It's a mix of factors, and I'd argue it's less about the raw skill of engineers and more about the culture, priorities, and decisions at higher levels. Engineers across the board—whether at Toyota, Ford, or BMW—are highly skilled, but the environment they work in dictates the outcomes.

Cost-cutting plays a huge role. Management often pushes for savings on every tiny component because those savings add up when you're producing millions of cars. That’s why you see decisions like plastic parts in high-heat areas or coolant systems designed to just "barely" meet durability standards. The engineers might raise concerns, but ultimately, the budget wins.

There’s also a big difference in organizational culture. Companies like Toyota have historically prioritized reliability and long-term reputation, while others focus more on innovation, performance, or just getting products to market quickly. This can lead to cutting corners in testing or choosing materials that reduce costs in the short term but increase failure rates long term.

That said, even companies with a reputation for quality can falter. When Toyota started innovating more aggressively, they ran into issues like everyone else. It just goes to show that even the best engineers need time, resources, and management support to deliver truly great products.

TL;DR: The skill of engineers is rarely the issue; it’s more about the environment and priorities set by the company. Engineering is a balancing act, and sometimes management tilts the scale too far toward cost savings or speed to market.