Truth In Engineering

[Subaru_Nation555]

Every car company out there has a certain reputation.

Volvos are safe, Totoyas are reliable, Lexus' are well built, and so on. But what brands are known for being well engineered? The Germans seem to hold that title but demonstrate that engineering and reliability don't always go hand in hand.

So what is your definition of well engineered and what does the term engineering mean to you in relation to the automotive world.

Which brands or models do you think are worthy of being called well engineered.

[evolutionmovement]

Whatever best fits the purpose. The purpose of a car is transportation. To me, a well engineered car is one that is reliable, durable, easy to repair, and sufficiently efficient when compared to its contemporaries so that it performs its task well. I don't think German cars are well engineered at all. Doors shutting solidly (at the expense of ridiculous weight) does not make up for under-specced electrical components, insufficient reliability, and being purposefully designed to be difficult and expensive to work on. And I think most of their vaunted interior quality is also highly overrated—gaps between panels, design, and variable long-term durability are nowhere near good enough to justify the reputation or price. Check out a Mercedes S-Class or BMW 7-series interior. Now sit in a Maserati Quattroporte. Which one seems the six-figure car? Not that I think the Maserati is necessarily well engineered, but it at least offers the trappings of something special that should be mandatory in the price range. Expensive cars get a little bit of a pass on costs and reliability only because their purpose is a little different.

I think most cars from anyone built after the mid to late nineties are poorly engineered as they are retrograde in reliability and serviceability in comparison to their immediately previous generations. Some of it is down to over-complication and compound issues of huge increases in weight brought on by perceived market demands and government regulation, but some of it is also down to complacent engineering. Toyota, in particular, is becoming the new GM and taking Subaru with it, though it's a path they already had started down. This is why I'm restoring the old Subaru and building a car of my own (with no German parts and Chinese to a minimum). I don't really consider any new cars to be well-engineered and rarely even interesting. For years, I bought about five expensive car magazines a month. I buy none now.

[cj91legss]

I think subaru deserves to be called well engineered. their Boxer motor has hardly changed in looks over the years, and the subaru motor is really something you can literally beat the piss out of and it still moves good.

[Mattheww044]

I would definately say Subarus are well designed. If you can do basic maintenance, you could easily make one last 300k+ at least as many of us have done. They are reliable, MOSTLY easy fixes, that ive came across in my 3, decent gas milage, AWD for winter, pretty good performance in the cars intended for it, and I would say good looks too, but many would disagree with that.

The only thing is, I don't know where Subaru is going, everybody hates the new cars. I haven't really looked into them and Im not much interested. I dont think I would ever buy anything newer than an 07. But who knows

[kimokalihi]

Yeah subaru is great but they're going to have to completely change the new lineup if they ever want me to buyer one of their newer cars.

[Mattheww044]

yea. Ideally I would LOVE a 05ish Legacy GT, or if I could get my hands on those "new" Spec B's for a DD, then build the hell out of my SS for a fun/weekend car

[ciper]

To me well engineered means all parts that normally wear or fail are easy to replace.

I dont care how well the car drives when new, I want whatever person doing the service to have an easy time so they do a better job and I pay less in labor.

[Mattheww044]

thats a good way to look at it. I believe that is a strong point to it, but IMO there is much more to it than just that.

[Redlined]

I went to Boot camp in the late 80s with a kid who said his dad worked for Ford as a "Quality Control Specialist". What he did was simulate 100,000 miles of wear on engine and drivetrain parts. if it didn't last 100k he upgraded the materials. if it wasn';t ready to fall apart at 100k he down graded the materials.

The supposed end game being a car that would be totally 100% reliable for 100,000 miles. Then become unusable. I guess to try to support "repeat customers".

weather or not this is the truth I don't know... but engineering things to make your customers have to buy again or upgrade has become an ugly fad in current business strategies.

[N1446]

IMO Japanese mainstream means well engineered, race inspired quality&performance

this includes honda/kawasaki/yamaha/subaru/toyota/nissan/mitsu/mazda

i ve been inside kawis and subarus and each are solid motors

- brother has an acura csx, and normally hondas - the csx is sorta like honda accord with a greater motor
girlfriend had the Camry before the accident, both us safe after T-boning a 3/4 tonne

i ve less experience with yamaha though i rode a cruiser style for a while with no issue what-soever, not to mention the race bikes

i ve had three kawi bikes and they are all the Sheeee!t Manng- yess i m bias

kawasaki motors are durable and reliable and the same goes for subaru

empire of the Sun = +1 engineering

can u say Toyobaru ?

[evolutionmovement]

Planned obsolescence has been around since the end of WWII. People prior to that time took pride in repairing and reusing (something we should be doing now. Were it more viable). After surviving all the horrors of the Great Depression and the rationing of the war (or the war itself for the veterans) and with the optimism of the booming economy after the post-WWII recession, perhaps as a way to keep their minds off the cold war, and maybe as a counter-point to socialism as well and a way for the big corporations to keep drive the booming economy and reap ever-increasing profits, we ended up with a marketing strategy that refuses to die—environmental, quality, and even domestic economy considerations be dammed (as the strategy has led to the outsourcing of so much of our production).

Unfortunately, people being so fucking stupid and/or greedy, I don't think planned obsolescence will go away anytime soon, if ever, unless there's a real societal collapse that forces it. The temporary high of buying something new is much easier for most people than the work of actually filling their hollow souls with something meaningful or doing something they can be proud of. How many people have kids only to live vicariously through, as a their only source of hope because they have succumbed to such a system and realizing how miserable they are, but not seeing a way out for themselves? Why is this culture now so child-obsessed with every kid considered to be "special"? Where every kid has to be a winner because losing isn't seen as a lesson learned, but a failure that ultimately reflects on the parent and tugs at their last tentative thread of hope? The irony of it all being that the resulting generations of ever-more entitled, weak, helpless children perpetuate the cycle and end up even more miserable than the previous generation. The educational system and MTV culture only reinforces this—training people to be soulless office drones in exchange for a comfortable living or that being a rich asshole is the way to happiness only reinforces this.

Many people's last names reflect the occupation of their long-forgotten, distant forefathers—it was part of their identity. I'm not arguing that occupation should necessarily be inherited, but a job shouldn't be a separate part of a person's life, a necessary evil (that encroaches ever more into the workers' personal lives if they're "lucky" enough to have a soulless job in the first place). It should be a source of pride that extends beyond the monetary compensation, something they own as a part of who they are.

Does this make me a conservative, longing for the return of a past seen through rose-colored glasses and the dim light of time? No, I want to take what was good then and combine it with what is good now. I don't know what that makes me, which is fine as I don't want douchebag politicians from either party (their political orientation falling under either the real definition or the corrupted current interpretation) speaking for me. I can speak for myself and, perhaps, a few of us out there who have lived through some things, stumbled sometimes, gotten back up on their own, and learned from it. Most politicians and many CEOs can't say the same, so the why the fuck are they in charge of anything?

[fishbone79]

How many people have kids only to live vicariously through, as a their only source of hope because they have succumbed to such a system and realizing how miserable they are, but not seeing a way out for themselves? Why is this culture now so child-obsessed with every kid considered to be "special"? Where every kid has to be a winner because losing isn't seen as a lesson learned, but a failure that ultimately reflects on the parent and tugs at their last tentative thread of hope? The irony of it all being that the resulting generations of ever-more entitled, weak, helpless children perpetuate the cycle and end up even more miserable than the previous generation.

I think this is the point of almost everything Bukowski has written.

[93forestpearl]

Good engineering is doing the best you possibly can given the constraints at hand. With cars, management often dictates those constraints, ie cost. Price point with cars is a major factor, and the engineering teams do the best they can to fall within a certain price window for a given vehicle. Their hands are often tied. I've been in that situation my self. I grit my teeth and swear inside, but I needed the job at the time.



The Germans like to reinvent the wheel on half of their cars, taking know working principles and trying to rework them. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Triple-square bolts? Seriously? Tamper-proof torx bolts in odd places? WTF. Special tools for routine jobs? Get lost. I know a few mechanics that won't touch them since they'd have to buy special tools that they would use once a year.


Subaru is not innocent either. Look at the cylinder liners on the newer motors. Not what they used to be. I'd still take a newer chassis due to the rigidity and safety. What would you rather get T-boned or roll over in?



For most of us enthusiasts, it is all a challenge. I cannot buy a car that does what I want it to do for less than $200k. The fun is doing it yourself for much less. There's nothing like a car with $30k invested that mops the floor with cars costing a quarter million or more. The expensive car probably has a much nicer interior though, and looks quite sexy compared to a firrst generation Legacy. Imagine that.

[evolutionmovement]

I don't know. Can't think of many attractive new cars (even Ferrari makes some monstrosities) and I've seen old Legacys shrug off serious crashes, with a friend of mine, even. Good enough for me and I'd rather have the 500-1000 lbs. savings. Then again, building my own car should be under $20k. Should be pretty safe without having to design for concessions to convention (which is lousy thing to have to do as a free-thinking designer or engineer) but 1500 lbs is still 1500 lbs. Either way, it matters little if getting hit by a semi and I'd rather be dead than paralyzed or otherwise permanently and seriously injured. I think in crashes, it's as much luck (what there is of it you have to be involved in a collision in the first place) as it is the engineering. The idiot that calls himself my father tried to kill himself in an Opel GT by driving off a mountain road at high speed without a seat belt. Hit a tree a few hundred yards into the woods and ended up under the passenger dashboard with the engine in the driver's seat. Prick just got cut up a bit.

[93forestpearl]

The advancements in materials have been tremendous in the last 20 years. Look at the bumper beam of a GD of newer car, and then try to cut through it with a sawzall. On the newer beam, a sawzall has serious trouble.


The simple addition of high-strength boron steel has been a major improvement in the crash safety of modern vehicles. The old stuff doesn't come close. Yes, we know of plenty of cars that come out fine in a wreck, but it is what it is. Passenger compartment intrusion these days is at a whole new level. Our B-pillars have what, 2-3 layers of work-hardened mild steel? The new stuff has eight layers and parts where the jaws of life cannot even cut through.


Granted I like my old car and the fact that it keeps me under the radar. However, I'd like to make some more structural improvements to get it up to speed. Next winter will probably include a 4-8 point cage that will not compromise daily driving safety without helmet.

[evolutionmovement]

But though those materials are lighter/strength, you're still talking a large increase in weight. I remember people making fun of big American muscle cars back in the day. Today, they look tiny and light (compare the weight of an 04 Camry to a 69 Road Runner, for instance), even next to their modern, similarly styled, incarnations. And then there's the cost—my Mazda 3 was hit twice, both fairly minor hits the Subaru would have shrugged off with little to no damage (I know, because getting rear-ended by a Chrysler LHS did nothing but fuck up the Chrysler), but which cost $2500-3000 to fix. And much of that bigger bumper beam means little when hit by a truck with higher bumpers. The escalating war of weight is stupid. 2000 lbs. @ x mph is much less energy to have to manage and absorb than 4000 lbs. Rather than have to build cars to contend with trucks and then the larger counterparts of themselves and competitors, it would make more sense to bring weights down by engineering them intelligently instead of traditionally, but the stupid public can't deal with change, can't remember a past two days ago, or think two days in the future. What was the problem with full size trucks in the early nineties? Why did they have to grow to such gross proportions and weight so that now even mid-size cars weigh about as much as the trucks a few generations ago to contend with them?

I guess it's about priorities and I don't really care about safety beyond a certain standard that was achieved about 15-20 years ago. Compromising the longevity, comfort, mileage, and performance that are part of the every day experience of driving a car for the off chance of a major accident where the compromises made MIGHT help you out makes no sense to me, but I take my fears out back and beat the bag out of them, not indulge them. I installed cell antennas on high-rises and I'm afraid of heights and have bouts of vertigo. I've known people who've died in car accidents, but I know people who've died of lots of things. I have the attitude of the soldiers who accept that they're already dead so that they can manage getting through battle. We're all going to go someday, you never know when or how, but when the die is cast, you're time is up, so there's no sense worrying about it. I just try to make sure the people I care about know it and I make up for things I do quickly.

So, rolling back around to the topic after another damn novel that works a complicated answer out of a simple question, the best engineered car, IMO, is perhaps impossible by a mainstream manufacturer having to cater too much to government regulation and market tradition.

[Smithcraft]

As for the trucks, I think it's easy to say that it was all about who's truck was more macho than the other guys. I mean look at the Nissan Titan. And then Ford wanted to out Suburban the Suburban. Gas was cheap and power was king.

As for design considerations - Back when the Mustang was coming up on it's 25th anniversary, Mustang Monthly asked it's readers to fill out a poll and send it in, and then they would submit the poll results to Ford. Or something like that. Anyway, they published the more insane requests. Not the ones for ungodly amounts of horsepower, but the ones that were for crazy things like ungodly amounts of horsepower and no ABS - stuff like that. It was pretty interesting reading.

While my next car might be a Subaru, I'm still leaning towards a early/mid sixties Ford, that I can rebuild to the way I want it, not the way the bean counters want it. Maybe a '63 Falcon with an EJ22, or an H6?

But on topic - Good engineering, well I'll relate a couple of things my father told me about as a near thirty year Honda mechanic.
The first was back in the early eighties or so. The engine bay was well thought out and easy to work on, and the engine was also easy to work on, including adjusting the valves. Then the next year, it was a nightmare. There was a cage like assembly around the cam and valves so adjustments were a battle, and the whole engine compartment was a disaster zone.
The second is when he worked in Beverly Hills. Right next to BH Honda was an exotic car dealer. In addition to the few other makes they carried they carried Lamborghini and Ferrari. My father was able to look over one of the new Lamborghinis and he said it was a mess. The mechanics that worked on it, reminded him that Lamborghini was primarily a farm tractor company, and that was the way their fancy cars were made. Then they would look at the Ferrari, and it was built and designed from the ground up by someone who was designing a competition automobile. Everything was laid out, and accessible(well - compared to the Lamborghini that is) by someone who had actually thought about how to make it right rather than just make it.

Of course there are compromises to design, and there are compromises to engineering. When the bean counters have more to say about a cars development, than the engineers and designers then that is when a car(or any product for that matter) suffers. Then there are designers and engineers who don't grasp the real world, and design things that can't exist without custom components, which would drive prices up toooo high. Let the technicians handle the compromises and we will be better off than when the bean counters do.