ford4v429 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 just wondered some folks opinions on 'planned obsolescence' - real or not? my 15 yr old son picked up a ranger thats a year older than him, first vehicle, nice little truck... BUT in cleaning up/painting the undercarriage, noticed a few really stupid or intentionally bad designs. where the front coil spring perch is attached to the frame, there is a 'gusset' in the stamping that creates a open on top/4" deep pocket that is absolutely impossible to clean out without drilling a hole in the bottom...the rear shock mounts are the same, all four of these points on his truck were flush to the top with moist roadgrime... do you guys think the design is intentionally to cause frame rot, or just a incredibly stupid idea not to put drains at an area sure to collect dirt? found a website (rust fix dot com or something like that) that makes tons of patch sections for ranger frames...apparently spring hangers and these areas are kinda common failure areas...these are much like the flawed windstar rear axle design that probably cost ford a billion dollars in buybacks and repairs+rentals. I know in salty areas, nothings going to last indefinitely, but I'd really thought the ford frame rot issues went away in the early 70's (I have a 65 Gal we had to build a new frame for- lots of holes, no drains in those cars, assured rot) but just gotta wonder if these designs are to assure they cannot last forever, or just really poor designs. I just cannot fathom that those blind frame pockets in the ranger, or the bathtubs in top of the windstar axles could be oversights- unless someone drew them upside down the 04-08 4.6 'break off' sparkplugs, the failure prone 4.6 2v plastic intakes, other seemingly 'should never be a problem' things made it into production for years too, just gotta wonder if these designs were intentionally bad or just oops's... thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Why on Earth would any mfr knowingly build in problems like that on purpose? What could they possibly gain from it - they wouldn't be doing the repairs and if you had those types of problems you'd be less likely to buy a new one from the same mfr. Total myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JScullin Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It exists to some extent in certain things. Printers are the biggest example as brands like HP have a chip in them that will eventually cause the printer to malfunction after so many prints. Other printers have sponges or overflow wells that eventually clog up and cause the printer to cease working. An auto manufacturer wouldn't open itself up to a liability like what you've described tho. It's likely that this is there as part of some sort of structural or manufacturing process. Depending on how it was made adding a drain hole was an added step and thus added cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilbo Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Self clogging CVVT systems on 24V 5.4 engines, self removing paint on aluminum SUV tailgates and Mustang hoods (2015 F150 lawsuits over delaminated paint will make a lot of attorneys a lot wealthier than they already are), cracking Explorer tailgate panels, self destructing blend doors on Gen II Explorers and Rangers, self imoliating cruise control switches featured on just about all models 1991-2002, 2005-2006 Mustang auto filling foot wells (cold water only) with soak and rinse functions on the ECU's, GEN II Probe GT automatic transmission over heating feature, automatic paint crackling on all black '97-'99 F150's built in Kansas City, 2003-2007 Expedition LS differential growl feature, #5 cylinder automatic oil sucking feature due to inadequate intake bolt torque on Cologne assembled 4.0 engines, fuel starvation feature on 2005-2007 Mustangs, Pintos.... I've owned all of the above. The only cars more dependable than the Pinto was the '67 Fairlane GTA and my currently owned '70 Ranchero GT with 351 Cleveland. I've owned mostly Fords over the last 43 years so I guess I love my Fords like I would a psychotic girlfriend with Christina Hendricks' body panels... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 Why on Earth would any mfr knowingly build in problems like that on purpose? What could they possibly gain from it - they wouldn't be doing the repairs and if you had those types of problems you'd be less likely to buy a new one from the same mfr. Total myth. I used to think similarly, but looking at that ranger frame its like a 2yr old could see it would just fill up with mud... the engineering was either intentional, or it was unintentional - but either way, they really need to stop. if cars lasted forever, maybe theyll sell fewer cars- or maybe they would sell more cars to repeat customers...wonder what the accounting guru's would chime in on that one? my guess is the bean counters would prefer the car start nickel and diming owners the day after the warranty ran out, necessitating a new one or insanely expensive labor for simple part swaps on the old one...every 50 dollar heater core WILL fail in every car after x years of service- yet almost every one today is a massive labor hit to replace... the best engineering would dictate both low initial cost and ease of service- just a guess, but bet a heater core in a checker cab was a ten minute job or something... it can be done, and I'm sure Ford has the talent... so why not? planned obsolescence seems most likely... and having a hard time thinking that so many bad designs could have been approved unknowingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) LOL! know what you mean- our 65 galaxie has the original motor/tranny, even starter and voltage regulator still. we had to put a frame under it in 02, but aside from underside paint/hoses/belts, its mostly original. found the april 1965 ink stamp still on the starter when cleaning it up, couldnt believe it- and that car likes to crank a long time before starting. only breakdowns since we inherited it in 02 were a new chrome thermostat housing corroded thru, and a replaced fan belt broke...same battery I bought in september 02. that car is insanely simple/reliable, was my old friends first new ford, made him a 'ford man' till the day he died. every time I turn the key in that car, can still picture him smiling- 'see I told you it runs good' the first time we started it up after it had sat for years... if you are into rusty-if-reliable old fords, heres a link to the galaxies story- http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/galaxie-pages/490496-saving-65-galaxie-loooong-story.html The only cars more dependable than the Pinto was the '67 Fairlane GTA and my currently owned '70 Ranchero GT with 351 Cleveland.I've owned mostly Fords over the last 43 years so I guess I love my Fords like I would a psychotic girlfriend with Christina Hendricks' body panels... Edited January 22, 2014 by ford4v429 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Engineers aren't usually stupid, so there's usually a good reason for those types of decisions. Sometimes it's simply too expensive to change it. Sometimes they've already explored the change that you think they should make and found that it causes another more serious problem. Sometimes it just gets overlooked in the big picture. But people don't buy new vehicles today because the old ones wear out. Vehicles today last 150K miles and longer with virtually no maintenance. A customer who has a part fail that appeared to be intentional or negligent would most likely go to a different mfr. The simple answer is it was either overlooked, too expensive to change or wasn't deemed to be a serious problem. There is no way it was done intentionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Engineers aren't usually stupid, so there's usually a good reason for those types of decisions. Sometimes it's simply too expensive to change it. Sometimes they've already explored the change that you think they should make and found that it causes another more serious problem. Sometimes it just gets overlooked in the big picture. But people don't buy new vehicles today because the old ones wear out. Vehicles today last 150K miles and longer with virtually no maintenance. A customer who has a part fail that appeared to be intentional or negligent would most likely go to a different mfr. The simple answer is it was either overlooked, too expensive to change or wasn't deemed to be a serious problem. There is no way it was done intentionally. I concur. The "overlook" part is likley because less experienced people were involed with that part of the design. Even when more senior people were brought in, it was too late/difficult/expensive to change the design. Sometimes this really bites a company in the butt ! Look at the recall on the Windstar/Freestar rear axle and the front sub-frame. Nobody who grew up in the "rust belt" would ever design a structural/suspension member that had an upturn channel just beginning to catch dirt and moisture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes. I don't build cars but this is similar to what happens in large IT projects. What can seem like a simple change becomes complicated and you end up with a domino effect that makes it not feasible to make a change that seems like a no-brainer. In a lot of cases the problem can be a side effect of another unexpected change that happens at the last minute. A good example is the rear window regulators on the 2000-2002 Lincoln LS. The regulators would regularly break, almost always on the rear and only if the windows were not used a lot. What happened was the material that insulates the window when it's rolled up changed late in the program. The result was it was stickier than the original material. If the window sat for long periods rolled up, it would bond more tightly to the window and put more force on the regulator when the window was finally rolled down. This didn't show up in testing because when you test something you over-exercise it to make it fail. Over-exercising it in this case eliminated the problem. And folks who regularly use their rear windows never saw the problem. That's just not something you normally test for. In other words - stuff happens and most of it isn't on purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Here is a perfect example. Tacoma frame rots completely in half. Cost Toyota a TON to make that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Self clogging CVVT systems on 24V 5.4 engines, self removing paint on aluminum SUV tailgates and Mustang hoods (2015 F150 lawsuits over delaminated paint will make a lot of attorneys a lot wealthier than they already are), cracking Explorer tailgate panels, self destructing blend doors on Gen II Explorers and Rangers, self imoliating cruise control switches featured on just about all models 1991-2002, 2005-2006 Mustang auto filling foot wells (cold water only) with soak and rinse functions on the ECU's, GEN II Probe GT automatic transmission over heating feature, automatic paint crackling on all black '97-'99 F150's built in Kansas City, 2003-2007 Expedition LS differential growl feature, #5 cylinder automatic oil sucking feature due to inadequate intake bolt torque on Cologne assembled 4.0 engines, fuel starvation feature on 2005-2007 Mustangs, Pintos.... I've owned all of the above. The only cars more dependable than the Pinto was the '67 Fairlane GTA and my currently owned '70 Ranchero GT with 351 Cleveland. I've owned mostly Fords over the last 43 years so I guess I love my Fords like I would a psychotic girlfriend with Christina Hendricks' body panels... All engineering flaws for sure. The question, however, is whether or not those flaws were intentional for the purposes of hastening replacement. I wouldn't think that's the case in any of those instances, given the bad press it has given the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 just wondered some folks opinions on 'planned obsolescence' - real or not? my 15 yr old son picked up a ranger thats a year older than him, first vehicle, nice little truck... BUT in cleaning up/painting the undercarriage, noticed a few really stupid or intentionally bad designs. where the front coil spring perch is attached to the frame, there is a 'gusset' in the stamping that creates a open on top/4" deep pocket that is absolutely impossible to clean out without drilling a hole in the bottom...the rear shock mounts are the same, all four of these points on his truck were flush to the top with moist roadgrime... do you guys think the design is intentionally to cause frame rot, or just a incredibly stupid idea not to put drains at an area sure to collect dirt? All I can tell you is I replaced my 1993 Ranger last August after 20 years and 200k+ miles. Never once did it fail to start, and never had "rot" of any kind. (I live in N.C. so not as much snow/salt used here) For the ~$13,400 I spent on it, I think I got my moneys' worth. I gave it to my brother in-law a few days after taking delivery on my current F-150. He'll probably drive it for years to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Printers are the biggest example as brands like HP have a chip in them that will eventually cause the printer to malfunction after so many prints. Are you sure you aren't thinking of the ink/toner cartridges? I'm aware of the printer makers doing this, but having something like that for the printer itself is very hard to believe. I'd think if there were a hard-and-fast number, people would know what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JScullin Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 There's both. It's usually called a smart chip and the printer talks to the cartridge. It will block you from using a cartridge that's past a certain date even if it's new or still good. They give low ink level warnings and stop printing even when there's plenty of ink left and they'll cause the printer to malfunction after a few years (even if they've had light use). HP had a class-action lawsuit brought up to them on it and several sites have discussed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
expolice Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Management answer to most of these things is "We're not proud of the performance of the xyz part or design, but that doesn't mean we're going to fix them for free or do a recall." Cost redcution programs get people promoted (and lead to most of our recalls). But the responsible engineer is now a director and can find a million reasons why its not his fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) not again... hate to say it but hope the right heads are rolling at ford... SUGGESTION: make engineering suggestion boxes and encourage (reward $$) designers to watch for bad designs...maybe have peer reviews from other departments cross check each others work...or run the designs by some highschool kids to look for stuff that will collect salt and road grime...if the designs were to save pennies or even tens of dollars, it hasnt been paying off, those approving without checking designs should be bumped out of the system...these things are costing ford a LOT of money, and the rust reputation is returning...know too many people that wont buy a ford because they rust out too bad- long term this might cost more than these freaking windstar recalls... other than the hood paint blistering up (even on brand new cars) on Mustangs, they seem to be holding up pretty well- minivans, trucks, escapes, not so good...its a $hame personally, I'm guessing the escape wheelwell/shock mount issues on passenger sides of 04-06 models wont be far behind http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/10/ford-finally-issues-recall-for-230k-minivans-over-rust-problems/ Edited February 26, 2014 by ford4v429 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 It's called changing too many things at the same time with too few employees and bringing in new European suppliers and engineering. Now that Ford is solidly profitable and most of the global platform consolidation is complete I expect that to change, so this is hopefully all temporary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 ... know too many people that wont buy a ford because they rust out too bad- long term this might cost more than these freaking windstar recalls... Windstar/Freestar had NUMEROUS issues 3.8L engine head gasket AX4S/AX4N transmission failures rear axle rust through front subframe rust through I tell anyone I know who has one to get rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Looking at the Windstar/Freestar isn't really going to say much about what Ford is currently doing. They were not very good vehicles, but keep in mind, neither was most of what Ford was selling then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Looking at the Windstar/Freestar isn't really going to say much about what Ford is currently doing. They were not very good vehicles, but keep in mind, neither was most of what Ford was selling then.And THANK GOD the current vehicles have little in common with those disasters ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 And THANK GOD the current vehicles have little in common with those disasters ! No question. My Edge is screwed together a hundred times tighter than my Mustang. Though it has been repaired twice for the awful crap PTU they insist on not re-designing. Not looking forward to its next inevitable failure which will come outside the warranty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grump Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Can't blame engineers for crappy designs, automobiles are designed by accountants and engineers design to their specifications. I thought you people new that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Can't blame engineers for crappy designs, automobiles are designed by accountants and engineers design to their specifications. I thought you people new that. To a point. If a particular part can't be properly engineered within the budget provided though, it's up to that engineering group to get justification for having that budget increased to design the part properly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) Can't blame engineers for crappy designs, ...BS ! Unfortunately, Ford has been bitten, repeatedly now, by designs engineered in EU that just are not robust enough for US roads and drivers. New Excape corrosion recall is an example. Edited April 8, 2014 by theoldwizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 BS ! Unfortunately, Ford has been bitten, repeatedly now, by designs engineered in EU that just are not robust enough for US roads and drivers. New Excape corrosion recall is an example. The rust recall is on 2001-2004 Escapes, ie American-designed ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.