TRUCK RECALL?!?!?!?

On 02/13/2010 05:50 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> nothing personal, but i don't believe this because the economics and the
>> metallurgy simply don't support the logic. if you have proof they would
>> do something so ridiculously inefficient and needlessly expensive [it
>> makes no sense to ship ingot because it weighs so much and has so little
>> value - shipping finished product is where the economics work] feel free
>> to post it, but i'd want to see something definitive, not mere usenet
>> gossip. there's nothing special about ductile iron that would
>> necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a usa casting.
>
> Obviously, the Japanese car makers forgot to consult your advice on the
> matter. They may well prefer to ship the finished part, but congress has
> managed to make the economics work out that the part gets made in the
> US.

the material gets made in the u.s. too big guy. ductile iron is a cheap
plentiful commodity - it's not worth shipping unless in finished form.


> BTW, Most of the steel used in US autos comes from this guy:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmi_Mittal

red herring. and it's "made by", not "comes from". unless he's got a
special orifice with which you happen to be more familiar than most.


>
>
>>
>>> From the sounds of it Dana identified a particular batch of castings
>>> that were bad (Dana said that less than 2% of the parts shipped had the
>>> defect)
>>>
>>> -jim
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 02/13/2010 05:50 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> nothing personal, but i don't believe this because the economics and the
> >> metallurgy simply don't support the logic. if you have proof they would
> >> do something so ridiculously inefficient and needlessly expensive [it
> >> makes no sense to ship ingot because it weighs so much and has so little
> >> value - shipping finished product is where the economics work] feel free
> >> to post it, but i'd want to see something definitive, not mere usenet
> >> gossip. there's nothing special about ductile iron that would
> >> necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a usa casting.
> >
> > Obviously, the Japanese car makers forgot to consult your advice on the
> > matter. They may well prefer to ship the finished part, but congress has
> > managed to make the economics work out that the part gets made in the
> > US.
>
> the material gets made in the u.s. too big guy.

Not the same material. Similar materials get made in the U.S.

> Ductile iron is a cheap
> plentiful commodity - it's not worth shipping unless in finished form.

So how does it get to the foundry if no one is shipping it? Ductile iron
is an alloy. The Japanese apparently would prefer to use the same alloy
they use to make the same parts in Japan. And it costs money to ship the
iron ore from Australia to Japan. That probably adds more to the cost
than it does to ship the iron from Japan to US.


>
> > BTW, Most of the steel used in US autos comes from this guy:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmi_Mittal
>
> red herring. and it's "made by", not "comes from". unless he's got a
> special orifice with which you happen to be more familiar than most.

The point is that US manufacturing imports both iron and steel, whether
you believe it or not.

jim beam wrote:

> "said to be"??? in other words, you don't actually know but you're
> prepared to guess, despite the fact that you're clueless about the
> process or the component or the material.

The actual report submitted to the NHTSA has not been released because
that agency was shut down due to the snow storm. So we don't yet know
exactly what Dana said. The only news reports are based on the
notification Toyota sent to the toyota dealers.

According to those reports originating from Toyota the defective part
is said to be "joint" in the drive shaft. And the failure due to
"improper manufacturing process control".

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>
> According to those reports originating from Toyota the defective part
>is said to be "joint" in the drive shaft. And the failure due to
>"improper manufacturing process control".

Surely it has to be something worse than just a few badly-made U-joints,
though?

I had a Chrysler Laser that constantly ate C-V joints... they'd go with
no warning, sometimes after only 30,000 miles (and that's with the original
MOPAR part, not a chain store rebuild). I got very good at swapping them
out. Chrysler never recalled anything.... then again, that car also cracked
transmission cases with frightening regularity too...
--Scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> >
> > According to those reports originating from Toyota the defective part
> >is said to be "joint" in the drive shaft. And the failure due to
> >"improper manufacturing process control".
>
> Surely it has to be something worse than just a few badly-made U-joints,
> though?

I guess it depends whether there is a perceived chance of catastrophic
failure causing a safety problem. It sounds like there have been no
reports of owners having any problems. The news reports said that the
same problem exists for parts that Dana made for Nissan and Ford. Those
two companies said they don't see a problem worthy of recall.

-jim

>
> I had a Chrysler Laser that constantly ate C-V joints... they'd go with
> no warning, sometimes after only 30,000 miles (and that's with the original
> MOPAR part, not a chain store rebuild). I got very good at swapping them
> out. Chrysler never recalled anything.... then again, that car also cracked
> transmission cases with frightening regularity too...
> --Scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 02/14/2010 09:02 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> "said to be"??? in other words, you don't actually know but you're
>> prepared to guess, despite the fact that you're clueless about the
>> process or the component or the material.
>
> The actual report submitted to the NHTSA has not been released because
> that agency was shut down due to the snow storm. So we don't yet know
> exactly what Dana said. The only news reports are based on the
> notification Toyota sent to the toyota dealers.
>
> According to those reports originating from Toyota the defective part
> is said to be "joint" in the drive shaft. And the failure due to
> "improper manufacturing process control".

so are we talking about some rusty frame part, or are we talking
driveshaft??? the materials use in manufacture are not the same in both.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 02/14/2010 09:33 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
>>>
>>> According to those reports originating from Toyota the defective part
>>> is said to be "joint" in the drive shaft. And the failure due to
>>> "improper manufacturing process control".
>>
>> Surely it has to be something worse than just a few badly-made U-joints,
>> though?
>
> I guess it depends whether there is a perceived chance of catastrophic
> failure causing a safety problem. It sounds like there have been no
> reports of owners having any problems. The news reports said that the
> same problem exists for parts that Dana made for Nissan and Ford. Those
> two companies said they don't see a problem worthy of recall.

frod has gotten away without recalls of stuff that's killed hundreds of
people. toyota do it voluntarily on a threshold 100x less.


>
> -jim
>
>>
>> I had a Chrysler Laser that constantly ate C-V joints... they'd go with
>> no warning, sometimes after only 30,000 miles (and that's with the original
>> MOPAR part, not a chain store rebuild). I got very good at swapping them
>> out. Chrysler never recalled anything.... then again, that car also cracked
>> transmission cases with frightening regularity too...
>> --Scott
>>
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 02/14/2010 09:02 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >> "said to be"??? in other words, you don't actually know but you're
> >> prepared to guess, despite the fact that you're clueless about the
> >> process or the component or the material.
> >
> > The actual report submitted to the NHTSA has not been released because
> > that agency was shut down due to the snow storm. So we don't yet know
> > exactly what Dana said. The only news reports are based on the
> > notification Toyota sent to the toyota dealers.
> >
> > According to those reports originating from Toyota the defective part
> > is said to be "joint" in the drive shaft. And the failure due to
> > "improper manufacturing process control".
>
> so are we talking about some rusty frame part, or are we talking
> driveshaft???

Can't speak for "we". I only know what i was talking about. Did you know
what you were talking about when you said "there's nothing special about
ductile iron that would necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a
usa casting." ?



>the materials use in manufacture are not the same in both.
>
> --
> nomina rutrum rutrum

On 02/14/2010 11:00 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 02/14/2010 09:02 AM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> "said to be"??? in other words, you don't actually know but you're
>>>> prepared to guess, despite the fact that you're clueless about the
>>>> process or the component or the material.
>>>
>>> The actual report submitted to the NHTSA has not been released because
>>> that agency was shut down due to the snow storm. So we don't yet know
>>> exactly what Dana said. The only news reports are based on the
>>> notification Toyota sent to the toyota dealers.
>>>
>>> According to those reports originating from Toyota the defective part
>>> is said to be "joint" in the drive shaft. And the failure due to
>>> "improper manufacturing process control".
>>
>> so are we talking about some rusty frame part, or are we talking
>> driveshaft???
>
> Can't speak for "we". I only know what i was talking about.

but you're confusing frames with driveshafts. different materials.


> Did you know
> what you were talking about when you said "there's nothing special about
> ductile iron that would necessitate a proprietary japanese pour for a
> usa casting." ?

actually, i know quite a bit about steel production and processing.
someone would need a real special reason to import ingot from japan.
commodity "ductile iron" ain't it.


>
>
>
>> the materials use in manufacture are not the same in both.
>>
>> --
>> nomina rutrum rutrum


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

"jim beam" > wrote in message
...
> On 02/13/2010 04:19 PM, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> "Hachiroku ????" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> ....This is not as major a recall as the frames; the first round
>>> was
>>> 1996 or 97 to 2003, huundreds of thousands of trucks Toyota bought
>>> back
>>> for 150% of Kelley Blue Book, but a lot of them promptly bought a
>>> new
>>> Tacoma...
>>>
>>> Only to find out a year or two later it ALSO had a Dana frame that
>>> could
>>> rot prematurely!
>>
>> Dana makes frames for lots of companies. Why does it seem only the
>> Toyota frames are so bad there are recalls for them?
>>
>> Google the following:
>> * rusting Toyota frame recall - 3,420,000 hits
>> * rusting Ford frame recall - 478,000 hits, and most were actually
>> talking about the Toyota rusting frames
>> * rusting Chevrolet frame recall - 1,840,00 hits, and again most of
>> them
>> were actually talking about Rusting Toyota frames
>>
>> Try it for yourself...
>>
>> Given the fact that Ford and Chevrolet have each sold more than 10
>> times
>> as many trucks as Toyota, don't you think if they had the same sort
>> of
>> problem with rusting frames, there be more complaints about them on
>> the
>> internet?
>>
>> You guys need to quit drinking the Toyota kool-aid. They have
>> repeatedly
>> shown disregard for there Customer and have to be dragged kicking
>> and
>> screaming into doing the right thing.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> frod just buries their mistakes. literally.

OK, so let's say Ford is horrible. Does this excuse Toyota for being
worse? For years some people have been sold the idea that Toyotas had
exceptional quality. I never believed it (but I don't think Toyotas
are particularly bad either). Now, when it has become apparent that
Toyota has problems just like every other manufacturer, some people
try to defend Toyota by pointing out that other manufacturers have had
recalls also. So what? How this make Toyota look good? Throwing mud at
Ford or GM isn't going to fix one Toyota. Pretending that Toyota
doesn't have problems is encouraging Toyota executives to continue
there past deceitful practices.


Ed