"?
>
> If a company should decide to do this in a more pernicious manner,
> they would run the risk that, as you say, the "lemons" would cause them
> to lose sales. =A0At the end, some people's goal is a "good enough"
> product, not necessarily a "good" product.
no knowledge of any sears roebuck catalog; it's irrelevant anyways- a car is much different than a catalog.