and many others...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/teardown.html

I don't blame them either. Find out what makes the competition tick... take away the things you like and leave behind the things you think you (or another manufacturer you are reverse engineering) does better.

GM has specifically said before that they reverse engineered an ES330 to create the Buick Lucerne. They're probably doing this to the RX400H to create their new Buick SUV that was posted here a few weeks ago and looked really nice.

 

I would venture a guess that just about any OEM does this to competing vehicles from time to time.

I've been in a building where they do vehicle teardowns, it is actually pretty cool how everything is documented. Not sure if it is the same facility that article mentions. Just seems like a normal thing to do.

 

I suppose some do it more than others. The chinese for example seem to base 99% of their engineering on stealing ideas and making half-assed attempts to duplicate it.

 

 

This is called "benchmarking" and every manufacturer out there does it.

 

Like Darth said, they benchmarked the Lucerne, NOT reverse engineered.

Benchmark = Design/engineer your own product then use the competitions as a measuring stick to see how it stacks up. One Buick benchmark was to make the Lucerne quiter than the lexus.

 

Benchmarking would be taking two finalized products or two finalized subcomponents and seeing how they stack up objectively side by side.

Reverse engineering would be the process of disassembling a car piece by piece, documenting everything you possibly can about how it was put together, what it's made out of, and seeing how you can improve your designs from what you've learned.

 

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and anything else I've read on the matter.... you are incorrect:


Main Entry: bench·mark·ing
Pronunciation: -"mär-ki[ng]
Function: noun
: the study of a competitor's product or business practices in order to improve the performance of one's own company.

 

I found this defination as well, so I suppose we can call it a draw:

I think the two terms are interchangable, basically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering

Reverse engineering (RE) is the process of discovering the technological principles of a mechanical application through analysis of its structure, function and operation. That involves sometimes taking something (a mechanical device, an electrical component, a software program, etc.) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually with the intention to construct a new device or program that does the same thing without actually copying anything from the original. The verb form is to reverse-engineer, spelled with a hyphen.

 

They are benchmarking, if they were reverse engineering, they'd save themselves some money and look at the patents.

 

I think they are similar but not the same. I think reverse-engineering is a technically-focused 'micro' version of benchmarking. ie: Here's our door hinge assembly, it weighs 8 pounds per assembly, offers 6 stop points, makes X amount of noise, and is expected to last xxxxx number of full cycles before exceeding its intended range of operation. Our competitor is better in these areas, but not these areas. Is there a way we can incorporate the benefits of their design without inhereting their weaknesses?

Benchmarking is a flat-out comparison. It is saying, this is how we got to point A, this is how you got to point A... now who did it better? Are we the best? Why are we the best or not the best? It's more of a 'macro' view that is an 'end goal', it doesn't examine the details with the intention of copying the competition's methodology, but rather says something like, "Lexus has achived XXdB road noise on the test track... we refuse to say "Job complete" until we have surpassed that number, though we may go about it a completely different way."

So I guess in a way benchmarking is a comparison by disassembly of the numerical/objective specifications of a final result or achievement. Whereas reverse-engineering is an evaluation as to whether adapting a particular competing design detail would benefit the overall product.

Macro vs micro, management approach vs engineering approach.

Acura's RL may have benchmarked Lexus' GS when going for cabin noise levels, but the RL used sound inversion and far less sound deadening, thus saving weight but increasing complexity. Very different route but in the end they can still benchmark their results to the competition.

When somebody says the Corvette Z06 should be the performance benchmark of the industry, they don't mean BMW should scrap its M3's motor and build something as close to the Z06 as they can... they mean BMW should strive to delivery similar or better performance for the same amount of money.

Sorry for getting super wordy. I'm not tryingto be arguementative or such a small point; just trying to explain my point of view for the fun of it, if symantics is something you consider fun.

 

Taking everyother competitors car apart can be a wonderful thing if done right.
Just think you don't have to think of any orginal ideas. You already know how the cars perform in real life. If you find something you like you can see exactly how it's made, you know it already works in real life and you know somewhere out there, there is a supplier that makes it.

Had they stolen ford's 9" on the 4th gen I think we would all have like it better.

 

Do you think a manufacturer has a patent for every nut and bolt on every model of car they make? Does that patent describe every quantifiable detail on weight, placement, installation, and composition of those nuts and bolts? No.

 

Very true, and on a side note, nice avatar!

 

Geely Motors knows people percieve this, so you always seem them now boast how they paid for designs and what not..

say all they can say, that tin can grandfather that they showed easily had blatent ripoff's in design.. pah