The Automotive Industry Has Two Ways Out Of Malaise 2.0

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

When people talk about the golden era of automobiles, especially muscle cars, they’re almost always talking about the 1950s and 1960s. Cars got faster and more powerful, even if the American automotive industry was making huge and inefficient vehicles compared to those made in Europe and Asia. Fuel was cheap, even after accounting for inflation, so why would anyone want to give up power or interior space just to use less fuel?

The nostalgia-laden era came to an abrupt end in the early 1970s. All this cheap fuel had a nasty habit of staying afloat in urban areas after it had been partially burnt in American cars, sickening the populations and ruining the view. Lacking the technology to do otherwise, car manufacturers had to respond to increased emissions enforcement by cutting back on engine power output. Then, added strains like smog pumps and catalytic converters were added, further reducing the power that made it to the wheels.

While all this engine hobbling was going on, the price of oil spiked. The well-known 1973 crisis needs no retelling, but the shorter term price spike and shortages led to a long-term trend of pushing customers toward more efficient vehicles when the prices didn’t go back down for almost a decade. Domestic manufacturers were particularly hard hit by this, because they had no experience building such vehicles.

This era, lasting from the early 1970s to the early 1980s, is commonly called the Malaise Era. Quality and longevity from the cars companies like GM, Ford, and Chrysler tried to produce during this time declined in big ways. Some of the most well-known automotive disasters, like the Ford Pinto that caught fire, the dying Chevy Vega aluminum engines, and the complete end of the muscle car, came at this time.

Most domestic automakers survived this era, but it cost them in big ways. By the time new technologies like electronic fuel injection, better catalytic converters, oxygen sensors, and new computer control systems brought the power back to the right pedal, Japanese and European automakers had already taken significant market share away from the domestics.

The New Malaise Era For ICE Vehicles & Early EVs

From the 1980s until the 2010s, technology kept improving. Despite increasing government mandates for fuel efficiency and emissions, vehicles kept getting more powerful. Sedans with over 200 horsepower became common, and SUVs with as much as 300 horsepower also became the norm. Variable valve timing, reliable turbochargers, and an increasing number of gears in transmissions kept power increases coming, even if this was sometimes accompanied by negative issues like turbo lag.

Engineers are starting to run out of tricks to keep ICE fuel efficiency improving, though. As engineers reach further and further into complexity, things haven’t always gone as planned.

One of the first real signs of a problem was the failure of GM’s Active Fuel Management (AFM), also known as Displacement on Demand (DoD). While turning off engine cylinders at cruising speeds had been tried in the early 1980s with mixed results, better computer technology made the idea viable again. But, as the engines with this technology have aged, many owners have been forced to remove the system to keep the vehicles running, and a class action lawsuit was even filed over it. It turned out that any less than perfect oil in the engine would foul the whole system up, crippling the vehicle.

Transmissions have been another challenge. As Nissan attempted to increase fuel mileage, the company turned to continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) that could theoretically provide an infinite number of gear ratios to do the best in every driving situation. But, as they aged, failures proliferated, soiling the Nissan brand and resulting in expensive warranty repairs and lawsuits. Other manufacturers have tried to implement computer-controlled dual clutch transmissions, which basically give the efficiency of a manual without the need to manually shift. But, again, this technology has proven unreliable for many drivers, resulting in lawsuits and expensive repairs.

EVs (the real answer to this debacle) haven’t been immune to problems, either. As traditional manufacturers got into EVs, early models had serious issues. The first generation Nissan LEAF suffered heavy battery degradation when Nissan tried to avoid spending money on a liquid cooling system. We’ve also covered the issues with Chevy Bolt EV and Hyundai Kona EV fires, which resulted in expensive recalls and lawsuits. CCS and CHAdeMO charging stations have had serious reliability problems. Even Tesla has had problems with service and reliability at times.

Performance is starting to be a problem, too. At the bottom of the market, there just isn’t enough money to keep paying for new technologies that keep vehicles fast and fun. Buick’s latest budget crossover was a great example I wrote about, showing that we’re going to start seeing declines in performance, just like Malaise 1.0.

Coming Out The Other Side Of This With Reliable, Efficient Vehicles

Now, we’re seeing two competing ideas on how to get out of this: go forward with EVs or go back to simpler ICE technology.

With the latest EVs proving to be quite reliable, this seems like the obvious answer. EV technology is not only efficient, but is far simpler than even the most reliable ICE vehicles (like this 2001 Suburban with 850,000 miles) from recent decades. As the technology continues to improve even more, we’ll start to regularly see EVs that hit the 1 million mile mark, providing fun and smiles the whole way.

But this is a problem for people who don’t want to see EVs succeed. Oil companies, petrodictators, and anyone else benefiting from combustion want to keep us looking backward toward the past instead of looking forward into the future. Lies about EVs, crippling extra registration fees that far exceed lost gas tax revenue, and attempts to prevent charging stations from rolling out can all be used to make EVs look unreliable or unachievable for the average person.

Letting manufacturers build simpler ICE vehicles like they did 20+ years ago would work well for cost cutting and reliability, but it would also halt and reverse progress on emissions and climate change. As much as I have a soft spot for the vehicles of yesteryear, there are plenty of running models still around (I know this because I have two in my driveway) for those who want one.

We also wouldn’t be doing the automotive industry any favors. As the rest of the world goes electric, pushing domestic manufacturers into a less globally competitive position would mean certain doom in the future at worst, and becoming smaller businesses that only sell in the US at best.

Featured image by Jennifer Sensiba.