gcb
I agree on Toyota, had a 72 FJ40, bought in 70’s, drove it for 30 yrs, sold for 3x what I paid for it. And on Boeing - they need to focus on building great aircraft. But that’s a long term process, and investors are an impatient lot.
I agree on Toyota, had a 72 FJ40, bought in 70’s, drove it for 30 yrs, sold for 3x what I paid for it. And on Boeing - they need to focus on building great aircraft. But that’s a long term process, and investors are an impatient lot.
I had a 70’s Toyota land cruiser. big square boxy vehicle that would roll over like a single hole pits if a corner was taken to fast, but, same thing. Tough, well except for the rusty body. It could, in 4wd do doughnuts in a paved parking lot with out any fuss or jiggle, unlike my Chev 4wd pickup which would “squiggle” and protest if one turned too sharp. The detroit guys could not figure out the geometry of getting four wheels around a corner at the same speed.
I believe ??? Boeing will fix their problem. Rumour has it they have fired the bean counter and hired an engineer at the helm. Moved the headqrters back to Seattle from the windy city.
They have to. The world needs them to save us from the tubes, the controllers, in the 70’s when lyin brian first introduced them to the national airline, called the SCUD.
I will never be at the controls of a Boeing airliner, but my consumer experiences have always been pleasant. My recent flight on a Max 8 was so good that I am questioning the amount of bad press that was heaped upon the design. I dislike many of the corporate decisions, but I will chose Boeing products for now.
Uh, reality check?
Musk talking to a despotic aggressor against a democratic country and against NATO, Musk who has a security clearance, is eevil.
That was one of your best-crafted essays, Russ. And a valid parable for contemporary corporate maladies. Well done!
I can’t speak to the current Toyota product line, but I have a 2008 Tundra 4WD. It’s a beast that pulls everything I’ve ever asked of it, including a 24’ enclosed trailer carrying my helicopter, while shouldering a Lance camper in its bed, on the Interstate. I’m convinced that it’s so capable because it’s not lugging around the weight of one of the #@$%*! computer screens on its dash. (One of the benefits of being in the software-slinging business for sixty years, is knowing what NOT to computerize.)
But the dark-horse was my wife’s 2004 Toyota Matrix with fulltime AWD. She drove it for years until she needed a dedicated high-fuel-economy commuter car, so she picked out a Prius C that I literally cannot not fit into, but like glass slippers, was “just her size”. The Matrix’s trade-in value was paltry so I inherited it. The surprise was that if you folded its backseats down, you get a completely flat surface (with tiedown rings!) back to the full-size hatch. I can load 8’ 2x4’s (diagonally), engine cowlings, bags of cement, generators, and almost anything else that won’t bottom the springs. It has become my quarter-million mile “covered mini-pickup”, and my Tundra is left to do the serious heavy/awkward lifting. They will both probably outlast me.
There are likely a million reasons that Boeing, Toyota, et al. have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of success, but my money is on the “New Boss Doesn’t Like the Soup Until He Pisses in It Syndrome”, that infects so many global corporations.
Boeing has the answer to narrow body airliner success in its blueprint files; it’s called the 757, an airliner loved almost universally the world over by the major players, save for Southwest. They alone are why the 73 soldiers on and why Boeing has contorted it into the monstrosity it is today. Throw in an apathetic labor force, stir in incompetent management and sauté with corporate cost cutting and the recipe for disaster was complete. Boeing can claw its way back, but it will need to so with the cooperation of all parties and by exhibiting some tough love to Southwest in saying “no” to any more iterations of the 73 line.
Oh yes, the (real) Land Cruiser is an amazing vehicle. Mine is a KZJ70 from 1994, with only 70,000 miles on the clock, and I’m the second owner since new. The KZJ is the short version of the legendary “bush taxi.” No matter where you’re headed, as long as the tires hold up, you’ll get there… and always reliably, thanks to the legendary 3L diesel engine. Simple maintenance with minimal tools, and built to last. OK, back then, the rust protection wasn’t optimal. But since my little friend is driven in an area where that’s not an issue and has been additionally protected, it’s not a problem here either.
I look forward to many, many more years with this legendary — and truly authentic — off-roader. Everything is original and in good condition. Who knows, maybe when I’m no longer around, others will still enjoy it.
Original and back to the roots — that’s the motto. Quality through consistency and continuous improvement. But “new design” alone never brings the solution. The root causes need to be eliminated, or already dealt with. I take the same approach with my old Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm Monsun (BO209RV).
And one more note:
If you want to do something good for your (old) diesel engine, add a shot glass of two-stroke oil to the fuel tank with each fill-up. You’ll notice the difference immediately, and the engine’s clatter will be noticeably smoother — with this simple and inexpensive trick, old diesel engines run much more quietly.
That’s hardly a problem - solid beam axles and locked (or no) diffs would get all four wheels turning at the same speed.
The challenge lies in allowing the outer wheels to travel faster than the inner wheels, on curves.
Great write up Russ. Just looked at a 2024 Land Cruiser 1958. What a mash up of cockpit detritus. Hang on to your 90’s model it’s going to be worth a fortune !
We could start with the BILLIONS NASA wasted on Boeing hunk of junk space capsule resulting in two astronauts stranded at the ISS for half a year. The list could go on and on with the results being more expensive than private industry can provide. NASA is being ran by political animals owing their very jobs to politics, not results.
1 reply
That would be on Boeing, not NASA. You sound like you have a political axe to grind.
There is one HUGE difference between Boeing and Toyota that will result in Toyota moving forward as Boeing sinks into it’s abyss. Toyota is making and correcting its mistakes while being run by an actual businessman who’s name is on the building, his door and the cars. Boeing is the bastard child of M&As run by people who’s only skill and concern is their Golden Parachute. Unless you can resurrect Bill Boeing it will stumble along hemoraging billions of bux while circling around a very expensive drain.
Ummmm, the one where they launched two astronauts into space on June 6 with a questionable rocket capsule, thus stranding them in space for the next 8 months.
1 reply
Again, that failure was clearly on Boeing’s shoulders, not NASA’s.
I’ve flown Boeing and other jets for over 35 years, designed and built industrial production machinery for longer. I’ve built machines for many industries, all over the world, including Boeing. I’m participating in the steady decline of human production workers, hastening it. They don’t feel valued or responsible, and they aren’t. Management is installing automation as fast as they can, as fast as we can build it, and setting up automated monitoring of human workers.
Your comparison with Toyota is interesting, their recent problems are more telling. My 200-series Land Cruiser has a 5.7-liter engine cast and built in Japan, while Tundra and Sequoia 5.7 engines are cast and built in America. Toyota has far more problems with the American built 5.7, despite the design and engineering being mostly the same. This is a quality problem, and a social problem.
After WWII, the Marshall Plan rebuilt Japanese industry, and it grew fast. American unions stepped in to help organize unions and protect Japanese workers from abusive, profit-focused management. The unions grew too powerful, and choked the Japanese economy. The Scanlon Plan was brought to Japan, and it worked well with traditional Japanese culture. That cooperative quality effort put Japanese industry ahead of the rest of the world, and is still a part of Japanese culture and management. It has been largely abandoned in the U.S., management is hyper-focused on short-term profits and cost cutting. Labor costs have become something to eliminate, and the automation I build has given management the keys. They no longer have to work with labor and they don’t.
It is unlikely Boeing management is going to shift back to involving non-management workers (including engineers) in real quality decisions. They don’t have to. They will put a lot of posters up, blast workers with extra quality training and programs and online apps. And buy more automated production and monitoring machinery. This Pandora has been opened.
I love the boxy 70-Series, but I’ll pass on owning one or suggesting Toyota sell them in the U.S. The Ineos Grenadier is a good example of why not. The Ineos is a fantastic modern production of an old-school off-roading truck. Like the 70, it isn’t great on the highway, but incredible off-road. A pretty good compromise. Give me an 80-series with lockers, that was the perfect modern daily-driver off-road vehicle. Even the Toyota engineers of the time said they didn’t know why it did so well on the road. My 100 was still tough, and my 200 is amazing on and off-road, but I still long for my old 80-series.
1 reply
Russ, you should put wings and a tail section on your Toyota. It will probably ensure more confidence in the flying public than the Boeing Deadliner.
I remember Boeing taking lessons from Toyota back in the 90’s about implementing moving lines and that every assembly line employee has the ability to hit the big red button to stop the line if there was a problem. Looks like Boeing followed Toyota management too far!
Russ, great job on the article! Your comparison of Toyota and Boeing really hits the mark, showing how big, trusted companies can lose their way when they start cutting corners. Your point about avoiding quick fixes and focusing on real improvements is also spot on. Thanks for such a relatable piece!