Douglas Braun & Nadia Papakonstantinou wrote:
> I have often noticed that many if not most aftermarket parts,
> even "high performance" ones, are not nearly as well made
> as the OEM parts. More than once I have replaced a old
> but still-working original part with a nice-looking new aftermarket one,
> only to find that the replacement part ends up failing sooner than
> the original one would have.
You hit the nail on the head not only with the problem,
but the nature of the problem.
Little "mom and pop" performance part makers do not have the
size and research ability to do a failure analysis on the
parts they sell.
You might buy a brand new modern car and be miffed that something
is held on with a fragile-looking plastic clip, but that part
would have been proven by extensive testing to be able to
hold up to the rigors of the job, and will likely last the
life of the car.
Alternatively you buy an aftermarket part that may LOOK
fancier, perhaps a nice milled metal bracket or rivetted
assembly that looks strong, but then after a short while
it becomes obvious that it has a pretty simple failure mode.
The feedback look just isn't there for the companies
to make parts, examine how they fail, redesign, and so
on. As soon as the part works in their basic prototypes,
it hits the shelves.
I daresay this problem also affects so many DIY auto
modification jobs, which is why a lot of the cars end up
being impressive looking but fundamentally flawed.
As a DIY guy, if I was trying to put a 454 in a spit,
the first time I had it all bolted together and was
able to drive it, I likely would consider the project
"done". In an R&D prototyping environment, it might be
prototype 25 of 50, with the first 25 being done on
the computer and all the bugs already worked out. ;>
--
Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
"Shamu go boom boom!" - Murk
/// spitfires@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
|