> really frustrating that there is no legislative intervention against this.
Ironically, things are like that in a big part because of legislative and regulatory intervention.
> They made the camshaft structurally weaker, so the engine will blow up more easily. The rest of the engine is almost identical. Talk about being bad at hiding planned obsolescence.
A lot of such things are just workarounds to reduce weight and meet tightening emission standards.
Every thing that can be built with less metal, thinner walls, lighter metals will be built like that when every gram matters.
Tighter tolerances, increased pressures, increased temperatures, higher rotational speeds. All of this leads to increased efficiency, but sometimes (not always) the trade-off will be decreased reliability.
Ironically, things are like that in a big part because of legislative and regulatory intervention.
> They made the camshaft structurally weaker, so the engine will blow up more easily. The rest of the engine is almost identical. Talk about being bad at hiding planned obsolescence.
A lot of such things are just workarounds to reduce weight and meet tightening emission standards.
Every thing that can be built with less metal, thinner walls, lighter metals will be built like that when every gram matters.
Tighter tolerances, increased pressures, increased temperatures, higher rotational speeds. All of this leads to increased efficiency, but sometimes (not always) the trade-off will be decreased reliability.