I think there is an aspect of design for the climate of intended use, although all try to cover a wide range, some will emphasize one geographic areas more than others. Ie resistance to salt spray may be counter to UV, and or abrasion. SAE standards give quite a bit of lattitude, but internal standards documents are often much tighter in one area more than another… or if under budgetary pressure, less so.

Usually, its not great, nor poor engineering, but the tradeoffs chosen… but not always. In some cases, a engineer will go on vacation midway through a design, and another guy comes in, and doesnt fully understand or even know whats in the vacationing engineers head. Significant massive screwups start out that that way, design docs dont tell the whole story… Its the same with process operators. The old guy who has been there done that forever, often does a much better job than the guy reading the process sheets. If nothing goes wrong, end quality is the same… if something throws up, the old codger will often save the day.

My experience is a bit dated though, and things do change. Otoh, hearing mechanic friends fuss and some other engineering friends, suggest its still business as usual.

For instance, is the resilience of an old Volvo wagon like mine up north reflect superior craftsmanship or simply that, as a car designed by Swedes, it was designed to weather this sort of climate? And would such an accomplishment render a 30 year old specimen here in the dry desert any less noteworthy? Conversely, if some other make were to generally rust-through up there in half as many years, might that imply poor engineering or just a lack of interest in longevity under those circumstances?

Just curious.