I’d say with everything being CAD-based and with manufacturers able to simulate an entire vehicle before a part is even stamped out, that there is no excuse for making frequently-replaced parts hard to service other than utter cheapness and laziness.
I think things have gotten a lot better in the last couple of decades–during the mid 80s when manufacturers were making smaller cars and cramming in transverse-mounted engines, but without the benefit of modern computing power to design and analyze, there were some horrific examples of simple maintenance tasks that were ridiculously hard. Cars where you had to pull a wheel to get at an oil filter; cars where you’d need to pull the engine to replace a water pump, etc.
I’m still irked at the GM cars where you were helpfully provided with an outline of where to cut the metal in the wheel well to get at the HVAC blower. Though there are a lot of those that are still hard to replace.
An old boss of mine used to remark that the people who design and engineer these cars never have to work on whatever it is they designed. They only really care about how easy and cheap it is to make and install on the line.
Gm and others have made some weird choices as far as where to put things, optispark placed where a leaky water pump can ruin it. Overall there isn’t nearly as much room under most hoods as there used to be.
An old boss of mine used to remark that the people who design and engineer these cars never have to work on whatever it is they designed. They only really care about how easy and cheap it is to make and install on the line.
It use to be much worse. But believe it or not…a lot of the cad software that’s been on the market for over 20 years has taken care of most of that. Plus there use to be separate engineering teams and didn’t work together until they started building pre-production vehicles. Now the teams designs are put into the cad integration systems early and things like “Having to loosen the engine mounts and raise the engine 4” to replace the oil filter" SHOULD NEVER happen again.
A little too much Fusion on the front, but otherwise not a bad effort at all. I might get one. But I’ll probably wait until they upgrade the 5.0L with direct injection; more power and better fuel economy. I’ll take mine in Sonic Blue with the track-pack.
Certain manufactures like Ferrari are making cars that are easier to do certain jobs on (no engine-out service just to replace timing belts) and with computer design and some better teamwork are making progress. My earlier comment from an ex-boss was circa 1996 roughly at the auto parts store i worked for at the time. We found a few examples like first gen 300zx’s that require taking the front end apart to replace a water pump or other items.
“that there is no excuse for making frequently-replaced parts hard to service other than utter cheapness and laziness.”
Fact is, it’s not a priority. It’s not even on the radar screen.
#1 lowest manufacturing cost. #2 lowest warranty cost
… #2098532 ease of repair (as long as it doesn’t cost any NRE= just happens to work out that way)
If it is designed with enough margin to survive the warranty period with some headroom, they don’t really care about ease of repair. Why would they? You (meaning people who are inclined to visit sites like this) are in the noise band of the population of car buyers…
@TwinTurbo: I generally agree, but it can be more important if the mfr is desiring a high level of fleet sales. Downtime can be a big deal, and having sub-assemblies “bolt on/off” quickly and easily is a bone fide selling point.
About those tapered roller bearings being made obsolete, @db4690, WHY? Like Peugeot clutch slave cylinders, the unit hub bearing moves an assembly procedure from the assembly line to an outsourced and likely off shore manufacturer where labor is cheap. But the end result is a significantly more problematic assembly and a much more expensive repair when they fail. The evolution in automobile design and assembly makes for a much more disposable appliance. Like refrigerators and washing machines we will soon dispose of automobiles as soon as they fail after the warranty expires… So it seems.
Rod, according to Toyota’s design documents, they replaced tapered roller bearings with ball bearing for lower rolling resistance. I think it’s pathetic, but every generation our cars are becoming more filled with compromises in the interest of mileage. And in the interest of complying with other regulations.
Db, I will argue that ball bearings, having far less contact area than rollers, are much less tolerant of impacts. Damaged bearings are much more common today than they were in the old days.
The Toyota drawings use what’s called “tapered ball bearings”. A tapered ball bearing set is actually two rows of ball bearings on different radii around tapered races. It provides load bearing capability along the axis of the spindle. But it isn’t a tolerant of impact as rollers. It simply has far less contact area. Loads are focused into tiny points rather than along roller sides.
I have to also recognize Db’s point that the ol’ roller bearings often weren’t serviced or retorqued properly. Actually, they more often were not serviced at all. Sealed bearings are an improvement in that respect, but sealed rollers would be even better. It’s only in recent years that manufacturers went to ball bearings. All in the unending quest for the million mpg car…