Hybrid Oil Pressure Question

Like I observed, it may not be an issue for this system, but WHY build in such time bombs is more a problem with the design philosophy that I do not care for here. WHY would an ECU need replacing after a set number of events?

 

Other time bombs? I ran across this a while back pertaining to the starter. Apparently we'll get a message after 384,000 starts that the starter needs replacement. That's something like 25 starts per day for 50 years, so probably something we'll never see. Someone on these forums was arguing that when you hit that number your truck wouldn't start, but I can't bring myself to believe that could be the case. What if you're in the boonies on a logging road 100 miles from nowhere? Your truck isn't going to start just because it hit a number? Anyway, just a random tidbit to add to the conversation. (She has the answer pinned to the top of the comments in the video)

https://youtube.com/shorts/kWmYYXabObI?si=9hB9Sjs76ZNmZchX

 

The electric motor doesn’t spin the engine except in the milliseconds it takes to start combustion. If it was turning the engine all the time, there’d be no reason to have the hybrid use an electric AC compressor instead of the belt-driven one the non-hybrid uses, since the accessory drive would already be spinning.

You also wouldn’t need a clutch between the motor and engine, since the only reason for it is to allow them to uncouple, which wouldn’t happen if the motor kept the engine turning all the time.

 

At least in a starter, the bushes might need replacing by then, so a mechanical wear item I could understand. But WHY would an ECU need replacing after a set number of events counted?!

 

Agree that it seems crazy to put a number on it. At least it doesn't self destruct after 5 seconds.....

 

Non-volatile ram.

 

I trust the Toyota engineers......

 

Please do not give them idea!

So? Still a needless self-destruct design decision, made worse by being a conscious choice made to be detrimental to the owner.

To me, making any product impossible, or prohibitively expensive, to maintain, repair, or keep operable long term, by making such choices intentionally, is simply WRONG.

No wonder, some manufacturers tried to make even owning a car (and options already installed and paid for) a subscription service. This disease is spreading everywhere.

That is why an engine that starts with zero oil pressure multiple times in a trip, to be revved up immediately, also reeks of this mindset.

At least to me.

 

The 384k-cycle lifespan is what Toyota claims for the starter in non-hybrid vehicles with auto start/stop. That’s theoretically enough for 21 starts per day for 50 years, but it’s supposed to work out to around 10 years of typical use.

The Tundra is a little unique because most Toyota hybrids don’t have a separate starter, relying solely on the electric motor to serve that function. Given that the Tundra rarely uses its 12V starter (following refueling and in extreme cold), 384k uses of the starter would far exceed the expected life of the truck. So, if the 1M-cycle lifespan on the start/stop ECU (which I don’t believe exists on a hybrid) is accurate (I haven’t been able to find anything but the quoted post on the subject), it would still be roughly 2.5x the lifespan of the 12V starter, which should already outlive the truck.

 

LOL. I have no problem with the starter. My point is about the damn ECU for the stop-start with a counter, specifically the thought process that goes into such a decision!

 

The theoretical 1M-cycle counter (which, again, I have never seen any mention of other than the quoted post) would take decades to trigger, which is way beyond the expected useful life of the truck itself. I don’t see the problem…

 

Thought process is the same as many decisions, $$$. Or maybe, with covid, the specific NVRAM was all they could source. Only toyota knows, IP that will not be shared.

 

I understand the numbers, and how long that particular counter would take, or the financial implications of design decisions, but let me try to illustrate my point yet again with an analogy:

What would you say about this design philosophy, similar to the one I have mentioned above:

How about the Body Control ECU needing to be changed, along with all front and rear lights if the number of blinks at any one corner indicator exceeds 100,000? You know, for safety, to ensure proper illumination and signaling.

How about embedding timing chips in tires that reduce power within the Engine control ECU and limits the vehicle when any one tire turns five years old, regardless of mileage? You know, for highway safety.

How about disabling all ABS and Stability Control if the number of brake actuations is limited to 100,000 before the master cylinder and all brake calipers are changed? You know, for safety by ensuring proper braking.

Once the customer is forced to accept such design parameters, how about reducing them by 50% every second refresh of the model? Newer is better, right?

 

The “design philosophy” for limiting the life of the start-stop ECU would be the same one that dictates a counter on the starter - trying to prevent a failure where the vehicle doesn’t restart after auto-stopping at a stoplight, stranding you in traffic. When you hit the cycle limit for the starter, it disables the start-stop system to limit starter cycles until you replace the starter and reset the counter. The same thing would apply to the ECU, albeit on a much more extended timeline to account for the expected lifespan of an ECU. The 384k-cycle starter in ICE vehicles is designed to last 10 years at 20k/year, so a million-cycle ECU would be good for over 25 years/500k miles, at which point the start-stop system would lock out until you replace it to keep from stranding you.

Of course, the hybrid Tundra doesn’t even use a starter for its start-stop system, so it’s not really clear how this would play out for a hybrid. I live in a hot climate, so the 12V is only used following refueling, around once a week. At 52 12V starter cycles per year, I wouldn’t hit the cycle cap for the starter for a little over 7385 years, and the ECU cap would hit at just over 19,230 years. Given that the Old Kingdom of Egypt was a mere 4700 years ago, I think the caps are a non-issue.

 

Such caps may not be an issue to you, sure.

I disagree.

To me, they definitely are, specially as a diseased design mindset.

And that is about it.

 

we get it, you hate your truck

 

LOL. I actually love my truck(s), but I am not blinded by said love. Nothing is perfect, and I can see advantages and disadvantages as they actually exist, and not as I would wish to see them. Right now, I own a 24 Tundra, and a 25 Tundra.

My comments above are actually more applicable to other manufacturers far, far, far more than Toyota. The German manufacturers are the absolute worst in this regard.

When I decided to get a full size truck for my use, the Tundra was, and remains by far, the best truck IMO. And I have put my money where my mouth is. The engine is smooth and powerful, the transmission is a dream with imperceptible shifts and an uncanny ability to be in the right gear all the time. The seats are comfortable for long distances. The truck rides well and tracks true at high speeds even in stiff cross winds. And yes, the interior is more plastciky than I ever remember for any Toyota interior and the doors rattle and the differential whines at certain speeds.

I want and expect my vehicles to last 25 years and/or 250k miles in service, and do everything to ensure that as much as is possible. And I think the Tundras will achieve that too, just like the several cars and SUVs before them, even with the design decisions I have pointed out above.

Now please tell me what you "get" from the above, not that it would matter much to changing my way of thinking as I have described it.

 

I’m not reading that. I already know your position based on your previous responses

 

I think it’s actually great that Toyota engineers hold their vendors accountable to a standard, and appears many other manuf. don’t even care. In the real world this is a common practice on equipment. I’m very used to it from flying all my life. Parts & components have life ratings, doesn’t mean obsolescence or it’s going to fall off when you meet certain times. It means you know the average lifespan, and when that time/interval is met now the due diligence is on you to inspect for concerns.

 

Considering the training requirements for flying aircraft, the level of diligent maintenance aircraft require, and the well-defined use cases for aircraft, I am not really sure how your comment applies to personal vehicles, unless you are advocating similar standards for them as well, including associated costs of such training, maintenance and defined uses.

 

I think we’ve identified the issue. The expected usable life of a new car is 8 years, 150k miles, and potentially up to 12-15 years if impeccably maintained. Expecting double the typical “best-case” lifespan isn’t realistic or reasonable.

 

And just how has that been determined for the consumers, kind Sir? And why is that the consumers must bow to what manufacturers have deemed appropriate for them rather than the consumers demanding what standards the products they buy should be able to meet?

For example:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a60882953/average-age-us-cars-trucks-suvs-rises/

 

That hasn’t been determined for the consumers lol. That’s what years of data from consumers says is the average lifespan.

 

Right. And just what determined that? Does intentionally making vehicles hard and/or impossible to repair or maintain beyond those limits have any role to play in that? Besides, the average age of the US fleet is increasing, because consumers are doing more and more to keep ever expensive vehicles on the road.

 

We're are talking Toyota. Does all this make sense? Toyota is the same company that designed their speedometers to stop tracking ODO mileage on the Gen 9 series Corollas and Camry's when they reach 299,999 miles.

 

I did not know that limit. What purpose would that serve? Does it roll over like in the good old mechanical days?

 

Nope. ODO is just stuck at 299,999 lol. The only way to fix it is to replace with new or get one from the junk yard but that to will stop at 299,999 lol

 

You know this thought has been solved by Toyota since the original Prius back in 1997 - same hybrid start/stop concept and those engines last a very long time - pretty sure what the big T learned there applies here. Worry about something else....