Subaru Solterra Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
For anyone wondering why Toyota changed the type of hub they use, the one-word answer is - cost.

Here's an example of the different hub types (2 studded and 1 bolt type) and their current cost on amazon.

There are a huge variation of hub and bearing assemblies and most now integrate the ABS sensor so I chose similar year offerings, without ABS, with driven wheels (splined shafts that transfer power to the wheels), showing both with wheel studs and without.


Camera accessory Camera lens Cameras & optics Lens Auto part


Front Wheel Hub and Bearing for 2005-2014 Subaru Outback Legacy - $47.23


Camera lens Camera accessory Lens Cameras & optics Material property


Front Hub Assembly for Lexus Toyota - $107.00



Camera accessory Bicycle part Rim Circle Aluminium


Front Wheel Hub and Bearing for Audi A3 TT and VW Golf Jetta Passat - $37.99

So if they can cut the cost of each wheel assembly in half (~ $200 for each car) times millions of vehicles, that's a boat-load of money.

Of course you know they are passing all that savings on to us. :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
164 Posts
So if they can cut the cost of each wheel assembly in half (~ $200 for each car) times millions of vehicles, that's a boat-load of money.

Of course you know they are passing all that savings on to us. :)
gotta be more to it than that. Most German 'premium brands' use hubs with bolts and not nuts. The Supra uses bolts also I believe (co-developed with BMW). I don't think cost cutting is the entire answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
I don't think cost cutting is the entire answer.
Why not?

Cost, whether the cost of goods or the production cost, is the driver for practically everything. It is a regular event for engineers to be assigned the task of removing cost from existing vehicles. They are constantly trying to make their vehicles as cheap as possible, especially Toyota. That’s why after having more than a handful of Toyota‘s, I quit buying them and switched to Subaru. Everything about them just got so cheap feeling and looking (not to mention how horrible and annoying they were in the snow).

A trivial example is:
Have you ever seen old Jeeps that had “4x4” on the rear quarter panels (on the side just under the windows)? It was a hallmark of all Jeeps for decades and decades.

The year the Liberty was introduced (2002), an engineer was assigned to remove a certain dollar amount from the production cost and one of the things she did was remove the 2 badges from the side and just put one “4x4” badge on the rear. Now its been that way for the past 20 years or so (the Liberty is long gone, but the whole lineup adopted this cost saving practice). Another thing she did was remove the physical key hole on the passenger door, something I think all manufacturers do now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Two studs and one bolt type in the OP's post. There are stud kits for all the Euro bolt type cars that go to the track. They are not cheap but will do the job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
Yes, it was tough to not also include all the conversion kits from bolts to studs just to show that the stud design was much more revered for its robustness in high performance or heavy duty applications. I can't help but notice the bulk of studded hubs also look like they are forged and machined as opposed to lower quality stamped or cast looking material used for the hub bolts to fasten onto. I have no doubt the threads at issue with the hubs Toyota is using are being deformed in one manner or another.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
164 Posts
Why not?

Cost, whether the cost of goods or the production cost, is the driver for practically everything. It is a regular event for engineers to be assigned the task of removing cost from existing vehicles. They are constantly trying to make their vehicles as cheap as possible, especially Toyota. That’s why after having more than a handful of Toyota‘s, I quit buying them and switched to Subaru. Everything about them just got so cheap feeling and looking (not to mention how horrible and annoying they were in the snow).

A trivial example is:
Have you ever seen old Jeeps that had “4x4” on the rear quarter panels (on the side just under the windows)? It was a hallmark of all Jeeps for decades and decades.

The year the Liberty was introduced (2002), an engineer was assigned to remove a certain dollar amount from the production cost and one of the things she did was remove the 2 badges from the side and just put one “4x4” badge on the rear. Now its been that way for the past 20 years or so (the Liberty is long gone, but the whole lineup adopted this cost saving practice). Another thing she did was remove the physical key hole on the passenger door, something I think all manufacturers do now.
I absolutely agree that cost cutting is definitely part of design in parts and/or manufacturing techniques. But NOT at the expense of quality or durability. Not sure how you can say Toyotas are so cheap when they are by far one of the most reliable brands year over year on any study or publication. Examples of cost cutting but not at the expense of quality is Teslas mega castings. They are by far destroying the industry with their new giga press manufacturing techniques. 100s of parts become 1 part. Elimination of complicated and expensive assembly. But the quality actually improves. Cost cutting is not always “cheap”. I work in manufacturing and chemicals. That is a terrible way to define cost cutting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
When I looked up the advantages of a lug bolt system, all I found is that it makes it easier to work on the brakes. Thought that would be a funny reason to use them on an EV!

I assume it makes it more difficult to rotate the tires because you can't easily hang the wheel on a bolt like when using studs and lug nuts. Maybe they switched because dealers were sad that they're gonna lose all that routine maintenance money and the lug bolt system will make more people bring their car in for rotations?! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Why not?

Cost, whether the cost of goods or the production cost, is the driver for practically everything. It is a regular event for engineers to be assigned the task of removing cost from existing vehicles. They are constantly trying to make their vehicles as cheap as possible, especially Toyota. That’s why after having more than a handful of Toyota‘s, I quit buying them and switched to Subaru. Everything about them just got so cheap feeling and looking (not to mention how horrible and annoying they were in the snow).

A trivial example is:
Have you ever seen old Jeeps that had “4x4” on the rear quarter panels (on the side just under the windows)? It was a hallmark of all Jeeps for decades and decades.

The year the Liberty was introduced (2002), an engineer was assigned to remove a certain dollar amount from the production cost and one of the things she did was remove the 2 badges from the side and just put one “4x4” badge on the rear. Now its been that way for the past 20 years or so (the Liberty is long gone, but the whole lineup adopted this cost saving practice). Another thing she did was remove the physical key hole on the passenger door, something I think all manufacturers do now.
No offense, but if the Solterra is a Toyota/Subaru joint dev project and assembled by Toyota, why get one if you don't trust Toyotas?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Cost cutting is not always “cheap”. I work in manufacturing and chemicals. That is a terrible way to define cost cutting.
I didn't say reducing cost correlates to cheapness, and certainly not reliability. Cheap can be perceived as quality, materials, and "feel" as well.

In my opinion, innovation is increasing capability while reducing cost, but when relying on outside components (which is most of any vehicle), selecting a more inexpensive product among similar competitors will almost always reduce the quality of the end item (the expression "you get what you pay for" didn't come about for no reason). Multiply this by the millions of design and purchase decisions required to build even the simplest vehicle and year over year brands can get into an unfortunate cost-cutting cycle. In a strive for management to get the "minimum viable product" and push product out the door as fast as possible to beat competitors and generate revenue sooner, quality and features get put on the chopping block.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
No offense, but if the Solterra is a Toyota/Subaru joint dev project and assembled by Toyota, why get one if you don't trust Toyotas?
Because I trust Subaru more than Toyota and they have made some joint vehicles that people seem to love. It’s also the only EV that would probably plow through another snowpocalypse and have very few problems in the mountains.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
188 Posts
@poodlemaster, myself and many others are okay with the cooperation. However, the same bunch may differ on the balance of the Co-Op, where Toyota is making questionable compromises into unfamiliar parts for this expensive vehicle development.

I say unfamiliar, within the realm of their own limited application on a low volume vehicle.(Supra) . That is assembled in Austria by techs who are knowledgeable of the Audi/VW/BMW hub design. As they have slapped in countless units over the years.

Toyota and Subaru for that matter, not so much. It could be a simple learning curve issue, although expensive and dearly dangerous... Or there's a design flaw with in use by these high OMG torque for days EVs... 😁
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top