Vehicle Testing??

Hi guys,

Just a thought, is it possible that manufacturers have to compete in a very crowded market place? All fighting for our hard earned dollars. They could probably build there vehicles to a standard that would 99.9% not give trouble ever. The only downside is that said vehicle would cost 3 or 4 times more than now and most people could not afford to buy. IMHO

Cheers Pop

Hi Pop,

I would rather have the expense up front with peace of mind as opposed to paying it off for ever in repair bills. Like most things you often get what you pay for but even the expensive models are giving trouble regularly these days.

You are right to a degree, we do bring it upon ourselves as consumers by wanting the best at ridiculous prices.

Cheers, trevor.

Hi Louie,

Agree that some testing is done, however...

To Quote you "1 million kilometers of road testing, 100000 hours of simulated suspension testing in situations harsher than you would ever experience, body fatigue tests, drivetrain neglect testing, etc. etc. etc....."

So why does the engine go "bang" at 150000 km or the front wheels fall off after 50000km of corrugations, or the chassis twist and crack if you carry a packed lunch in the ute??

Cheers,
Wayne.

Ooooops. missed one,

why does the gearbox strip gears when towing a half empty 6x4.

Cheers,
Wayne.

I can't answer that cept for the fact that cars by nature are machines and machines break down. Design has a lot to do with component lifecycles. I can't speak for Japanese manufacturers but the Aussie ones I've been involved with sure do have extensive testing.

Don't know where you are located but if you've not been involved in the vehicle building industry and you ever get the chance, take a tour through a car plant or a big tier 1 supplier. You will be surprised I'm sure. Unfortunately, Mitsi's that just announced their closure here in Adelaide, were probably the best in the business (in Oz).

BTW, I heard yesterday that GMHA may be looking at the Mitsi site to build their specialty production. i.e. wagon, ute, Statesman, so they can fully dedicate their underbody line for Commodore. Just what I heard.

So what you are saying is:-

Buy something that's done 100000km and have a carefree run for years?

Some other bugger has spent thousands road testing and repairing it for you.

Otherwise your comments are meaningless>

Disco
(who just bought a 1981 Landrover with a genuine 63000km on the clock)

Disco wife has a nh Paj that has now done 87000ks. We brought it two years ago with 63000ks . Only repair to date is we replaced the timing belt as a precaution and the air conditioning compressor is getting noisey which needs to be rectified. My mate always buys new, I buy well looked after vehicles that have already lost most of their capital value in depreciation. He has more trouble with his new vehicles than I ever do.
I only keep my cars till 200000ks and start looking for another car. This has worked well for me for the last 30 years.
What model rover did you pick up?
Cheers Pete

Very true Phil,
Had a HZ awhile ago, great car!!
Cheers,
Wayne.

100% agree - be it a computer or a car or a truck! That is why I bought a early '07 1HZ engined troopie... One of the last. Hopefully should last a while and any issues should be dealt with???
Gil

I agree with this as well
I have been a mechanic all my life and same rule holds true in all brands
Also the brands which are sold worldwide seem to get sorted quicker than an Australia only model as do vechiles with production in large numbers rather than one produced in small numbers
You will usally pay a high price by wanting to be the first with the latest
Garry

PajTD, you are spot on. I had 3 recalls on my Adventra. (these are as accurate as I can recall without the paperwork in front of me)

1. Recovery attachment at front (yes they do have one) needed to be strengthened because it may fatigue or deform under a heavy load

2. Passenger side airbag may deploy due to a buildup of static electricity

3. A front brake hose may wear under certain extreme conditions of simultaneous suspension travel and wheel angle

Not only to they test, they continue to test after the vehicle is released. Having said that, we all remember when a certain Japanese maker covered up a big problem. Think a popular 4wd was included in that.

Absolutely right !
Also, I believe that the main 4wd makers design their 4wd systems to handle snow and ice on black top rather then mud. Just because a vehicle has 4wd does not make it suitable for rough roads.

I think you have hit the nail on the head Peter. There is a big difference between what cars are designed to do and how they are used.

I have a book and a video that show a good example of this with early Holdens. The video is about the history of Holdens and one part of it features an interview with one of the design engineers on the 48-215 and the FJ. He said they were designed for 35,000 miles. That would have been normal family driving over sealed and good dirt roads while carrying or towing loads within specifications. We all know the things lasted a lot longer than that with no major problems.

The book is titled "From Redex to Repco" and starts with the first three Redex trials between 1953 and 55. A total of 39 Holdens started the 55 trial with 11 finishing plus one more that finished but was not presented for scrutineering. Those 11 lost points for a total of 56 body and subframe cracks and numerous spring, shock absorber and radiator mounting problems.

Those cars were driven beyond their design limits and countless 4wds are subjected to the same treatment.

How cars are driven and loaded does not cause all of the problems though; the fact that they have to be built to a price accounts for a few of them.

In the early 1980s, a company I was working for bought a new engine tuning machine. The instruction book said the results for one particular test can vary from engine to engine. The reason given was "automotive engines are not precise devices". They were right, there is no precision engineering in a car except maybe inside a turbo and some parts of a diesel injection system. If there was a Corolla would cost as much as a small aircraft.

Brian

Spot on Peter . The so called 'extensive ' testing is aimed at getting the vehicle to a reasonable standard to release upon the unsuspecting public . If tested to destruction , interesting things happen . Periodically , the contest for the Army light vehicle contract arises and the Army tests to destruction . Toyota , Nissan and Landrover are finally tortured on asymetric concrete dragons teeth and angled concrete riffle boards untill the vehicle has a major failure . I don't know what breaks on the Toyotas and Nissans but they lose . The Landrovers break axles . but that protects a lot of other components so each Army Landrover carries two spare axles and the drivers can replace them quickly . Of course the Army has different requirements to the average offroader and that includes , if the tactical situation dictates , to drive heavy , at speed over unsuitable terrain .

Rotord
Yes was aware of the military testing procedures, hence the ownership of the Humvee as I was sick of troopies requiring a drivetrain rebuild every 100k when used for private use, mainly touring at or close to GVM.
As with the Landies the designed weak point in the drivetrain is the axles, 30 minutes with basic tools sees even an unskilled mechanic getting the vehicle mobile again.
Also the comfort of knowing that I will never exceed the designed operating limits of the vehicle, 60% gradient at GVM, 40% sideslope at GVM both for continuous duty, alloy body tub, kevlar composite doors and bonnet.
All systems designed to cope with extreme use continuously, coupled with that big block V8 noise, 1 1/4 tonne carrying capacity, 15l/100k fuel consumption, basic mechanicals that can be repaired by me virtually anywhere, all in a package designed nearly 25 years ago and still produced today albeit with more power and greater carrying capacity.