SSbaby

An interesting one.

Ford had tyre problems whereas a similar spec tyre for the GM Tahoe was problem free. Claims were that the brand of tyre on Explorer was slightly under-specced by Ford (as a form of cost cutting). GM probably chose a slightly heavier duty tyre?

What would you do for your car, buy a cheap Chinese made tyre or buy a more expensive brand of same spec? And how much 'quality' would you say is built into each tyre? Well the auto maker has the same choice as you do.

Chrome383Z

tyre?

Chrome383Z

Yes.

And I blame GM for their faulty parts.

And I blame Toyota for their faulty parts.

An OEM DECIDES which supplier to use. If they cheap out with a Chinese Supplier, a Supplier that has a bad reputation to save costs, I'm sorry that's their fault.

There's all different types of suppliers. Good ones have higher prices (typically), ****ty ones are cheap (typically). The OEM decides which one to go with and if they can get away with the "cheaper" quality or not. And sometimes it bites them in the ***.

bossco

Yes, as a result of the revolutionary war, there are 2 forms of english on the planet. Ameriglish and what everybody else speaks and writes. Did you also know cars come equipped with wings, bonnets and boots?


Reading the snipet from the article suggests to me, that the drive shaft met toyota's spec, but the supplier had a problem with thier manufacturing technique.

::shrugs:: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Chrome383Z

Nope, and don't care.

How's that for American attitude.

cjmatt

I work in Fords Powertrain Purchasing dept and I personally consider it our fault if a part on the vehicle fails. Toyota can blame the supplier all they want to pass the buck, But it was Toyota who chose to put the faulty part on the vehicle and hence, becomes their problem to deal with

bossco

lol

HuJass

mat,
I disagree with you. As a quality engineer in the automotive industry, it is of utmost importance that manufacturers check their incoming goods. Most, if not all, plants have an incoming inspection lab. This is where incoming parts are measured to make sure they meet the print, maybe run thru a Met lab to make sure they materials meet the properties that the design engineers spec'ed. These labs look at size, relationships, surface finish, roundness, on and on. They'll even look at a part AND it's mating part to make sure the fits are correct and to spec.

You can NEVER assume that incoming parts are good. It will come back and bite you on the ***. Every time.

That why manufacturers rely on lot sampling. Lot sampling is simply taking a sample of incoming material and laying it out completely AND checking it's metallurgical properties. It's the only way manufacturers can protect themselves.

For example: we make transfer cases. GM asks us on a regular basis to send sample t-cases from our line to Milford, where, you guesed it, they test it. Why? To make sure it meets (and keeps meeting) THEIR specifications. And we're a Tier 1 supplier.

They HAVE to check their parts. Plain & simple. And they ARE responsible for their supplier's parts, because, when it's all said and done, they're putting their name on that product, not the suppliers.

Eric Bryant

OEMs do it all the time. And each supplier depends on bringing in stock from lower-tier suppliers without checks.

What you describe here is a bit unusual, as most parts that go into auto plants never get any sort of spot-check or additional testing unless there's a problem. My guess is that your products are subject to that sort of testing because the component has historically been a problem for GM.

I agree with this statement 100% - as soon as the OEM purchases the product, it's their problem to live with if a failure occurs. I don't particularly care for Toyota's habit of blaming suppliers.

90rocz

To me, it's fair enough... in company's never ending quests to drive down supplier costs, this is just what they can expect...companies aren't going to take a bath and reject product that could squeak by, especially when they're being forced to keep overhead down.

ProudPony

Ummm.... check the parts. And require such from your supplier too.
SPC sheets are available on-demand if said supplier is ISO-certified.

Now, back to reality.
Did NOBODY catch the snibbit about ""The rear propeller shaft in some of the vehicles may not have been sufficiently heat-treated by the supplier," said Bill Kwong, a Toyota spokesman. "If it separates, it would be like the vehicle went into neutral, with a lot of noise." "
OMG!!!

1) If a driveshaft separates in ANY way, there is HUGE potential for damage and injury.
2) I can ASSURE you it will make "a lot of noise"! And dents.
3) Never knew land-based vehicles had "propeller shafts". Toyota is always breaking new ground.
4) It would be like neutral alright. And it would probably happen while the owner was pulling a 10,000 lb load up the incline of a teeter-totter, or accelerating out of the way of an on-coming I-beam swinging from a pendulum.

The most significant slap in the face for this issue is that they specifically named the driveshaft and u-joints in one of their earliest commercials as being "bigger than other 1/2-ton trucks". Ditto the brake rotors, and some other parts. TOTALLY embarassing to have your "bigger" part outperformed by smaller ones from GM and Ford, huh?

I'm waiting for frame issues to start showing up soon. Or body cracks.

You know I am loving this.

HuJass

Proud,
Good post.

Yeah, the technical term for a drive shaft is a propeller shaft or "prop shaft", for short. At least in the automotive driveline business. That's what we call them at NPG and that's what GM's engineers and managers refer to them as.
And in my factory repair manual for my '73 GP, GM refers to the drive shaft as the propeller shaft.

And the yoke on the rear axle; GM refers to it as the "companion flange".

Where they come up with this stuff I have no idea.

AdioSS

I wonder if those trucks have any kind of driveshaft loop?

Luckily for those who may be affected by this issue, it may only be limited to 4WD models. So, when the driveshaft breaks, a smart driver could engage 4WD to get off the road instead of being stuck in traffic.

Does Toyota have anything similar to OnStar? I have a feeling that LOTS of new truck buyers may want that...

PacerX

I work at a Tier 1 supplier.

First, powertrain parts are almost universally spec'd by the OEM - NOT THE SUPPLIERS.

You'll find that other parts (body interior, etc...) tend to be spec'd in some part by the supplier, but powertrain stuff invariably is engineered by the OEM.

Heat treatment on a part is spec'd in a number of ways, generally with lot testing up front and then sampling later on. The article is unclear as to whether the heat treatment was improperly SPECIFIED, or if it was improperly PERFORMED. There's a significant difference.

Either way, quality is ultimately the OEM's responsibility. The OEM specifies the required testing and controls criteria, approves the DFMEA, the PFMEA, the PPAP, the DVP&R, the Run at Rate and all of the associated documentation.

94Camaro_Z_28

Supplier issue or not, it's Toyota's responsiblity to catch it just like it is for GM or Ford.

Thats a good point about the driveshaft commercial....I forgot all about that.

Changing it all

What next? Is the cab going to fall off?