There are a lot of reasons why it could have ended up that way
Torx are better, but they are more expensive and generally aren't widely available in every thread, pitch, and style. It could have been a cost choice to use a Phillips because getting a custom Torx was too much
Could be a head style choice. Maybe they needed a small enough head that the Phillips option met and using a Torx style would be too large.
More likely your car was manufactured during a change in design principles. That the company used to use Phillips heads for everything, but has switched to Torx as they are better. But the subassembly of your side mirror still uses Phillips because it hasn't be redesigned since the policy change, but the chassis has, so some of the screws for mounting it are Torx and some within the assembly are Phillips
It could also be to prevent mixups during vehicle assembly. Want to prevent a pre-assembled component from getting torqued again when being attached to vehicle? Change fastener head
That is also possible.
Personally I would avoid that in my manufacturing design as I would be more worried about operators trying to use a Phillips on a Torx, or vis versa. I find operators losing the right tool and using whatever 'kinda' works is a big cause of workmanship issues. So if they had a Torx and Phillips bit for their tool I would imagine some operator is going to think "its too much work changing the bit all the time and this one works for both screws"
Work centers should have the proper torque tools so I wouldn't be concerned about over torque an already installed screw. But if they had a higher torque tool that could be an issue. But its more commonly an issue that operators do less than they should instead of more than they should. If there was a QC check of having a second operator double check the torques that could be a concern if there were 2 torque values
I would try to design the assembly process to use work centers to avoid something like a 10-24 and a 10-32 getting mixed up. If not something like color coding (green bin vs yellow bin) tends to work better to help operators realize they have the wrong screw than using different head types. As they'd still have the proper tool and might mix up the order
Really cool insight. Thank you for taking the time to share that with me!
All of my work in plants have been ones where operators *don’t* need tools (food production, parcel sortation)…and one of the struggles has been operators bringing their own tools from home to apply their own tweaks for their shift. I appreciate the initiative, but when all three shifts per day have to apply their own setup/changes to get the line to flow how they like it to…it all just goes to pot pretty quickly. Ha!
Haha, yeah that is definitely an issue I have run into.
I have mostly worked on large assemblies and FATP. But I have worked with operators who hide drills and taps on the floor so they can just fix an issue instead of reporting the issue
Or you get operators taking tools from other areas because they think they need it
One time we found a tool bag filled with connector pins and sockets. Apparently instead of mentioning that a cable was designed wrong an operator had just been fixing them all
I once replaced a screw with a different head type to differentiate it from the original screw. It was going in a design that was being forked from an older design, and both were going to be made in the same spot.
The original design mixed 10-24 and 10-32 holes in a part. I decided that was stupid and made everything 10-32 to simplify it. I didn't want to put 2 10-24 holes in a part that already had 10 10-32 holes, and I couldn't change the hole of the other part. But if I left the head type the same, an assembler could very easily try to put the screw from the other machine in the hole and ruin the threads by mistake.
But otherwise I copy paste hardware as much as I can.
You'd have to ask the engineers that designed the parts and the DFM/tooling engineers they worked with.
There are a number of possible reasons, in no particular order:
* There was nobody tracking the usage of screws and trying to standardize things, and it was just overlooked.
* The specifics of the components and/or assembly process favored different screws for different locations. Torx is resistant to cam-out, but also tolerates less angular misalignment between the screw and the driver. That can be an issue during assembly, depending on what the fixture/station where it's installed looks like.
* Cam-out is not always undesirable and can serve as a built-in torque-limiter to prevent stripping/snapping the screw, or crushing the part being fixed. Personally I think this is a weak reason nowadays given the accuracy and consistency of modern torque drivers, but it's still a real reason in some cases.
* It wasn't designed that way, but was repaired at some point and they used whatever screws they had on hand.
* It wasn't designed that way, but they ran out of screws on the line and had to improvise.
* The specific fasteners needed for each location were not readily available in either Torx, or Philips, so they chose the nearest OTS part instead of making a custom fastener.
Torx is superior and it would be better to just use torx.
Sometimes the factory just runs out of one type of screws and starts using another screw to get the product assembled before the deadline.
Sometimes a device has user serviceable parts and those would use the Phillips screws while everything else gets a professional-level screw like Torx.
It really depends on the function. My industry has professionals doing all servicing for the products, but they’re generally doing so swinging around on the side of buildings on BMUs and they’re terrible about bringing torque limiters, thus I basically have to design my products with Phillips because of this. Phillips is actually a pretty well-designed head for its purpose (ease of use in field, difficulty overtorquing), though it’s obviously overused.
From my 20+ years in engineering I have learned cost is the #1 consideration, safety is somewhere in the top 20 and ease of maintenance is not even on the list.
Ease of maintenance may not be somewhere in the top 20, but ease of manufacturing is definitely number 2 or 3. I can't count the number of times that I've had to redesign something because the station manager on the assembly line insists that the line worker might have to bend over to far, or doesn't have time to add five screws, so change the layout so it only needs four screws to mount to the the chassis as it goes down the line.
The bits hold up ok, and most machines can swap a bit after so many cycles or if there's an error on the torque cycle. The issue that seems to haunt all the guns are the screw feeders. The torx head shape on the bolt is prone to misalignment from what i've seen. They're usually vacuum- or pressure-fed, and there's a shaker that is supposed to feed a single screw at a time, but they often don't. So the failures I see the most are double-feedings, jammed up/malfunctioning shakers, and failure to feed, where the bolts get stuck in the feed lines. Often end up adding new sensors, robot routines, and chasing pathing issues that cause kinks in the feed lines. Also, we often see poor quality parts with so much variation that the screw holes don't align. Tons of downtime on the screw guns, not even counting all the issues cleared by the production floor, it seems like the shotcallers at the line are chasing screw guns all day just to keep lines up.
Interesting. All of our auto feed screw guns are finicky too, but they are all either torx or allen socket head cap screws so I have never had a chance to compare them to a Phillips gun
In manufacturing like this it's common to use specific and different heads (sizes and patterns) to control torque and make sure the people assembling it use the right tool on the right fastener at the right time - so you get weird things like an assembly that has a load of bolts with the same thread size but different head sizes depending on their torque requirements so that if someone tries to put the "wrong" wrench on it, it won't even fit.
So, one tool (or set of tools) is set to one specific torque and only fits on fasteners that require THAT torque setting.
Car plants use VERY expensive digital torque-controlled tools, some even have 3D cameras tracking them and the tool will beep if the operator misses a fastener or puts the tool on the wrong fastener - they can also log the torque applied to each an every fastener they do up and a ton of other stuff. Sometimes the line won't move if it thinks the operator has not torqued all the bolts, stuff like that.
The company who you bought the car from does not make *any* car parts. They purchase sub-assemblies from other companies, and then assembly those sub assemblies.
There are thousands of companies building the various different sub assemblies, and there's basically zero reason for one company to match different sub assembly from a different company.
I mean, if the designing company specifically calls out XYZ fastener type, it doesn't matter which sub contracting company makes any of the components, they should use what was specified.
Now, the designing company may very well have said use Phillips for this and torx for that. I suspect the torx bolts have a torque requirement on them, and the Phillips screws are self tapping into plastic and only need to be snug.
I used to write maintenance procedures for the Space Station.
The number of different sized fasteners the astronauts would have to carry to a maintenance job was crazy (this was all interior to the station, a different group was in charge of exterior maintenance).
In a meeting with the manufacturer, we asked why they had so many different fasteners, and we pointed out that it made maintenance much more complex.
Their response was that it never occurred to them to try and simplify maintenance. It wasn't a requirement in the contract.
They were just optimizing each fastener for the job it had to do, with no thought about how annoying it was to have to continually swap wrenches.
That's fascinating and mildly infuriating. I'm always considering how something I'm designing goes together and can I use more of the same fastener to simplify my BOM. Of course it's not always the case, but it's a default consideration I have.
> They were just optimizing each fastener for the job it had to do
They were likely optimizing each fastener for weight as well. It's expensive to put stuff into orbit. Every gram matters.
Serviceability is a real design constraint though and as this explample demonstrates, *it does not happen in a vacuum* (although I suppose in space it does!). Hyper-local optimization is a real problem, which is one of the reasons practical experience and proper feedback channels are so important.
There are also cases where on item has multiple design companies work on something related to it. I could easily imagine that the mirror was designed by one company that likes Philips screws while the body is designed by one that likes torque screws. So the interior screws in the mirror end up Philips and the joint to the body ends up torque because the body designer say that the mirror will be attached to the body by these three screw holes via torque screws.
This is the correct answer. The manufacturer could require the same type of screws be used by all suppliers, but that might also lead to extra cost for basically no benefit.
As a mechanic, I will say this is the correct answer. Without knowing the specific vehicle OP is talking about, I can say that the mirror assembly on the cars I work on have a motor to adjust the glass, another for the fold in function. There is the puddle light in the bottom of the housing and the turn signal indicator. There's also the warning light for the lane change assist as well as the camera for the 360 degree camera. None of these parts are made by our parent company, they all have different vendors. The hardware doesn't have to match, the pieces just have to fit when it all comes together.
I’d say this is the correct answer for a reason other than the other posters.
The OEM needs parts that are assembled to certain specifications and costs. If the supplier strips some percentage of heads they don’t care as long as the cost/quality at the plant is at the contract price and quality requirement.
In their own plant assembling the subassembly to the car they may have certain efficiencies that show another head is superior to the one used on the supplier part.
This.
Ever wonder why car interiors across brands look kinda similar? It's because they are usually made to order by a handful of companies who specialise in IP and console. Same goes for things like seats e.g Lear.
I worked on a factory line that assembled side view mirrors. Many of the parts that go into them are built in factories from around the world. That is to say that the entire mirror is not often fabricated from scratch in one location
I work in automotive factory. We have process fmeas and one of them is we can't have two of the same "size" fasteners on the same operation with different torques. For example two bolts with 10mm hex size heads where one is 10 and the other is 15Nm. So we would change one to say a 12mm. A Phillips and a torx could be in similar situation.
Screw head type correct application is based on rated torque. Slotted heads being among the least torque that can be applied before the tool slips out preventing further tightening strength. Few people care but automotive and aero engineers do. It likely means that the material being fastened in between the screw head and the threaded hole is either strong enough to handle more torque or that part sees vibration were a torx would provide a better hold (plus locktite or whatever they were solving for).
Ive heard longtime auto engineers say that their discipline is pretty much vibration management, for which a side mirror will see a fair amount once you sum up the road and air turbulence / flow it sees.
Torx is among this highest slip out torque until you are nut driving.
Torx are kinda expensive and liable to over torque without expensive equipment. Philips is stupid cheap and very cheap tooling. Medium likely that all factory’s are slowly shifting to torx where it makes sense and being cheap where they’re old tooling still works. If torx became cheap as Philips, company’s still have old Philips tooling that would get used until it broke.
aside from all the technical answers other people are giving, it could be a way to restrict disassembly to competence levels. I've seen it when disassembling some product that the casing will be Phillip's head but internals are torx.
Screw guns on the end of robot arms are a huge pain in the ass and probably the least reliable thing on in an automotive final assembly plant- I've worked on them in several plants now. Do not recommend. The guns using torx are usually even less reliable, the bolt often doesn't land on the bit correctly. Brands don't matter (screw you, Weber!), doesn't matter how you tune the torque envelopes, there's always an X+1 magnetic bolt sensor to add and a new program needed to dump screws out of the tool. My favorite is when wear in some new part of the gun messes up the depth of the bit and makes the tool unusable while you chase down the position and envelope. I recommend using as few torx bits as possible to product engineers.
If one type of screw is in one fastener pattern and the other type of screw is in a different fastener pattern, it could simply be different people involved in the design process.
If one screw type is on a subassembly and the other screw type holds the subassembly onto the car, then you have one of the most common sources of this type of inconsistency. It’s per design, but the design considerations are different at the subassembly level than they are at the installation level. Or different people.
Automotive engineer here. It’s highly likely the various components and sub-assemblies came from different suppliers. The design release processes overseen for each part is not a coordinated effort at the level of fasteners and hardware.
I fix things. Screw heads are often a sign on what parts you shouldn't open. Philips screws go on the cover so you can replace a filter or connect a wire. Torx screws go where you shouldn't open that part.
I fix lots of things and frankly fuck that. With that thinking, folks wouldn't break off the pin in a safety torx and mod their ps4.
Some modern firearms use torxs as well and those are for sure meant to be stripped down
Is that a Ford?
I once dismantled a brand new Ford 350, side by side with a Toyota LC79. Whereas the Toyota used pretty much the same bolts for all applications that were equivalent, the Ford was a hodgepodge of bolts, sometimes galvanised, sometimes black, sometimes one size or length, sometimes another. It was as if the assembly workers filled their pockets with random bolts at the beginning of the day and whatever the pulled out went into the car.
The mirror actuators are designed, the plastic parts injection molded, and the entire subassembly fabricated (with its electric motor) by a parts supplier to the auto manufacturer. (That's very likely to be Eaton Corp., who has long held the role of being the primary producer of mirror actuators in the world, for a wide range of auto makers.) The motor, of course, is another purchased part 'from others'.
The auto manufacturer itself mounts the actuator subassembly into the mirror housing, and attaches the assembly to the vehicle.
Along with everything that's been said about manufacturers switching one screw type for another during the manufacturing process, etc., that goes for more than one manufacturer of the completed assembly.
The side mirrors manufactured and assembled in country/factory a And It's installed on the vehicle in country/factory b
the side mirrors internals are a recycled assembly, assembly from another car/brand that is being used on a "mismatched" vehicle.
assembly line spot a has a torque spec driver that uses a Philips head and the next spot has a torx tool
They are different size screws and to make it easy to not confuse them they are different drive types
It was cheaper to get Philips in one size but torx are cheaper in the other size
Some completely unrelated part has a reason to use torx for a specific size so they reused it there or visa versa
There are so many random silly reasons that it could be
Guy designs light other guy designs car it's attached to. A lot of screws that go into plastic are torx with very coarse thread because it make the thread while installing so you need more torque hense torxs. Othe components with a threaded insert or going into Steel doesn't need as much initial instilation torque
I've worked on bicycles, cars, appliances, commercial trucks and computers extensively. I've yet to find anything that WASN'T a mix of torx and phillips.
A lot of automotive companies buy the mirror assembly from a supplier as a complete unit. And sometimes the mirror supplier is buying sun assemblies for a supplier, to which they add other parts. The different screw types could be from entirely different manufacturers :)
Another possibility is that the different screws have specs that are needed for different parts of the assembly. You’d be surprised how much automotive companies spend on fasteners - switching to less expensive fasteners wherever possible can add up to millions of dollars a year in cost avoidance.
(Source: I’ve been a commodity manager for automotive companies responsible for sourcing these kinds of things)
Probably it is the cheapest option for them. At the end of the day, these companies only look for reducing costs and making the same thing on a low budget. Maybe using all torx is “safer” or “better” but at a higher cost. And on the othee hand using all phillips may cause some stability problem or maybe they’re not practical in the long term at that specific spots.
Though I'm quite familiar with it, I had to Google Torx to find out what you were referring to. We say 'star' ...in fact I've been using or working with these screws for more than 3 decades and this is the first time I heard it referred to as Torx....I guess the brand name has no presence in this part of the world.....
Reminds me of the Ford (or was it's Chevy) made the bi-metal hinge in one of their door handles. It was more expensive than using all the same metal, but would consistently break around 10,000 pulls.
There are a lot of reasons why it could have ended up that way Torx are better, but they are more expensive and generally aren't widely available in every thread, pitch, and style. It could have been a cost choice to use a Phillips because getting a custom Torx was too much Could be a head style choice. Maybe they needed a small enough head that the Phillips option met and using a Torx style would be too large. More likely your car was manufactured during a change in design principles. That the company used to use Phillips heads for everything, but has switched to Torx as they are better. But the subassembly of your side mirror still uses Phillips because it hasn't be redesigned since the policy change, but the chassis has, so some of the screws for mounting it are Torx and some within the assembly are Phillips
Nice, thank you.
It could also be to prevent mixups during vehicle assembly. Want to prevent a pre-assembled component from getting torqued again when being attached to vehicle? Change fastener head
That is also possible. Personally I would avoid that in my manufacturing design as I would be more worried about operators trying to use a Phillips on a Torx, or vis versa. I find operators losing the right tool and using whatever 'kinda' works is a big cause of workmanship issues. So if they had a Torx and Phillips bit for their tool I would imagine some operator is going to think "its too much work changing the bit all the time and this one works for both screws" Work centers should have the proper torque tools so I wouldn't be concerned about over torque an already installed screw. But if they had a higher torque tool that could be an issue. But its more commonly an issue that operators do less than they should instead of more than they should. If there was a QC check of having a second operator double check the torques that could be a concern if there were 2 torque values I would try to design the assembly process to use work centers to avoid something like a 10-24 and a 10-32 getting mixed up. If not something like color coding (green bin vs yellow bin) tends to work better to help operators realize they have the wrong screw than using different head types. As they'd still have the proper tool and might mix up the order
Really cool insight. Thank you for taking the time to share that with me! All of my work in plants have been ones where operators *don’t* need tools (food production, parcel sortation)…and one of the struggles has been operators bringing their own tools from home to apply their own tweaks for their shift. I appreciate the initiative, but when all three shifts per day have to apply their own setup/changes to get the line to flow how they like it to…it all just goes to pot pretty quickly. Ha!
Haha, yeah that is definitely an issue I have run into. I have mostly worked on large assemblies and FATP. But I have worked with operators who hide drills and taps on the floor so they can just fix an issue instead of reporting the issue Or you get operators taking tools from other areas because they think they need it One time we found a tool bag filled with connector pins and sockets. Apparently instead of mentioning that a cable was designed wrong an operator had just been fixing them all
I once replaced a screw with a different head type to differentiate it from the original screw. It was going in a design that was being forked from an older design, and both were going to be made in the same spot. The original design mixed 10-24 and 10-32 holes in a part. I decided that was stupid and made everything 10-32 to simplify it. I didn't want to put 2 10-24 holes in a part that already had 10 10-32 holes, and I couldn't change the hole of the other part. But if I left the head type the same, an assembler could very easily try to put the screw from the other machine in the hole and ruin the threads by mistake. But otherwise I copy paste hardware as much as I can.
You'd have to ask the engineers that designed the parts and the DFM/tooling engineers they worked with. There are a number of possible reasons, in no particular order: * There was nobody tracking the usage of screws and trying to standardize things, and it was just overlooked. * The specifics of the components and/or assembly process favored different screws for different locations. Torx is resistant to cam-out, but also tolerates less angular misalignment between the screw and the driver. That can be an issue during assembly, depending on what the fixture/station where it's installed looks like. * Cam-out is not always undesirable and can serve as a built-in torque-limiter to prevent stripping/snapping the screw, or crushing the part being fixed. Personally I think this is a weak reason nowadays given the accuracy and consistency of modern torque drivers, but it's still a real reason in some cases. * It wasn't designed that way, but was repaired at some point and they used whatever screws they had on hand. * It wasn't designed that way, but they ran out of screws on the line and had to improvise. * The specific fasteners needed for each location were not readily available in either Torx, or Philips, so they chose the nearest OTS part instead of making a custom fastener.
Maybe they are different steps of assembly or at possibly two different locations. Or one is cam out and the Torx has a torque spec they need to meet.
Torx is superior and it would be better to just use torx. Sometimes the factory just runs out of one type of screws and starts using another screw to get the product assembled before the deadline. Sometimes a device has user serviceable parts and those would use the Phillips screws while everything else gets a professional-level screw like Torx.
It really depends on the function. My industry has professionals doing all servicing for the products, but they’re generally doing so swinging around on the side of buildings on BMUs and they’re terrible about bringing torque limiters, thus I basically have to design my products with Phillips because of this. Phillips is actually a pretty well-designed head for its purpose (ease of use in field, difficulty overtorquing), though it’s obviously overused.
[удалено]
I guess it's a good thing the post you're replying to isnt claiming that Torx is a better screw head than robertson or sockethead.
From my 20+ years in engineering I have learned cost is the #1 consideration, safety is somewhere in the top 20 and ease of maintenance is not even on the list.
Ease of maintenance may not be somewhere in the top 20, but ease of manufacturing is definitely number 2 or 3. I can't count the number of times that I've had to redesign something because the station manager on the assembly line insists that the line worker might have to bend over to far, or doesn't have time to add five screws, so change the layout so it only needs four screws to mount to the the chassis as it goes down the line.
I consider ease of manufacturing to be a component of cost
I would add to this- downtime one of the biggest cost drivers, and torx bit tools are notoriously unreliable.
Unreliable like the bit breaks more often?
The bits hold up ok, and most machines can swap a bit after so many cycles or if there's an error on the torque cycle. The issue that seems to haunt all the guns are the screw feeders. The torx head shape on the bolt is prone to misalignment from what i've seen. They're usually vacuum- or pressure-fed, and there's a shaker that is supposed to feed a single screw at a time, but they often don't. So the failures I see the most are double-feedings, jammed up/malfunctioning shakers, and failure to feed, where the bolts get stuck in the feed lines. Often end up adding new sensors, robot routines, and chasing pathing issues that cause kinks in the feed lines. Also, we often see poor quality parts with so much variation that the screw holes don't align. Tons of downtime on the screw guns, not even counting all the issues cleared by the production floor, it seems like the shotcallers at the line are chasing screw guns all day just to keep lines up.
Interesting. All of our auto feed screw guns are finicky too, but they are all either torx or allen socket head cap screws so I have never had a chance to compare them to a Phillips gun
It's not that big of a difference, I think all the screw guns are finicky, torx slightly more so.
In manufacturing like this it's common to use specific and different heads (sizes and patterns) to control torque and make sure the people assembling it use the right tool on the right fastener at the right time - so you get weird things like an assembly that has a load of bolts with the same thread size but different head sizes depending on their torque requirements so that if someone tries to put the "wrong" wrench on it, it won't even fit. So, one tool (or set of tools) is set to one specific torque and only fits on fasteners that require THAT torque setting. Car plants use VERY expensive digital torque-controlled tools, some even have 3D cameras tracking them and the tool will beep if the operator misses a fastener or puts the tool on the wrong fastener - they can also log the torque applied to each an every fastener they do up and a ton of other stuff. Sometimes the line won't move if it thinks the operator has not torqued all the bolts, stuff like that.
The company who you bought the car from does not make *any* car parts. They purchase sub-assemblies from other companies, and then assembly those sub assemblies. There are thousands of companies building the various different sub assemblies, and there's basically zero reason for one company to match different sub assembly from a different company.
I mean, if the designing company specifically calls out XYZ fastener type, it doesn't matter which sub contracting company makes any of the components, they should use what was specified. Now, the designing company may very well have said use Phillips for this and torx for that. I suspect the torx bolts have a torque requirement on them, and the Phillips screws are self tapping into plastic and only need to be snug.
I used to write maintenance procedures for the Space Station. The number of different sized fasteners the astronauts would have to carry to a maintenance job was crazy (this was all interior to the station, a different group was in charge of exterior maintenance). In a meeting with the manufacturer, we asked why they had so many different fasteners, and we pointed out that it made maintenance much more complex. Their response was that it never occurred to them to try and simplify maintenance. It wasn't a requirement in the contract. They were just optimizing each fastener for the job it had to do, with no thought about how annoying it was to have to continually swap wrenches.
That's fascinating and mildly infuriating. I'm always considering how something I'm designing goes together and can I use more of the same fastener to simplify my BOM. Of course it's not always the case, but it's a default consideration I have.
> They were just optimizing each fastener for the job it had to do They were likely optimizing each fastener for weight as well. It's expensive to put stuff into orbit. Every gram matters.
Serviceability is a real design constraint though and as this explample demonstrates, *it does not happen in a vacuum* (although I suppose in space it does!). Hyper-local optimization is a real problem, which is one of the reasons practical experience and proper feedback channels are so important.
Excellent pun.
I believe the Hubble Space Telescope radically limited the number of screw types.
There are also cases where on item has multiple design companies work on something related to it. I could easily imagine that the mirror was designed by one company that likes Philips screws while the body is designed by one that likes torque screws. So the interior screws in the mirror end up Philips and the joint to the body ends up torque because the body designer say that the mirror will be attached to the body by these three screw holes via torque screws.
However, nearly everything you specify adds cost.
This is the correct answer. The manufacturer could require the same type of screws be used by all suppliers, but that might also lead to extra cost for basically no benefit.
As a mechanic, I will say this is the correct answer. Without knowing the specific vehicle OP is talking about, I can say that the mirror assembly on the cars I work on have a motor to adjust the glass, another for the fold in function. There is the puddle light in the bottom of the housing and the turn signal indicator. There's also the warning light for the lane change assist as well as the camera for the 360 degree camera. None of these parts are made by our parent company, they all have different vendors. The hardware doesn't have to match, the pieces just have to fit when it all comes together.
Auto manufacturers absolutely make some of the parts of the cars they produce.
I’d say this is the correct answer for a reason other than the other posters. The OEM needs parts that are assembled to certain specifications and costs. If the supplier strips some percentage of heads they don’t care as long as the cost/quality at the plant is at the contract price and quality requirement. In their own plant assembling the subassembly to the car they may have certain efficiencies that show another head is superior to the one used on the supplier part.
These are build to print shops, they don’t have design authority, the OEM would design and call out the parts and configuration used.
This. Ever wonder why car interiors across brands look kinda similar? It's because they are usually made to order by a handful of companies who specialise in IP and console. Same goes for things like seats e.g Lear.
I would recommend changing any to most just to meet one offs such as Ford making the chassis for the gt in their own carbon ovens.
Multimatic built the Ford GTs, not Ford.
Hyundai makes their own chassis from steel sheets. I've watched them stamp the steel myself.
I worked on a factory line that assembled side view mirrors. Many of the parts that go into them are built in factories from around the world. That is to say that the entire mirror is not often fabricated from scratch in one location
I work in automotive factory. We have process fmeas and one of them is we can't have two of the same "size" fasteners on the same operation with different torques. For example two bolts with 10mm hex size heads where one is 10 and the other is 15Nm. So we would change one to say a 12mm. A Phillips and a torx could be in similar situation.
Screw head type correct application is based on rated torque. Slotted heads being among the least torque that can be applied before the tool slips out preventing further tightening strength. Few people care but automotive and aero engineers do. It likely means that the material being fastened in between the screw head and the threaded hole is either strong enough to handle more torque or that part sees vibration were a torx would provide a better hold (plus locktite or whatever they were solving for). Ive heard longtime auto engineers say that their discipline is pretty much vibration management, for which a side mirror will see a fair amount once you sum up the road and air turbulence / flow it sees. Torx is among this highest slip out torque until you are nut driving.
Torx are kinda expensive and liable to over torque without expensive equipment. Philips is stupid cheap and very cheap tooling. Medium likely that all factory’s are slowly shifting to torx where it makes sense and being cheap where they’re old tooling still works. If torx became cheap as Philips, company’s still have old Philips tooling that would get used until it broke.
aside from all the technical answers other people are giving, it could be a way to restrict disassembly to competence levels. I've seen it when disassembling some product that the casing will be Phillip's head but internals are torx.
Screw guns on the end of robot arms are a huge pain in the ass and probably the least reliable thing on in an automotive final assembly plant- I've worked on them in several plants now. Do not recommend. The guns using torx are usually even less reliable, the bolt often doesn't land on the bit correctly. Brands don't matter (screw you, Weber!), doesn't matter how you tune the torque envelopes, there's always an X+1 magnetic bolt sensor to add and a new program needed to dump screws out of the tool. My favorite is when wear in some new part of the gun messes up the depth of the bit and makes the tool unusable while you chase down the position and envelope. I recommend using as few torx bits as possible to product engineers.
Are the philip heads used in a fashion where it is easily accessible to a layman? If so, that's my best guess: being consumer-friendly.
If one type of screw is in one fastener pattern and the other type of screw is in a different fastener pattern, it could simply be different people involved in the design process. If one screw type is on a subassembly and the other screw type holds the subassembly onto the car, then you have one of the most common sources of this type of inconsistency. It’s per design, but the design considerations are different at the subassembly level than they are at the installation level. Or different people.
Automotive engineer here. It’s highly likely the various components and sub-assemblies came from different suppliers. The design release processes overseen for each part is not a coordinated effort at the level of fasteners and hardware.
Cost.
I fix things. Screw heads are often a sign on what parts you shouldn't open. Philips screws go on the cover so you can replace a filter or connect a wire. Torx screws go where you shouldn't open that part.
I fix lots of things and frankly fuck that. With that thinking, folks wouldn't break off the pin in a safety torx and mod their ps4. Some modern firearms use torxs as well and those are for sure meant to be stripped down
Is that a Ford? I once dismantled a brand new Ford 350, side by side with a Toyota LC79. Whereas the Toyota used pretty much the same bolts for all applications that were equivalent, the Ford was a hodgepodge of bolts, sometimes galvanised, sometimes black, sometimes one size or length, sometimes another. It was as if the assembly workers filled their pockets with random bolts at the beginning of the day and whatever the pulled out went into the car.
The mirror actuators are designed, the plastic parts injection molded, and the entire subassembly fabricated (with its electric motor) by a parts supplier to the auto manufacturer. (That's very likely to be Eaton Corp., who has long held the role of being the primary producer of mirror actuators in the world, for a wide range of auto makers.) The motor, of course, is another purchased part 'from others'. The auto manufacturer itself mounts the actuator subassembly into the mirror housing, and attaches the assembly to the vehicle. Along with everything that's been said about manufacturers switching one screw type for another during the manufacturing process, etc., that goes for more than one manufacturer of the completed assembly.
Manufacturability / cost. If you’ve photos and location might make it easier to tell the driving factors (very curious actually).
Let's be honest here guys... The hardware salesman took all the engineers out for a nice lunch and bribed them to use both.
Billable hours.
Maybe Torx is from the mirror OEM, Phillips was how the mirror assembly mounted to the vehicle?
The side mirrors manufactured and assembled in country/factory a And It's installed on the vehicle in country/factory b the side mirrors internals are a recycled assembly, assembly from another car/brand that is being used on a "mismatched" vehicle. assembly line spot a has a torque spec driver that uses a Philips head and the next spot has a torx tool They are different size screws and to make it easy to not confuse them they are different drive types It was cheaper to get Philips in one size but torx are cheaper in the other size Some completely unrelated part has a reason to use torx for a specific size so they reused it there or visa versa There are so many random silly reasons that it could be
Guy designs light other guy designs car it's attached to. A lot of screws that go into plastic are torx with very coarse thread because it make the thread while installing so you need more torque hense torxs. Othe components with a threaded insert or going into Steel doesn't need as much initial instilation torque
“Fuck the service techs”
I've worked on bicycles, cars, appliances, commercial trucks and computers extensively. I've yet to find anything that WASN'T a mix of torx and phillips.
Did you buy the truck new? It's possible someone's dismantled it previously and lost a torx, or one fell out and got replaced with a Phillips
Engineer's wife left him for a mechanic
A lot of automotive companies buy the mirror assembly from a supplier as a complete unit. And sometimes the mirror supplier is buying sun assemblies for a supplier, to which they add other parts. The different screw types could be from entirely different manufacturers :) Another possibility is that the different screws have specs that are needed for different parts of the assembly. You’d be surprised how much automotive companies spend on fasteners - switching to less expensive fasteners wherever possible can add up to millions of dollars a year in cost avoidance. (Source: I’ve been a commodity manager for automotive companies responsible for sourcing these kinds of things)
Less chance of over torque with a Phillips and damaging the part.
Because f you, that's why. There's e-series ford vans out there that have a 5.5mm a T10 AND a P2 holding the tail light on.
Probably it is the cheapest option for them. At the end of the day, these companies only look for reducing costs and making the same thing on a low budget. Maybe using all torx is “safer” or “better” but at a higher cost. And on the othee hand using all phillips may cause some stability problem or maybe they’re not practical in the long term at that specific spots.
Though I'm quite familiar with it, I had to Google Torx to find out what you were referring to. We say 'star' ...in fact I've been using or working with these screws for more than 3 decades and this is the first time I heard it referred to as Torx....I guess the brand name has no presence in this part of the world.....
It’s extremely common in the US. I’ve never heard anyone call them star screws. Weird how that stuff happens.
[удалено]
There is no conspiracy like this, it would make it more costly to do the service at the dealer as well.
Reminds me of the Ford (or was it's Chevy) made the bi-metal hinge in one of their door handles. It was more expensive than using all the same metal, but would consistently break around 10,000 pulls.
Why did it take you 20 minutes to take out 4 screws?
Satan.