Automaker blunders in the last 5 years

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by Phillies8008

That's crazy – you'd think they'd do something to try and cover them. Who in the world would buy them at this point with the panels in that condition? Maybe they plan to wrap them, if they can ever manage to sell them?

Of course, if Elon hadn't have insisted on such a stupid material... but I digress.

They must have a specialized detail team. I marked one truck with a piece of tape to track it. Hasn't moved in 9 months.

They occasionally bring a truck with bed-mounted generators to the lot to put some juice into the vehicles. Hilarious.

[aiden5524]

Maaaan i love the new m2. ik it isnt for everyone tho. Biggest mistake of all time was the diesel version of the 350. It blackballed all of america on diesel engines in cars. Now we dont have 3 and 5 series m57 cars. If someone totals my e90 335d im gonna buy a nice roller e39 and make one

[RM7]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

7) Toyota Tundra and the twin turbo V6. Toyota should have shrunk the displacement of its V8, added direct injection and some intake manifold and cam timing/lift wizardy, along with its 8 speed auto to achieve more power and better mpgs. Instead, they spent huge to develope an impressively complicated small displacement V6 TT (and hybrid option) that has serious main bearing issues that has lead to massive recalls. Toyota initially claimed machining debris in the oil passages but most of us gearheads knew that was BS and was something more serious after looking at engine teardowns. It is still not known if the newest motors are free of the issue. Toyota has killed its reputation with this motor.

No, it's a truck and it needs torque, especially torque down low and in a usable curve. If it was NA, it would need relatively big cylinders to make decent torque, like the old 4.0 V6 (not enough for full size) or a 6.0+ engine. There are a few other tricks to make torque, but in general with a smaller displacement engine, it's going to need to rev much higher to reach full potential and the rest of the torque curve suffers greatly due to this. It's relatively easy to get more HP, but torque with small cylinders is difficult. While that could be fun in a light sports-car...it's a truck. V6 TT gives a much richer torque curve (more area under the curve) and is undoubtedly better than shrinking the current V8 to get more efficiency.

[chassis]

Ford and Bosch messed up with the CP4 HPFP on the 6.7 Power Stroke diesel. Failure mode means metal shavings are created in the pump and the engine goes to Heaven. The fuel system is not returnless so the bad stuff gets spread around the engine.

As of early 2025 builds, the problem is still ongoing, but anecdotally seems less prevalent.

p.s. CP4 threads on the Ford truck sites point out the diesel fuel quality differences (particulate size) between Europe and the US. Both Bosch and car companies are abjectly failing to put diesel engines in the U.S. market that can cope with the prevailing fuel quality. Yes, the other side of the coin is better fuel quality but the chances of that happening are less than a better fuel pump design. The required design change is trivial for Bosch, transparent to Ford and consumers would willingly pay $50 more per truck for a fuel pump that doesn't grenade their 500k mile engine.

p.p.s. Fuel quality and DPF quality are contributing factors, but not the root cause, of CP4 failures.

[RM7]

I rent a lot of cars, so I usually have my own list of stuff that annoys me straight away.

Haptic controls vs buttons as appropriate. Displays are fine and can add a lot of flexibility, but as noted in many threads, some of the application is downright lazy and stupid, especially the stuff where it's haptic off a screen.

Climate control systems with manual temp selectors for L and R seats...but no sync button. If you're going go give the ability to do this with buttons, the sync should be there too.

Drive mode and CC-on settings that don't "remember" when you shut off the car. Drive mode is sometimes forgivable, but not when it is your preferred mode and you deem that to be fairly important to how the car acts, like it's the suspension setting you prefer that should be run all the time. CC-on is never forgivable, why the hell do I need to "turn it on" every time I start the car?

Camera-based ACC. This sucks balls compared to radar and while radar is not 100%, it's damn near in my experience in snow and wet weather, while camera is easily foiled by stupid shit like rain/snow/ice on the windshield and ****ing hills with signs on it for some reason. It seems like they do this to wrap lane-assist and ACC all into one, vs. having to have a separate radar. The one advantage of camera ACC is it can detect stationary objects, but that's not enough of an advantage when it won't even work in the first place, like in fog.

And on the same theme, not making lane-assist/keeping an on/off button easily identifiable and in-reach, rather than buried in some stupid menu/setting.

And on the CC theme, CCs that slow down for turns when the car is perfectly capable of taking the turn. I tried for a while to find where this was a setting on a Mazda and it just seemed to be integrated into it...I know other cars, cars I've owned, have it as a setting.

Granted, these are features, not vehicles, but I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more in a few minutes.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

As of late, many automakers have really had some impressive and costly blunders in the last 5 years. These are the few I can recall easily:

9) Automakers focusing on making excessively expensive, needlessly fast accelerating, and overweight EVs. Most drivers don't want this much less and can afford it. Hybrids and cheaper, lighter, and slower EVs with very small onboard ICE generators is how you do it if you want to market EVs to the masses.

IDK, most of these really aren't significantly heavier than an ICE vehicle and in many cases, they are actually lighter. When you get to hybrid, you gotta have the weight of battery, electric motors, gas motor, gas tank, etc. That's only really practical over an EV when charging or range limitations apply, but for a large amount of EV use, those simply don't end up being limitations, so a full-EV is a more efficient (weight-wise) platform, since it doesn't have to have "both" drivetrains in one.

[RockCrusher]

Originally Posted by aiden5524

Maaaan i love the new m2. ik it isnt for everyone tho. Biggest mistake of all time was the diesel version of the 350. It blackballed all of america on diesel engines in cars. Now we dont have 3 and 5 series m57 cars. If someone totals my e90 335d im gonna buy a nice roller e39 and make one

I too love the M2. It has a bit different look -- which is better I think than just cookie cutter copies of the same old same old -- but my 2023 BMW M2 in Zandvoort Blue (with CF roof and 6-speed manual) -- a launch car I bought out of a dealer showroom in April 2023 -- was a very nice car. And of course an eye catcher.

That car got the most compliments of any car I have owned. I had people taking pictures of the car at stop lights, videoing the car as I drove through parking lots, or taking pics when I gassing the car.

(The only other time I got that much attention in a car was when I drove my new 2002 Boxster in southern MO and ended up in Branson MO during the tourist season.)

November 2024 I traded the M2 in for a new 2024 M8 Comp Coupe. The M8 is an awesome car but I am sort of thinking about getting another M2 with a 6-speed manual and shedding the M8 with its AWD/transfer case and 8-speed automatic.

[x622]

You guys are missing a lot;

GM keeping the CT5-V RWD and not making a AWD M5 killing variant
GM's shitty DCT in the C8 generation corvette
GM making the c8 mid engine and in general making it not a corvette anymore
Tesla STILL not fixing the shitty bushings in their cars that degrade after a few thousand miles
BMW with the huge heavy M5
BMW reducing their build quality and features on every single model since COVID
BMW with the garbage XM
BMW making the S68 appear in everything versus the clear delineation between the Msport and M models previously
BMW with the garbage duct-taped on iDrive8/8.5ui
BMW with the questionable design of the G87 M2 that apparently
polarizes people - which is great you can have people that like both things but the real business goal should of been to appease both parties
Which brings me to... BMW Neue Klass garbage, I don't even know what to say here.
BMW -- Idrive x...
Audi - Have you guys been seeing with they're doing to their entire lineup with EVs and killing a lot of models?
Lucid - I don't have to say anything here that isn't obvious
Mercedes - someone touched on the c63 being a hybrid 4 how about the GLC63? Gimped.
Mercedes - All the AMG43/53 cars, what a joke
Lamborghini - Killing the v10 for the shittiest sounding v8 I've ever heard
Ferrari - The halo F car is a v6tt. No.
Porsche - The price increases on all their models + cowtowing to china + then getting wrecked, love it, other members have touched on it, but it's even bigger than the EV stuff


summary:

This EV/hybrid stuff combined with the deindustrialization of Germany due to their idiotic ideology is proving to be disastrous for car enthusiasts worldwide.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by RM7

No, it's a truck and it needs torque, especially torque down low and in a usable curve. If it was NA, it would need relatively big cylinders to make decent torque, like the old 4.0 V6 (not enough for full size) or a 6.0+ engine. There are a few other tricks to make torque, but in general with a smaller displacement engine, it's going to need to rev much higher to reach full potential and the rest of the torque curve suffers greatly due to this. It's relatively easy to get more HP, but torque with small cylinders is difficult. While that could be fun in a light sports-car...it's a truck. V6 TT gives a much richer torque curve (more area under the curve) and is undoubtedly better than shrinking the current V8 to get more efficiency.

Gas turbos make little sense in a truck as the truck is constantly in some level of boost, thus killing mpgs. Then there's the whole lag thing. Most any Ford tech would tell you the 5.0 is the motor to buy for light truck stuff, not an Ecoboost.

The Tundra 5.7 was very outdated and wasn't even DI. Direct injection alone is worth around 10% in power. That alone would have taken the 5.7 from 381hp/401tq to around 420hp/450tq. Add in newer gen valve timing and a variable plane intake runner manifold and they could have squeezed another 5-10% in power. Then team that with a well geared 8 speed auto vs the long geared and lazy 6 speed auto plus the 10-20% improvement in MPGs from DI, and you're looking at one hell of a solid performer with exceptional performance at all rpms and much better mpgs. And the engine would have far less parts than that quite complex and almost Audi/VW levels of complexity with that 3.5 twin turbo V6. They could have offered a smaller displacement V8 and the 5.7.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by RM7

IDK, most of these really aren't significantly heavier than an ICE vehicle and in many cases, they are actually lighter. When you get to hybrid, you gotta have the weight of battery, electric motors, gas motor, gas tank, etc. That's only really practical over an EV when charging or range limitations apply, but for a large amount of EV use, those simply don't end up being limitations, so a full-EV is a more efficient (weight-wise) platform, since it doesn't have to have "both" drivetrains in one.

Hybrid batteries are small and light and in most cases, can be removed/installed by one person.

A 2025 Civic hybrid weighs around 3200-3250 and uses a hybrid, direct drive trans and layout and gets 50/47 mpg. A Civic Si with the 1.5 turbo and no hybrid system weighs ~2950lbs and get 27/37 mpg. The Civic hybrid is also slightly quicker too.

The Prius hybrid is about 250lbs lighter than the Prius plug in hybrid which has a much larger battery. The plug in hybrid weighs around 3500lbs. A RWD Tesla Model 3 weighs around 3900lbs. The much more common AWD Model 3 is around 4100lbs.

[chassis]

Probably another thread. It would be good to see what carmakers are getting right now. Not what used to be good in the days of yore.

But rather what cars are in production today that have a fair number of universally accepted positive characteristics.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by chassis

Probably another thread. It would be good to see what carmakers are getting right now. Not what used to be good in the days of yore.

But rather what cars are in production today that have a fair number of universally accepted positive characteristics.

Pretty much anything naturally aspirated, fun to drive, possibly with a manual, and easy to maintain will be high that list.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by chassis

Probably another thread. It would be good to see what carmakers are getting right now. Not what used to be good in the days of yore.

But rather what cars are in production today that have a fair number of universally accepted positive characteristics.

Really depends as to what purpose, sports cars are a mess as they are heavy and too powerful and all turbo charged for the most part anyway.

Family cars, Toyota's Rav4 Hybris is a compelling everyman vehicle with great MPG if you just need a reliable family car with solid space and cheap to run economics.

[dumptruck]

I was sad the 718s lost that glorious flat 6. Now to get one, you have to spend $100k+

[RM7]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Gas turbos make little sense in a truck as the truck is constantly in some level of boost, thus killing mpgs. Then there's the whole lag thing. Most any Ford tech would tell you the 5.0 is the motor to buy for light truck stuff, not an Ecoboost.

The Tundra 5.7 was very outdated and wasn't even DI. Direct injection alone is worth around 10% in power. That alone would have taken the 5.7 from 381hp/401tq to around 420hp/450tq. Add in newer gen valve timing and a variable plane intake runner manifold and they could have squeezed another 5-10% in power. Then team that with a well geared 8 speed auto vs the long geared and lazy 6 speed auto plus the 10-20% improvement in MPGs from DI, and you're looking at one hell of a solid performer with exceptional performance at all rpms and much better mpgs. And the engine would have far less parts than that quite complex and almost Audi/VW levels of complexity with that 3.5 twin turbo V6. They could have offered a smaller displacement V8 and the 5.7.

Well, all vehicles are going to be at some level of boost under load. That level is going to be a result of the engine capability. If you're asserting that you're going to be towing constantly...well yeah, and a vehicle towing is going to get crap mileage most of the time. All vehicles can't be diesel because of the % of a barrel of oil that cracks into diesel vs. gasoline. Diesel makes sense for some applications and people, maybe those who are constantly towing, but for many other applications, gasoline is fine. Going too far in one direction will affect supply/demand and the price will go up.

And while you might reach those torque numbers you quote, it's the curve that becomes most important, not necessarily peak. I have my doubts as to whether you'd easily reach them (with independent dyno testing) with the normal hardware that has to meet reliability standards for mass-production. I think around a GM DI 6.2 is the minimum, where mine makes about 460tq and around 300lb/ft at ~1000rpm. If you can't match those types of numbers, turbo/hybrid is a great way to go and it gets you the pull when you need it. The giant engine gets thirsty when you add the drag and weight of a truck.

Fords issue for years has been not boring over 3.6. Mustang is a great example of an engine that is not suitable for a truck, needs to be wrang way out to make decent torque. Basically the opposite of the GM.

People want torque and pull, apart from going bigger and bigger, turbo and hybrid is the way to do it. Smaller ICE is never going to make sense, except for situations where you don't intend to ever have much load.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Gas turbos make little sense in a truck as the truck is constantly in some level of boost, thus killing mpgs. Then there's the whole lag thing. Most any Ford tech would tell you the 5.0 is the motor to buy for light truck stuff, not an Ecoboost.

The Tundra 5.7 was very outdated and wasn't even DI. Direct injection alone is worth around 10% in power. That alone would have taken the 5.7 from 381hp/401tq to around 420hp/450tq. Add in newer gen valve timing and a variable plane intake runner manifold and they could have squeezed another 5-10% in power. Then team that with a well geared 8 speed auto vs the long geared and lazy 6 speed auto plus the 10-20% improvement in MPGs from DI, and you're looking at one hell of a solid performer with exceptional performance at all rpms and much better mpgs. And the engine would have far less parts than that quite complex and almost Audi/VW levels of complexity with that 3.5 twin turbo V6. They could have offered a smaller displacement V8 and the 5.7.

I'd like to comment on that. I have two 4x4 trucks. A Hummer H3T Alpha (5.3L small block) and a Ford Bronco 2.3L EcoBoost w/manual. The Hummer weighs about 500 pounds more than the Bronco and has the crappy GM 4L60 auto. Both engines put out the same rated power, both are 300 HP and 325 pound-feet torque. Under light loads (i.e. not carrying much) the Bronco kills the Hummer in MPG. The Hummer averages around 14 and the Bronco averages 22 MPG. Maybe some of the difference is the extra 500 pounds and the automatic of the Hummer, but I can't see it making that much difference. Both vehicles are bricks aerodynamically. Maybe the long-term maintenance costs to keep the turbo engine happy will wash the fuel savings, I don't know; it's just need oil changes for the past 14,000 miles. Small blocks of the mid 2000's are stone reliable.

[chassis]

Weight has a linear effect on energy requirement. Frontal area (drag coefficient) has a cubic effect on energy requirement. Agree that 500lbs of weight isn't explaining the difference in fuel economy.

The 5.3 V8 is a less efficient machine, period. Pushrod, NA, no DI, heavier/more friction rotating assembly, etc. The fuel economy illustrates this. The example given is a pretty good one with similar output and similar size/weight vehicles.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Pretty much anything naturally aspirated, fun to drive, possibly with a manual, and easy to maintain will be high that list.

"Easy to maintain", like an E92 M3, with rod bearings at 20,000-miles and throttle bodies on a regular basis?

[ASAP]

Well you can just go ahead and say anything Mitsubishi or Nissan...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by chassis

Weight has a linear effect on energy requirement. Frontal area (drag coefficient) has a cubic effect on energy requirement. Agree that 500lbs of weight isn't explaining the difference in fuel economy.

The 5.3 V8 is a less efficient machine, period. Pushrod, NA, no DI, heavier/more friction rotating assembly, etc. The fuel economy illustrates this. The example given is a pretty good one with similar output and similar size/weight vehicles.

I think if the Hummer had a manual mated to the 5.3L it would improve the fuel consumption some but not almost 10 MPG. And no turbo engine will never be lag free, you just have to learn how to use the powerband when the engine is tied to a manual transmission. There are tradeoffs, but I sure do like 22 MPG.

[chassis]

VAG (mostly Audi, some Porsche) early build failures of rocker arm roller follower needle bearings, EA839 3.0T and 2.9TTV6. Needle bearings were too small, wore and created wear on the roller center pin. Needles fell out, rocker arm got loose and went voyaging through the cam chest. No bueno. Mainly 2017-2018 build years for RS5, Q7/Q8, Macan, Panamera and Cayenne. Has since been fixed by VAG via larger needle bearings.

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by RM7

Well, all vehicles are going to be at some level of boost under load. That level is going to be a result of the engine capability. If you're asserting that you're going to be towing constantly...well yeah, and a vehicle towing is going to get crap mileage most of the time. All vehicles can't be diesel because of the % of a barrel of oil that cracks into diesel vs. gasoline. Diesel makes sense for some applications and people, maybe those who are constantly towing, but for many other applications, gasoline is fine. Going too far in one direction will affect supply/demand and the price will go up.

And while you might reach those torque numbers you quote, it's the curve that becomes most important, not necessarily peak. I have my doubts as to whether you'd easily reach them (with independent dyno testing) with the normal hardware that has to meet reliability standards for mass-production. I think around a GM DI 6.2 is the minimum, where mine makes about 460tq and around 300lb/ft at ~1000rpm. If you can't match those types of numbers, turbo/hybrid is a great way to go and it gets you the pull when you need it. The giant engine gets thirsty when you add the drag and weight of a truck.

Fords issue for years has been not boring over 3.6. Mustang is a great example of an engine that is not suitable for a truck, needs to be wrang way out to make decent torque. Basically the opposite of the GM.

People want torque and pull, apart from going bigger and bigger, turbo and hybrid is the way to do it. Smaller ICE is never going to make sense, except for situations where you don't intend to ever have much load.

I hear ya. Yes, low rpm torque is king in towing. That's why I keep noting a 8 speed transmission for my Tundra argument. The extra torque multiplication with the extra gear spread and plus being able to run a looser stall torque converter all add to a lot more torque to get going and move a heavier load. The torque converter then locks after 1st gear improving MPGs and power to the wheels. The 6 speed auto used in the V8 Tundras was woefully long geared, labored in gears killing MPGs, and the torque converter being pretty tight compared to the stuff that's available now.