History Of Perodua Myvi

an Information For Those who are Looking For Myvi

To understand what’s so special about the Myvi, you must first understand how product development was undertaken when Perodua started. Back then, designs already completed by Daihatsu were provided and minor changes were made to give them a Perodua identity. In the industry, this is often called ‘badge engineering’, suggesting that the only ‘engineering’ done is to change the badge on the grille or bonnet. All else is the same as the original model apart from some specifications to meet local cost targets or consumer requirements.

The Kancil started off that way and Perodua was never shy to admit that it was a cosmetic job on a Daihatsu model known as the Mira. Its engineers were young and had much to learn from the Japanese and during the 1990s, they would be diligent students. Perodua had the intention to develop in-house capability but it was not overly-ambitious and took measured steps, each one bringing on more confidence and increased capability to do more.

By the late 1990s, Perodua’s R&D had enough confidence and skill to undertake a major facelift to the Kancil. Using the original design as a basis, it was given a fresh new appearance and a major change was in the dashboard which saw the relocation of the instrument panel to the middle section. The result was encouraging and boosted the confidence of the Malaysian engineers.

The restructuring of Perodua which saw Daihatsu taking a majority stake in the manufacturing operations saw the relationship changing to one where Perodua was given a more substantial role. For its next all-new model, scheduled for introduction in 2005, Perodua was invited to be an active participant in the development of the model from day one. This was a brand new model that was to be developed by Daihatsu and Toyota and Perodua would be part of the team. In the past, the two Japanese companies would have proceeded on their own and Perodua would only get the finished design with critical dimensions fixed and the only changes that could be made could be cosmetic.

This time, 80 engineers were sent to Japan to work on the new model and to provide their inputs right from the very start of the project which was in early 2002. What this meant was that the model (coded ‘D73A’) which would come to be known as the Daihatsu Boon/Toyota Passo actually has some Malaysian involvement in it as well – and that is something Malaysians should be proud of. In fact, former Perodua MD Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Omar once told the media that a concept model which Perodua had built itself in 2001 had impressed the Japanese a lot and when you look at that concept car now, you can see that there may have been some styling elements which were picked for the Myvi/Boon/Passo.

Of course, apart from working on the original design, the Malaysian team (who stayed in Japan for such a long period that they started to miss nasi lemak badly, according to a Perodua source!) also worked on customising certain areas for the Perodua version which would become the Myvi. Besides the R&D personnel, there were also Malaysian engineers from the manufacturing side who were sent to Japan to work simultaneously on the production issues related to the new model.

The collaboration between Perodua, Daihatsu and Toyota can be compared to that between Ford and Mazda when the two companies developed models such as the Laser/323, Telstar/626, Escape/Tribute and Ranger/Fighter. Such collaboration is necessary nowadays because the cost of developing an all-new model is incredibly expensive and being able to share the cost makes it possible to price the product more competitively. In the case of the Myvi, Perodua says that it spent around RM210 million, a fifth of what it would have cost if it had tried to develop the model alone.

This is just the start of a new section of the learning curve for Perodua and who knows, as its capabilities grow, it could be assigned more substantial responsibilities in new model development. It is not out of the question that sometime in the future, Perodua could even be given the task of developing models for the developing Asian markets while Daihatsu focuses on models for the more developed countries. But that’s a long way off and as some philosopher once said, every journey starts with the first step – and Perodua has taken that step.

The Passo/Boon were launched a year ago in Japan and the question that many may ask is if Perodua collaborated on the project, how come the Myvi could not be launched at that time? After all, if the argument is that it did not have to wait for the new model design to be completed before starting its own customisation, why such a big gap?

One reason given is that last year, Perodua had secured the contract to assemble the Toyota Avanza and it was felt that to also introduce a brand new model – especially one of such significance – would stretch resources too much. The other reason is that Perodua wanted to reach a new and much higher level of quality than before and by delaying its own launch, it could find out which areas of the Passo/Boon had minor issues or needed refinement and sort them out. In other words, just as the first version of a new software is often known to have bugs and wise consumers will wait till later versions when the bugs have been ironed out, the same can be said of the Myvi being a later version with less ‘bugs’,

Another thing was the aim was to have high local content (80% of parts or 976 items come from 147 suppliers in Malaysia or Asean countries) for the car so as to keep costs down. Localisation of parts needs a bit of extra time as additional testing has to be done to ensure that the parts meet the required standards – consistently. This high local content from start is also an achievement because it took almost 9 years to reach that sort of level with the Kancil.

Again, the determination to offer a Perodua product of much higher quality than ever before meant that extra time was needed; Perodua does not believe in making its customers ‘test’ components (and having to pay for the ‘privilege ‘too!) and wants to get everything as perfect as possible before the units go to the showrooms.

The result is that the Myvi is claimed to have a level of quality which is 10 times better than the first model Perodua produced. With its first model, the defect rate was 2.0 – 2.5 defects per car but with the Myvi, it is 0.2 defects per car – that’s 2 defects in every 10 cars. It’s not the best that can be achieved because in Japan, the factory doing Lexus models is down to 0.05 defects per car – 5 defects in every 100 cars! The maintenance of these levels is taken very seriously and constantly monitored. And they are said to have been achieved on units which will be delivered to customers too, not just on factory test runs.

According to Perodua MD, Hafiz Syed Abu Bakar, many strategies were used to ensure these quality targets were met. One approach taken was to recruit operators early so that they could receive more training time and get more familiar. They were constantly tested and only those who achieved certain scores would be entrusted to work on the Myvi line. Thus, by the time mass production began a couple of months ago, these operators already had quite a lot of experience and did not compromise quality by having to become familiar with making the new model.

POWERPLANTS
While it’s not unusual for a model to have a few different engine sizes, what is rather special for the Myvi is that its two engines come from entirely different families. The smaller engine is a 3-cylinder unit whereas the bigger one is a 4-cylinder unit, meaning mounting points are different. However, a Perodua engineer said that this was planned right from the start and such a variation is properly engineered for.

The smaller engine is the 989 cc EJ-VE engine which is a variant of the one found in the Kelisa/Kenari (EJ-DE). However, as the EJ-VE, it has the Dynamic Variable Valve Timing (DVVT) mechanism which allows for constant alteration of the intake valve timing to suit driving conditions and demands, extending the powerband, improving low-end torque, increasing fuel economy and also lowering toxic exhausts emissions. This engine has actually been used in the Kelisa exported to UK to meet the tougher emission control standards there and now it is being offered in the Myvi because Perodua expects Malaysian emission control standards to be upgraded in the near future. Therefore rather than wait till that time to upgrade the engine, they might as well start now – and do the environment a good deed too.

Power output from the twincam EFI 12-valve engine is 43 kW/58.4 bhp at 6000 rpm with 88 Nm of torque at 3600 rpm. It sounds like a modest output but given the body weight of 900 kgs, it should be sufficient to provide brisk performance. This engine option is only available with a 5-speed manual transmission and part of the reason for this limitation is to provide a really low-priced version of the Myvi.

The 1298 cc K3-VE engine is also no stranger to Perodua owners: it powers the Kembara DVVT and Toyota also uses the same engine in the Avanza. However, it would not be right to say that the engine is identical in all three models as the tuning has been customised to suit the different characters of each model (MPV, SUV and hatchback). This engine also has DVVT and can produce 64 kW/87 bhp of power at 6000 rpm with 116 Nm of torque at 3200 rpm. In order to enhance durability, the engine uses a chain drive which has been designed for low noise.

For the 1.3-litre engine, both manual and automatic transmissions are available, the automatic being an electronically controlled type with shift programming to give smoother transitions between gears, even when the accelerator pedal is floored.

Factory test figures show that both engines offer pretty good performance. For 0 – 100 km/h times, even the Myvi 1.0 is quicker than some rivals with bigger engines. And as for fuel consumption, figures achieved have been 15.2 kms/litre for the Myvi 1.0 which is better than the Kelisa and Kenari. The better power-to-weight ratio of the Myvi 1.3 manual achieves 17.1 kms/litre but the automatic does 13.5 kms/litre. Of course, these figures are in factory conditions and would vary depending on how you drive, where you drive and even the condition of the engine.