Déjà Vu All Over Again
As Yogi Berra Would Say, “It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again”. I had the pleasure of attending the Detroit Section’s most recent Technical Meeting the other night (May 25th) on the future of the internal combustion (IC) engine. I was really “wowed” and intrigued by some of the new technologies and applications that are forthcoming to help IC engines meet current and future regulations and customer requirements. The speakers’ presentations and remarks did an excellent job covering the current and future states of the IC engine (for example, 75% of all engines produced today have four cylinders, and 95% of vehicles in 2020 will have IC engines). They also thoroughly explained the features and benefits of the available technologies and strategies for ensuring the future of the IC engine: smaller displacements, forced air induction, variable compression ratios, continuous and discrete variable valve actuation (VVA), cylinder deactivation (CDA), gasoline direct injection (GDA), low speed pre-ignition (LSPI) and a host of other acronyms and initialisms to warm the heart of many a gearhead. However, I was more than a little concerned that the discussion seemed to focus on the technical merits and challenges of all this whiz-bang, gosh-darn technology, without any mention of other considerations such as cost, durability, and process capability and quality. In fact, when I raised the question of the cost competitiveness of some of these technologies and their applications compared to other emerging powertrain strategies, the response seemed to be more of an afterthought than a primary concern. And that’s when I really began to worry about the diminishing value of lessons learned.
When I began my automotive engineering career over 40 years ago and was assigned to my first engine engineering program, performance requirements were the primary (perhaps only?) focus of my team. But as parts and assemblies were engineered, developed and tested, the resulting test “incidents” (we weren’t allowed to write “failures”) led to durability and reliability assuming a more important role in our efforts (and rightfully so). Shortly after that, with the rise of the vaunted Japanese products and their inherent quality (both automotive and non-automotive), the implementation of statistical process controls, key product characteristics (KPCs), and the Toyota Production System (TPS) moved to the forefront of everyone’s consciousness. Of course, with the deteriorating economic situation and increased competition faced by the domestic auto industry, product cost and piece price was the next challenge to be hurdled. And finally, just as I left the industry via early retirement, vehicle weight was no longer just a consequence of all the other vehicle design decisions being made, but instead was finally being recognized as a critical product characteristic because of its impact on vehicle performance, durability, handling, packaging and fuel economy.
So where does all of this rambling lead? To the realization, over the course of my 40-some year career, that the successful and properly-engineered automobile is a system of integrated parts, subsystems and controls that have many inter-related critical characteristics that must all be managed simultaneously. Just a vehicle cannot be engineered, developed and produced simply with an eye on performance or fuel economy, neither can the emerging IC engine technologies be engineered, validated and brought to production based on technical merit alone. Questions regarding cost, quality, weight, durability, reliability, serviceability, and a host of other critical criteria and requirements must all be considered together for any product to be successful in today’s marketplace. We do not have the time, money, or resources to develop these IC engine technologies without asking questions about these other product characteristics at an early stage. It’s a huge task requiring extreme attention to detail, communication and program management, but pursuing programs like these in any other fashion ignores the lessons learned from programs past.
That’s my take on how we need to manage any of the emerging technologies and product strategies in this industry. What do you think?
Tom Glennan
Vice Chair of Communications, SAE Detroit Section