Exorcising the Propaganda of Big Auto
Dear reader,
After twenty years in the automotive industry I can say with certainty that I’ve suffered from boiled frog syndrome (hence my loosely-derived pseudonym). However, I’m progressively attempting to reconcile it by helping others to better understand the complex and tight knit workings from the perspective of a seasoned insider. Calling it forbearance would be an understatement. Yet, despite my slightly jaded inner monologue, I’ve managed to find hope by publicly highlighting the propaganda and trends which drive the segment.
Let’s begin with a hot button topic.
Will electric vehicles save planet Earth:
This is one of the most controversial issues in the auto industry and beyond. Many executives have already begun to question long-term, electric vehicle (EV) viability, but the advantages are difficult to ignore. Over the lifespan of a car, EVs will reportedly produce less harmful greenhouse gases than their internal combustion engine (ICE) counterparts. However, it’s becoming evident that the “electric car for everyone” agenda isn’t so simple to implement.
One of the most ignored aspects of EV adoption is keeping their overall footprint as green as possible. That means a greener grid and the oft-overlooked advancement of battery recycling processes. In addition, one of the greatest hurdles slowing widespread adoption are the vehicles themselves. Tesla, for example, has suffered from numerous, highly publicized quality dilemmas, wanton price fluctuations and resultant de-valuing that has left new owners reeling. EVs also have a high scrap rate due to lightly damaged (but unrepairable) batteries. Not to mention, the fine print of tax incentives has made the final purchase price of all EVs slightly unpredictable.
While America and much of the world is focused on the glamorous appeal of new cars, there’s been notable oversight in comprehensively solving the issue of real world emissions.
Identifying other emitters and readdressing familiar ones:
Did you know that if you use a push lawnmower that’s older than the year 2000, it’s emitting as much greenhouse gasses per hour as ELEVEN cars? If not, you may also be unaware that its ridden brethren produce as much as THIRTY-FOUR cars. Later models are only marginally better…IE: polluting as much as FOUR new cars based on post-2012 EPA standards. While some reductions are continuing to be pushed for, the fight is ongoing…and largely under the radar of consumers.
Another overlooked subject is flex fuel vehicle conversions. Since the escalating cost of all new vehicles (regardless of powertrain) is already straining the finances of today’s citizens, shouldn’t conversions be considered a viable alternative? In spite of the naysayers, ethanol remains stubbornly compelling. Critics of ethanol often cite the reduced efficiency per gallon of ethanol compared to gasoline, but lazily omit startling pieces of information. For example, if a vehicle’s tuning is actually optimized for alcohol-based fuels instead of gasoline, the efficiency can be improved. In addition, while corn-based ethanol reduces greenhouse gas output by approximately 40%, ethanol sourced from cellulosic feedstock reduces emissions by a staggering 108% according to the the US Department of Energy (DOE).
Propane can also fuel existing ICE-powered vehicles with EPA-approved conversions. According to a study cited by the DOE, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of a vehicle converted to propane can be reduced by 13% with the added benefit of decreased operating and maintenance costs. Furthermore, petroleum use is slashed by 99% if the propane is derived as a byproduct of natural gas production. Very impressive data that broadens the scope and feasibility of our green ambitions with existing and accessible technology. While it’s a seemingly radical proposition, remember we also made the switch from leaded to unleaded fuels.
Even more noteworthy is the fact that most of the infrastructure required for converted vehicles either already exists or its construction is supported by federally-approved grants and incentives. None of this is as seductive as shiny new cars, I know. Even less exciting is that countless drivers regularly sacrifice vehicle efficiency simply with under-inflated tires. Doesn’t sound like a big deal? Well, the issue is serious enough to warrant a fine (per tire) in Britain. It’s a matter of both safety and economy.
To review: flex-fuel vehicles, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of lawn equipment and converting existing cars to renewable fuels can make a significant, positive environmental impact. The benefits are also cost-effective and don’t necessitate outright vehicle replacement. Speaking of which, why is it that cars are perceived as so disposable anyway? We’re not in Cuba, but c’mon!
The reason you hate your “old” car:
Allow me to familiarize you with a gentleman by the name of Alfred P. Sloan, Jr. The late Mr. Sloan was the chairman of General Motors for nearly twenty years. He is widely credited for fabricating the industrialist philosophy of “planned obsolescence”. His dictum originated in the 1920s and quickly took the corporate world by storm. With it came yearly model changes and branding tiers devised to keep American consumers hooked and perpetually anticipating the next “new” or “upgraded” thing. Of course, that all went hand-in-hand with aspirational buying and social climbing; and its tenets still influence the corporate world today. While the layman may dismiss it as myth, materials scientists and marketers know better. Why is it relevant?
In order to end automotive planned obsolescence, it’s crucial to fundamentally improve how entry-level and midrange vehicles are built. Better ways are already being used for discerning, well-heeled customers, but the masses remain undereducated. Beyond batteries, if you assume your brand new, EV is leveraging the most advanced manufacturing technology, you’re wrong.
Unibody chassis construction is antiquated:
The public likely wouldn’t realize it by the sheet metal, but the modern car isn’t that fundamentally different from a 1935 Chrysler Airflow. At least not in terms of manufacture. Unless you drive a full-frame pickup or SUV (and a few other exceptions), the average mass-market, contemporary car’s chassis utilizes unibody construction. It’s basically stamped metal sheets predominately held together with hundreds of spot welds. And every last weld is accounted for in the production budget. It’s cheap and relatively crashworthy, but without resorting to fancy engineering terms like flexural modulus…it has its limitations in terms of longevity and vehicle NVH (noise vibration and harshness) performance. The creaking of a 200,000 mile car isn’t in your imagination.
Now, if you go further up the strata, you’ll find more exotic chassis like space frames and monocoques. Both originated from the aircraft industry with space frames composed of welded tubing and monocoques created from autoclaved swaths of carbon fiber. These expensive methods are undoubtedly superior to unibodies which helps explain their proliferation amongst the upper echelon. However, there is middle ground and a palpable reluctance for the industry to move forward in new ways.
In 2008, famed Formula One racing legend, Gordon Murray CBE, won Autocar’s ‘Idea of the Year’ award for the cost-effective iStream process. It was a departure from many attributes of established, mass-production assembly processes while providing the durability and material quality of the premier, advanced methods. Industry executives are aware of his achievement and others promoted by MacArthur genius grant-winning physicist, Amory Lovins years earlier. Both innovators focused on using existing technology to enhance the quality of production cars while reducing their curb weight (and accompanying carbon footprint). Aside from the BMW i3 and the low-volume Volkswagen XL1 (both born from the ambitions of Lovins) there’s been a considerable lack of action taken by manufacturers…Perhaps, a detrimental demonstration of their aversion to ending planned obsolescence.
Why vehicle quality matters:
The cost to repair a car is trending upwards with little indication of decline. There are two components which contribute greatly to that. First, there’s the dysfunctional way technicians are paid as well as the rising cost of vehicle parts. Addressing both simultaneously will help promote efficiency within the industry ecosystem and contribute to lowering its carbon footprint. Once again, this escapes the scope of public knowledge and is bereft from the conversations of talking heads.
“Flag time” (or flag rate) is used behind the scenes of dealerships across the nation. It represents an estimated amount of time it takes to complete a repair. So, if the flag time for a repair is specified for two hours, that’s the duration of labor the mechanic will be paid for. It doesn’t matter whether it takes more or less time. It’s an imperfect system with instances where mechanics are able to both take advantage of over-estimates and lose on under-estimates. It also incentivizes part replacement rather than potentially more time-consuming repairs. This creates a problem because it contributes to higher invoices for customers and (costly) component scarcity. And obviously, the parts have to be manufactured and shipped…increasing their environmental impact. Now, you may assume that’s business as usual, but consider the following…
The steadily rising cost of parts and labor is forcing insurers into a corner. As a result, many cars that may have previously been repaired and put back into use are being written off as total losses. In addition, the National Insurance Crime Bureau has indicated that this conundrum is directly causing a measurable increase in vehicle thefts. As you can probably surmise, none of this is helping to prolong a vehicle’s lifespan or sustainability.
Revising flag time to adequately compensate technicians for repair work (rather than simply incentivizing part replacements) is key to stopping this vicious cycle. While demanding better built vehicles is imperative to discouraging further escalating parts, insurance and maintenance costs. Regrettably, once again, the eager propagation of EVs does not entirely circumvent these issues.
The big picture:
It’s apparent that our shift to renewable energy is not going to be as easy as wishing a new electric car into every citizen’s garage. In 2021, President Biden proposed replacing the entire US fleet of government vehicles with EVs only to arrive at a crushing reality.
Even for one of the largest economies in the world, the electric transition of roughly 600,000 vehicles would take at least a decade. Undoubtedly, it’ll take even longer for the over 200 million civilian vehicles on American roads currently…and exponentially longer for the over one billion globally. This is crucial because it means all the aforementioned, unresolved issues and poor decision-making will continue to haunt us for many years to come.
Does the evidence suggest we take an effective and holistic approach or impulsively place our bets on a more dramatic course of action? Now that you can see through the propaganda, the answer may be a bit clearer. Put simply, if we truly want to move towards a greener future with efficacy, we must be wiser than we’ve been. Our predecessors were more altruistic than we give them credit for. They gifted us with multi-generational, public transportation systems and infrastructure to help us to define our future. Thankfully, they didn’t just leave their Model Ts.
