Ironically, Toyota are doing the right thing. Software and Toyota won't ever mix because of the conflicting design philosophies behind software and Toyota; you mentioned this. When motor manufacturers changed from designing vehicles for robustness to designing vehicles for profitability, by moving revenue generation away from servicing and repeat sales to subscription, they made a fatal long term error: that of reduced quality.
Japanese makes moved there circa 2014, Germans around 2007, and this is seen in the repair costs of these now 10 to 10 year old cars. No contemporary car amde in the last 5 to 10 years will exist as a classic in 40 years becasue they're being designed to rely on an eco-system, to lock in long term dependance on unnecessary and pointless doodads.
When the accountants displaced the engineers the philosophy became one of making the most profitable vehicle, not the best they could within constraints. The enshittification of cars is seen in modern vehicles.
My son asked me about what years are the best when buying a car. Essentially he's asking, ‘when was peak car?’. My opinion is from about 2000 to about 2010 for European mnfrs and up to about 2014 for Eastern mnfrs.
Here's my reasoning: up to the late 90's mnfrs we're still incorporating decent safety into cars. Abs, ESC, airbags, etc, were filtering down into all models, to the point where they became de rigeur around 2000 onwards. At that point engineers were still in charge, making vehicles that were really good, robustly designed and safer than a decade before. Fuel injection had replacd carbs, engine management became the next step and cars, aside from flat batteries, were on the whole, reliable, decently safe and easy enough for any independent machanuc to work on. OBD was reasonably new and coming into its own as an interrogation tool. Proprietary access was only just beginning. And the engineering was sound.
Then the industry got IT envy: subscription but they didn't know how to implement it. The engineers, doing their best, were replaced by the accountants and marketers, wanting to do their best; all acting in rational self interest they transitioned their offerings from single sale products to ecosystem dependant entities. First came the rise of proprietary OBD lock out; this was defeated by the smart, pissed-off nerds. Then came hardware integration into every facet: Body Control modules replacing wiring for example; a separate, proprietary cpu-controlled device to control every rudimentary function. Then came the software to control access to all of these systems, locked down. And then came renting access to the functions for the hardware you've already paid for. Rental for heated seats, rental for sports suspension. Here's looking at you BMW.
So, the sweet spot is after the safety became really good, after reliability became really good but before the accountants took over. And thats why the 2000-2010/2014 window is my reasoning.
I had two E class Mercs, late 90's, early 00's. Felt like they were hewn out of solid granite. I remember taking the air vent vanes apart, as they had become gummed up. Each vane was a piece of pewter, and the entire assembly was screwed together with proper screws. The air vents, made from pewter.
The noughties is peak car period becasue cars were designed to a purpose not a price. Planned obselence is a dirty phrase to most engineers and they design it in only under duress; imagine the mental damage this subscription aspect has on their psyche. I know it enrages me, and I'm an engineer from the 90s.
I suppose old cars will be like old computers, useless unless somebody wants to keep running Windows 3.1 to see what VisiCalc looked like back in the day, I.e. like no one. Although there are still thousands of mission critical systems running XP I hear, but they need to those for keeping power plants and factories going. No one needs a ten year old Camry that bad.
I would totally buy a car that was absent of all modern tech: even AC and power steering. I just want an engine on wheels with parts I can easily replace myself.
In Europe we have this new camera that watches you to make sure you’re keeping your eyes on the road and it stops the car if you’re not. I know the point is to keep people off their phones but there must be another way because I hate everything about it.
I totally agree. That kind of intrusive electronics has no place in cars.
When I was in Korea with the US Army, one of my Korean soldiers had very tiny eyes, we couldn't see his eyeballs, and to tell the truth, it looked like he was asleep all the time. What will this camera think of him? Will he not be able to drive?
What a difference between the European and Japanese bureaucracy. Facing the same problems, the European mandarins brought their companies to the brink, caused mass layoffs at the companies and pocketed ever increasing budgets for themselves, while the Japanese did what had to be done - give time and space to their companies to adapted. It’s unfortunate that there is no way to have a class action lawsuit against the European bureaucracy
Interesting summary until this point: “Wherever the challenge is reinvention, Toyota struggles.” The TPS is designed to reinvent every aspect of the development and production process continually in order to stay ahead. Which the first half of the article demonstrates they have done - and it’s trivial to find examples from every decade between now and the 60s of this in practice. I’m confused - what leads you to believe that Toyota struggle at reinvention?
Unbeatable at making things a little bit better, in terms of the car *production* process, but no amount of incremental change is going to get you from a ICE car to a BEV car.
That’s a misrepresentation / misinterpretation of TPS. TPS is about continual *improvement*. Process optimisation is one and only one component of this.
Your ICE -> BEV comment is like saying: ‘No amount of incremental change is going to get you from an ICE to a hybrid engine’ yet Toyota owned that market with the Prius.
Strong current results don't guarantee long-term leadership. Companies willing to challenge their own success are often better positioned for structural shifts than those optimizing for today's profits.
Good article, the cooperation in China especially with BYD on their cutting edge LFP batteries is pretty interesting and i have seen those specific GAC built cars in the Shanghai auto show. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing for Toyota, cooperation with agile and capable partners that have compatible values (I’m sure Toyota did huge work here selecting the right partners) will help them with their blind spots in EVs and help them offer better EVs at a significantly lower R&D cost. Chinese companies especially in battery and powertrain are leaders globally, technically and commercially. Put a Toyota quality seal on top and it’s unstoppable. So a cooperation is a win for both parties. Also hybrids are a huge thing still at least in the current decade and Toyota is a leader there. Toyota is being paranoid, but they are doing a lot of things right in my view.
Ironically, Toyota are doing the right thing. Software and Toyota won't ever mix because of the conflicting design philosophies behind software and Toyota; you mentioned this. When motor manufacturers changed from designing vehicles for robustness to designing vehicles for profitability, by moving revenue generation away from servicing and repeat sales to subscription, they made a fatal long term error: that of reduced quality.
Japanese makes moved there circa 2014, Germans around 2007, and this is seen in the repair costs of these now 10 to 10 year old cars. No contemporary car amde in the last 5 to 10 years will exist as a classic in 40 years becasue they're being designed to rely on an eco-system, to lock in long term dependance on unnecessary and pointless doodads.
When the accountants displaced the engineers the philosophy became one of making the most profitable vehicle, not the best they could within constraints. The enshittification of cars is seen in modern vehicles.
My son asked me about what years are the best when buying a car. Essentially he's asking, ‘when was peak car?’. My opinion is from about 2000 to about 2010 for European mnfrs and up to about 2014 for Eastern mnfrs.
Here's my reasoning: up to the late 90's mnfrs we're still incorporating decent safety into cars. Abs, ESC, airbags, etc, were filtering down into all models, to the point where they became de rigeur around 2000 onwards. At that point engineers were still in charge, making vehicles that were really good, robustly designed and safer than a decade before. Fuel injection had replacd carbs, engine management became the next step and cars, aside from flat batteries, were on the whole, reliable, decently safe and easy enough for any independent machanuc to work on. OBD was reasonably new and coming into its own as an interrogation tool. Proprietary access was only just beginning. And the engineering was sound.
Then the industry got IT envy: subscription but they didn't know how to implement it. The engineers, doing their best, were replaced by the accountants and marketers, wanting to do their best; all acting in rational self interest they transitioned their offerings from single sale products to ecosystem dependant entities. First came the rise of proprietary OBD lock out; this was defeated by the smart, pissed-off nerds. Then came hardware integration into every facet: Body Control modules replacing wiring for example; a separate, proprietary cpu-controlled device to control every rudimentary function. Then came the software to control access to all of these systems, locked down. And then came renting access to the functions for the hardware you've already paid for. Rental for heated seats, rental for sports suspension. Here's looking at you BMW.
So, the sweet spot is after the safety became really good, after reliability became really good but before the accountants took over. And thats why the 2000-2010/2014 window is my reasoning.
I had two E class Mercs, late 90's, early 00's. Felt like they were hewn out of solid granite. I remember taking the air vent vanes apart, as they had become gummed up. Each vane was a piece of pewter, and the entire assembly was screwed together with proper screws. The air vents, made from pewter.
The noughties is peak car period becasue cars were designed to a purpose not a price. Planned obselence is a dirty phrase to most engineers and they design it in only under duress; imagine the mental damage this subscription aspect has on their psyche. I know it enrages me, and I'm an engineer from the 90s.
I suppose old cars will be like old computers, useless unless somebody wants to keep running Windows 3.1 to see what VisiCalc looked like back in the day, I.e. like no one. Although there are still thousands of mission critical systems running XP I hear, but they need to those for keeping power plants and factories going. No one needs a ten year old Camry that bad.
An Intel exec wrote a book, "Only the Paranoid Survive."
So Toyota is paranoid. That's good. Much better than complacent.
Stop making cars so complex.
I would totally buy a car that was absent of all modern tech: even AC and power steering. I just want an engine on wheels with parts I can easily replace myself.
Fuel injection and ABS are my non negotiables. They actually make cars safer and more reliable, without undue tech spillover on other components.
In Europe we have this new camera that watches you to make sure you’re keeping your eyes on the road and it stops the car if you’re not. I know the point is to keep people off their phones but there must be another way because I hate everything about it.
I totally agree. That kind of intrusive electronics has no place in cars.
When I was in Korea with the US Army, one of my Korean soldiers had very tiny eyes, we couldn't see his eyeballs, and to tell the truth, it looked like he was asleep all the time. What will this camera think of him? Will he not be able to drive?
Even just Murphy’s Law malfunctioning! Why create the possibility for error?
What a difference between the European and Japanese bureaucracy. Facing the same problems, the European mandarins brought their companies to the brink, caused mass layoffs at the companies and pocketed ever increasing budgets for themselves, while the Japanese did what had to be done - give time and space to their companies to adapted. It’s unfortunate that there is no way to have a class action lawsuit against the European bureaucracy
Interesting summary until this point: “Wherever the challenge is reinvention, Toyota struggles.” The TPS is designed to reinvent every aspect of the development and production process continually in order to stay ahead. Which the first half of the article demonstrates they have done - and it’s trivial to find examples from every decade between now and the 60s of this in practice. I’m confused - what leads you to believe that Toyota struggle at reinvention?
TPS is about optimisation, not reinvention.
Evolution not revolution.
Unbeatable at making things a little bit better, in terms of the car *production* process, but no amount of incremental change is going to get you from a ICE car to a BEV car.
That’s a misrepresentation / misinterpretation of TPS. TPS is about continual *improvement*. Process optimisation is one and only one component of this.
Your ICE -> BEV comment is like saying: ‘No amount of incremental change is going to get you from an ICE to a hybrid engine’ yet Toyota owned that market with the Prius.
Just imagine when AI will bring 60% unemployment… who is going to buy new cars?
Strong current results don't guarantee long-term leadership. Companies willing to challenge their own success are often better positioned for structural shifts than those optimizing for today's profits.
Good article, the cooperation in China especially with BYD on their cutting edge LFP batteries is pretty interesting and i have seen those specific GAC built cars in the Shanghai auto show. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing for Toyota, cooperation with agile and capable partners that have compatible values (I’m sure Toyota did huge work here selecting the right partners) will help them with their blind spots in EVs and help them offer better EVs at a significantly lower R&D cost. Chinese companies especially in battery and powertrain are leaders globally, technically and commercially. Put a Toyota quality seal on top and it’s unstoppable. So a cooperation is a win for both parties. Also hybrids are a huge thing still at least in the current decade and Toyota is a leader there. Toyota is being paranoid, but they are doing a lot of things right in my view.
Because they know what's coming.