Quote:
Originally posted by sapper740
I've always been a firm believer that before a vehicle is accepted for production, the designers should have to service, maintain, and repair the vehicle in the field themselves under austere conditions. Then we'd see some common sense brought to the design. Anyone remember when GM shoe-horned a V8 into the Monza? Or the "permanently lubricated" upper control arms in "60s Fords? 
|
Of course the engineers with shoe horns were "only doing what the customer asked for". So, if oversized engines are bad, does that mean that the British philosophy of putting the smallest possible engine into everything and treating the operator as an afterthought might not be so bad????
As for "lubricated for life" it could be seen as true as long as you interpret it as "lubricated for (a very short) life".
If we keep going on the path to replacing assemblies as opposed to parts, we will eventually get to the state of " remove the licence plates, replace the defective assembly (complete vehicle), attach licence plates, return to customer".
You're right, I don't like any of these design philosophies, even though I do like the way current trucks get on with carrying me and my stuff with minimum hassle. In comparison my 2006 Ford goes many more thousand km between service than any CMP, faster, carrying more load in greater comfort and better MPG. I admit I'm a contradiction.