| soconfoozed |
09-27-2012 01:37 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaJoian
(Post 462825)
Are they using the same exact part?... Their parts number are the "same" ... :iono:
|
I noted this as well.
In engineering, and specifically in document control, we often refer to the revision and version of a design. Those words may sound the same, but frequently they're set apart by the form-fit-function standard.
Changes which impact form, fit or function are revision changes, whereas small updates that don't substantially change a given design are version changes.
Put another way, you can mix inventory of parts of varying version, usually. One would never mix inventory of differing revisions.
Based on this part number curiosity, it would seem that this isn't deemed a major change. It could be that the problem has a low incidence rate overall -- or at least, a low estimated incidence rate. And so, the "bad" parts are still actually useable and good, and can be used to depletion in current manufacturing. When this defect does actually manifest itself, those customers who bring their cars in will have the updated part installed, from the same inventory pool -- and likely won't but possibly may have the chirp return, in which case they're sure to just come back with their car...again, to receive repair parts from the same inventory pool. It may truly be that this defect is just not common. But eventually, all of the previous version parts will be consumed anyway, and this problem should be dead going forward.
It's the not-issue that Toyota and Subaru decided to not-not-fix. :lol: :sigh:
About time. This one shouldn't have made it out the door.
Hopefully that makes sense. I don't really know how a Toyota part number is structured, but it's probably something like this. |
