98 Accord EX Rear Caliper ?

"Dave and Trudy" <dtdodson RemoveThis @acsalaska.net> wrote in
news:4630543f@news.acsalaska.net:

>
> "jim beam" <spamvortex RemoveThis @bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:N5idnR2ElIQPXrPbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> have you any idea how much r&d goes into a frod? it's billions. and
>> 98% of it is directed at life [and cost] limitation. their cars are
>> designed to /just/ last target mileage, then suddenly get
>> prohibitively expensive to keep. the bean counters think this makes
>> them money apparently. now, how much market share do frod have
>> again?
>
> That's a pretty strong but unsupported statement Jim. Also what has
> been the best selling vehicle in the U.S. for the past 25 or so years?
> Also, don't recall any Ford with 13 or more possible replacement
> combinations for the passenger's side cv axle as with a 94 or so
> Toyota Camry.
>



I used to work very closely with the OEM parts industry that supplies
the automakers, both domestic and foreign.

I never personally saw any attempt at design life limitation for the
sake of design life limitation, or attempt at deliberate obsolescence
for the sake of obsolescence.

What I DID see was copious evidence of cost-cutting. Everything was
designed to last just about so long primarily because statistics showed
people didn't keep or drive their cars past a certain point, so there
was no point in putting excess money into a part that would never get
used to the point of failure.

When a five cent reduction in cost on a high-volume parts is a
significant saving, there is a considerable and constant push to find
every possible penny of savings in the cost of building a car.

What I also did see was considerable effort at making *important* parts
(like engines and transmissions, tires, brakes and shocks) last LONGER
before failure. They would make the tiniest changes that you would not
think were worth the effort, all to the end of getting just bit longer
life.

That's why engines and transmissions last 300K now instead of 100K, like
they did in 1970. That's why you no longer have to replace shocks and
tires every 20K miles, like you did in 1970.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger wrote:
> "Dave and Trudy" <dtdodson.RemoveThis@acsalaska.net> wrote in
> news:4630543f@news.acsalaska.net:
>
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex.RemoveThis@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:N5idnR2ElIQPXrPbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> have you any idea how much r&d goes into a frod? it's billions. and
>>> 98% of it is directed at life [and cost] limitation. their cars are
>>> designed to /just/ last target mileage, then suddenly get
>>> prohibitively expensive to keep. the bean counters think this makes
>>> them money apparently. now, how much market share do frod have
>>> again?
>> That's a pretty strong but unsupported statement Jim. Also what has
>> been the best selling vehicle in the U.S. for the past 25 or so years?
>> Also, don't recall any Ford with 13 or more possible replacement
>> combinations for the passenger's side cv axle as with a 94 or so
>> Toyota Camry.
>>
>
>
>
> I used to work very closely with the OEM parts industry that supplies
> the automakers, both domestic and foreign.
>
> I never personally saw any attempt at design life limitation for the
> sake of design life limitation, or attempt at deliberate obsolescence
> for the sake of obsolescence.
>
> What I DID see was copious evidence of cost-cutting. Everything was
> designed to last just about so long primarily because statistics showed
> people didn't keep or drive their cars past a certain point, so there
> was no point in putting excess money into a part that would never get
> used to the point of failure.
>
> When a five cent reduction in cost on a high-volume parts is a
> significant saving, there is a considerable and constant push to find
> every possible penny of savings in the cost of building a car.
>
> What I also did see was considerable effort at making *important* parts
> (like engines and transmissions, tires, brakes and shocks) last LONGER
> before failure. They would make the tiniest changes that you would not
> think were worth the effort, all to the end of getting just bit longer
> life.
>
> That's why engines and transmissions last 300K now instead of 100K, like
> they did in 1970. That's why you no longer have to replace shocks and
> tires every 20K miles, like you did in 1970.
>
>
honda, yes. frod, no. talk with a taxi company - they romp through
engines and transmissions like nobody's business, and taxi use is pretty
much ideal service conditioning in that maintenance is guaranteed. the
frod operators here in san francisco replace transmissions every
100-120k miles. engines maybe 150-200k. and thats lazy old v8's,
working at 20% load, not high revving honda working at 60%+.