I know a fair amount of engineers and unfortunately for us they actually are taught to add failures into the equation due to 'job security' is what they call it. So I just check mine routinely and will end up just going to SAS eventually when the need arises..
Yeah, ACTUAL auto industry engineer here... This is total garbage. Engineers don't engineer failure into parts (unless that is part of their function, like consumable devices), and we are not taught to do that. Engineers design the best design that can be achieved
at the price point they are given. Ultimately, it is the business managers that decide how long something is going to last, but it isn't through specific design features, it's through pricing out the best materials and processes.
There are consumable products that have a life cycle, like filters, spark plugs, etc. But these cycles are unavoidable. If someone could come up with a spark plug that lasted the life of the vehicle, they would, they'd sell it for a couple x the cost of a regular one, and they would make a TON of money on it. Then, when "every car in America" has them (which they never will), the company will continue making money because believe it or not, people do buy new cars even though their old ones aren't broken.
What companies do these "engineers" you know work for. I would really like to know.
There would be lawsuits if companies engineered failure cycles into critical safety items. Other items are, like water pumps, price point engineered. Consumers don't want to spend $1,500 on a life time water-pump, hell getting them to pony up $150 for a 100k mile OEM one is hard enough when they can get a part's store 3rd party unit for $35 that's only good for 2 years.
I do believe there is an effort to price cut and keep sales high in the consumer electronics industry. It has been a race to the bottom with no real effort to improve product longevity.
Water pumps are not designed to fail either. Believe me, if they could make one that never needed to be changed, they would. The people making money off the replacement parts are the dealers, because they get service charges out of them. From the manufacturer's standpoint, it is much easier and cheaper to just stop producing a part, stop maintaining inventory, stop shipping replacement parts, etc. I know this because my company has to keep old products and tooling around despite no longer making money off them, just for replacement purposes. We lose money on these things. We made all the money when the part was in full production. No one makes money off of 5k $5 parts being sold per year
You are right about the lawsuits though. And probably somewhat about consumer electronics type industries. But still, even these companies are concerned about their reputations for reliability. Reputation does equate to sales. I can promise you that NOBODY designs in failure of a safety critical part like a ball joint. Look at the pics of guys who've lost LBJ's while driving. No engineering firm wants that liability on their hands.
