The Industrial Revolution upended the largely feudal-agrarian model of most of the world. When the railroads arrived, this further disrupted society and created giants. The introduction of more refined mass production and the automobile, too, shifted the world. This time, the world was more ready for it, or at least it expected it. Sure, there was a global meltdown and two world wars, but you can hardly blame the cars for that.
For about half a century, the coolest thing you could be was a carmaker. They were the avant-garde of technology, and it’s no surprise that so many carmakers ended up making planes, though mostly to fight the global war rematch. Then jet planes happened, and chemicals, and computers. Suddenly, carmakers weren’t the hugely valuable companies they once were. At least, they weren’t until Tesla came along. The biggest innovation that Elon Musk brought to Tesla was not the electric car, but the idea of a car company being cool again.
This led every other car company to try to be cool in the same way and, I think it’s fair to say, it hasn’t worked. If you want a good example, you can just look at Stellantis. The automaker has abandoned fuel cells, and it’s now reportedly walking away from its Level 3 ADAS systems, instead trying to skip ahead to the next thing with the help of one of its acquisitions. Another company that has recognized the tech company conundrum is Volkswagen and its CEO Oliver Blume. He’s also the CEO of Porsche and has been taking flak for holding both jobs at once, so he’s likely to name a successor soon.
Volkswagen is also a company that would like Europe to slow-roll its emissions regulations, which is something that’s likely to net Stellantis hundreds of millions of dollars next year.
Stellantis Reportedly Shelving Its Level 3 ADAS System
There are five accepted levels of autonomy for cars, ranging from lane keep assist/cruise control (Level 1) up to not even needing a steering wheel because the car does everything (Level 5). The worst and probably hardest level is Level 3, which is hot garbage that makes no sense.
When Tesla became enormously valuable as a tech company and an automaker, it made every other automaker attempt to do the same. Suddenly, everyone was making electric cars (EVs), everyone was making Software Defined Vehicles (SDVs), and working on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
The problem, as many automakers found out, is that they were terrible at most of it. They were behind on electric cars, and almost no company was really responsible for its own software, having offshored its infotainment to Blackberry/QNX, and every other part of the car to various suppliers running their own specific systems. The job of the automaker, then, was just to try to make all these disparate systems work together.
[Ed Note: This is exactly what car companies do. I used to work at Chrysler — now Stellantis — and this whole gear about its “in-house” ADAS system development has me side-eyeing. The company didn’t even have an R&D department when I worked there, and anyone there would admit they’re generally not innovators, but rather fast-followers. A humongous portion of the innovation that did come from the company came from suppliers. It “shelving” its “in-house” Level 3 ADAS System probably means it’s no longer paying Bosch or Continental or whomever, though maybe I’m wrong and the PSA merger changed things. -DT]
Stellantis is a good example of a company that’s missed the mark in most areas. While it’s starting to build credible electric cars in Europe, its future plans haven’t yet come to fruition. It recently announced it was ditching its plans to make hydrogen fuel cells, which are currently built in Europe. Perhaps it’s not fair to blame the company for that since, you know, no one else has gotten fuel cells to work at scale.
The automaker also invested untold millions (billions?) into developing Level 3 automated driving software. Stellantis wasn’t alone. Volkswagen and Ford tried to get ahead of self-driving cars with Argo AI, but bailed pretty early. GM had its Cruise experience, which was anything but.
Now, according to this Reuters report, Stellantis is at least putting its Level 3 system on the shelf:
As recently as February, Stellantis said its in-house system, which is part of the AutoDrive program, was ready for deployment and a key pillar of its strategy. The company said the system, which enables drivers to have their hands off the wheel and eyes off the road under certain conditions, would allow them to temporarily watch movies, catch up on emails, or read books.
That Level 3 software was never launched, the company confirmed to Reuters. But it stopped short of saying that the program was canceled.
“What was unveiled in February 2025 was L3 technology for which there is currently limited market demand, so this has not been launched, but the technology is available and ready to be deployed,” a Stellantis spokesperson said.
The three sources, however, said that the program was put on ice and is not expected to be deployed. When asked how much time and money was lost on the initiative, Stellantis declined to say, responding that the work done on AutoDrive will help support its future versions.
The “limited market demand” piece is interesting here, as it does seem to me that there are people who do want a good hands-free driving system. Stellantis is such a randomly run automaker that it’s hard to draw larger comparisons, but the reality is that no traditional automaker has gotten any of this to work. Ford and GM tried to team up with a more Silicon Valley-style startup culture, but could not effectively run those businesses in a way that resulted in either successful or profitable operations. [Ed Note: And don’t forget “Porsche Digital.” -DT]
You could tell the party was over when car companies decided it wasn’t worth it to go to CES anymore. The flipside of this is true, of course. Apple tried to make a car before deciding that it’s too much of a hassle.
Volkswagen attempted to entirely in-source its SDV work by building out Cariad, which didn’t work either. VW eventually threw up its hands, and current CEO Oliver Blume partnered with Rivian to basically replace its own in-house operations. Post-Argo AI, VW has also teamed up with two different self-driving companies to create the tech for itself. It was a tough decision, but Oliver Blume makes tough decisions.
Oliver Blume Finally Seems To Be Giving Up The Porsche Job
You could definitely pay me enough money to be the CEO of Volkswagen Group. It would have to be a lot of money, though, because that job is too hard. You know what’s a hard job I’d love to do? CEO of Porsche. What an incredible car brand. I could go to races all the time… for work. I could have a 944 company car, which would be hilarious.
Oliver Blume was CEO of Porsche when he got tapped to try to rescue Volkswagen from itself. Did he stop being Porsche CEO? He did not, though he said it was only temporary. That was three years ago. I don’t blame him. Again, I would like to be CEO of Porsche. Other people have started to question the logic of that, and now it sounds like the hunt for a successor is finally on again.
The Porsche-Piëch owner family has held discussions with potential candidates for the top job at the German sports-car maker, the people said, declining to be named because the matter is private. Talks have progressed to one internal and one external manager, one of the people said.
Blume has led Porsche since 2015 and kept the position even after succeeding Herbert Diess as CEO of parent Volkswagen seven years later. His double role has been a source of concern for investors as the two carmakers contend with US tariffs, waning profits and declining sales in the key market China. Porsche has cut its financial outlook twice this year, while Volkswagen is in the midst of a restructuring process.
The smart money is on R&D Chief Michael Steiner, but I’m holding out hope for current Bentley CEO Frank-Steffen Walliser because Frank-Steffen Walliser is a rad dude.
Stellantis Spent Nearly $775 Million In Fuel Economy Penalties
The Hemi V8 is back, and the engine might start appearing in more of the Stellantis lineup, as the main reason it was fading was the corresponding need to pay millions of dollars in penalties (to competitors like Tesla) for all the engines it sold. President Trump has killed those penalties, partially as a counter to his tariffs, and few automakers are going to benefit as much as Stellantis, as David Shepardson reports:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in an annual report that Stellantis paid $112.3 million in June and $78.3 million in March in payments for shortfalls from the 2019 and 2020 model years. In total, Stellantis has paid $773.5 million since 2018.
Last month, NHTSA told automakers they face no fines for failures to meet fuel efficiency rules dating back to the 2022 model year under a law signed by President Donald Trump.
Automakers like Rivian and Tesla have been the recipients of some of these fines, so the good news for Stellantis is maybe bad news for them.
European Automakers Would Also Like A Break
I’m a baseball fan, which means I’m ok with the concept of working the ref (or, I guess, umpire). No human being is capable of purely rational, objective judgment 100% of the time (or, for Ángel Hernández, like 10% of the time). Influencing the ref is just part of the game.
Europe doesn’t have much baseball, but this applies to soccer, too. Maybe. I refuse to let on that I actually know anything about soccer.
As Reuters reports, the various EU car groups would like the EU to chill out on its latest emissions regulations:
European Union targets to cut CO2 emissions from vehicles, including a 100 percent reduction for cars by 2035, are no longer feasible, the heads of the automaking body ACEA and supplier group CLEPA said.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is set to host automotive sector executives Sept. 12 to discuss the future of the sector, which is facing twin threats of Chinese competition in electric vehicles and U.S. tariffs.
In a letter to von der Leyen, ACEA head and Mercedes-Benz CEO Ola Kallenius and Matthias Zink, CEO of powertrain and chassis at Schaeffler and CLEPA chief, said they were committed to achieving the EU’s net zero goal in 2050.
However, they said EU manufacturers now faced near-total dependency on Asia for batteries, as well as uneven charging infrastructure, higher manufacturing costs and U.S. tariffs.
The 100% reduction was probably never going to happen on time, so some of this was inevitable, tariffs or no tariffs.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
I guess it’s old school hip hop week. I made a subtle Luniz “I Got 5 On It” reference earlier today, so it’s been stuck in my head and now it’s maybe stuck in your head.
The Big Question
What’s the most technologically-advanced automaker of all time, in any period?
Top photo: Stellantis
I think Mercedes made new functions or technology available to more regular cars. I also put Volvo in that spot with seatbelts and always making cars safer.
It was dumb for us (the general “us”) to lump tech companies together. Software, hardware, and connectivity are not all the same thing. Heck, hardware design and manufacturing aren’t even the same. There’s overlap, but you shouldn’t be using software patches to solve hardware faults if you can avoid it.
A company that makes timesheet tracking software is going to (or at least should) run very differently from a semiconductor manufacturer, but they’re both considered “tech companies.”
To some extent, I blame Apple. They’ve had massive success by combining software and hardware, but they’ve done that by ensuring those things work well together. They’re rarely the first to market with a concept, but they make it work for the consumer. And that’s not how most of the tech sector operates, and the automotive companies, in their rush to be ahead, have largely taken the “startup” path.
Chrysler used to make missiles and rockets. Now they make just a Pacifica.
They also had an entry into the Space Shuttle program, called SERV. It wasn’t chosen, but it was far different than all the other entries.
Talk about a fall from the stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_SERV
that’s cool, but I believe peak-Chrysler to be the Chrysler Air-Raid Siren…. Yeah, its got a Hemi!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Air-Raid_Siren
Most advanced car for its time, the Owen Magnetic in the early teens. This car used an Entz electromagnetic transmission. It was a bit like a Toyota Synergy Drive (differential transmission) and the control system is pretty mind blowing considering the technology of the time.
For advanced automotive technology I’d suggest Lancia, as Cerberus mentioned, and of course (but surprisingly not yet mentioned) Citroën.
Who exactly said car companies need to be technology companies? Not the customer. Greedy boards of directors.
Customers want a reliable, right priced, vehicle and that is not accomplished by adding more technology.
Don’t forget Wall Street; Tesla’s absurd valuation forced a lot of companies to try to emulate their success because Line Must Go Up.
GM at any point in time, they’ve probably invented, scrapped, then had to reinvent more things in the history of the industrial age than any other company I can think of.
I still can’t believe they created the Lunar Roving Vehicles and then just abandoned them all up there. Classic GM. 60 years later and GM is still the only ones to put a man in the drivers seat on the moon.
That’d only hold if the 1969 model was cost-cut to total garbage and the last one from 1972 was finally what it should’ve been all along.
Except GM didn’t build them on their own.
Boeing was the primary contractor.
Relax, it’s a joke. Even joking though, GM still did some of the most unique & interesting work on the dang things either way (motor drive system, suspension, mesh wire wheels drive controller, etc).
GM has cancelled more technically advanced cars before they had a chance than most car companies have made. RIP 1987 Fiero and second generation Corvair.
I believe you mean the 3rd Gen Corvair.
We had a 2nd gen Corvair from 65-69
It was dropped in favor of the Chevy II/Nova and the upcoming Vega.
The most recent examples being the Bolt and the Volt.
Of course they wanted to be technology companies. Technology companies don’t have to make money, or manufacture physical products that work.
Stellantis has been a technology company this whole time.
Most innovative is difficult prior to a certain point (maybe 1920?) as there was so much variation and innovation going on, often dead-ends, but just as often too advanced for the technology of the period to work properly. Around 1920 or so, things like basic layouts were more or less becoming industry standard and closed bodies more common. With that in mind, I think Lancia with the Lambda would make a good case with unit construction, independent suspension, 4-wheel brakes, and narrow-angle OHC V4. Others were mainly innovative in a single area, like drivetrains, but I think the Lancia was more rounded in its innovation and in just how far ahead it was (decades in most instances). Doble, as mentioned below, was also highly innovative and I have a particular fondness for steam, but it was a dead-end technology and Abner was too much of a perfectionist to have any hope of making money on the enterprise and keeping steam around for longer. Ultimately, though, I don’t think he would have survived the onset of the Depression, anyway. Probably could have made more cars, but the disadvantages of steam over the already ubiquitous gasoline and the high prices/low profitability of the cars were just hurdles that were too high.
The whole thing about car as technology company was always stupid to anyone outside the C-suite and big investors who gamble their timing in what are essentially stock pyramid schemes, which is what the whole nonsense was about—making stock more attractive in the short term. It was a lie everyone agreed to believe was true enough to make money from until it inevitably failed. Huh, I guess in retrospect, they were more Silicon Valley than I credited them for.
I literally listened to “I Got Five on It” yesterday… one of my favorite old school trip hop jams.
When was Telsa cool?
The Model S was extremely in-vogue when it debuted 35 years ago.
Until recently investors seemed to think pretty highly of them.
There are effectively two levels of self-driving systems. The ones where the person behind the wheel is responsible, and the kind where the company that sold the self-driving system is responsible. Everything else is a distraction.
I would re-word the headline to say, “It was dumb for car companies to expect to become tech companies.”
Perhaps investors were pushing for this or just pushing for more innovation like Tesla and that was the path car companies chose to create the appearance they were going to be more innovative and catch up to Tesla. Maybe. Remember, everything the executives at large corporations say or do is to influence investor behavior for the benefit of their stock price and bonuses.
But also it’s good to point out that Tesla had massive influxes of cash from investors (not just people buying the stock) and those investors did not have an expectation of returns for a very long time. Legacy companies cannot ever expect that much leniency. They are the ones that are supposed to have the expertise and experience to turn it all around quickly. Because they (theoretically) have the resources to compete with the start-ups. But when your competition can burn money for years to figure it out, it’s hard to compete with that if you’re too focused on next quarter’s results or the annual shareholder’s meeting.
All of the noise about shifting the focus to be like a tech company was just that. Of course it wasn’t realistic. I just don’t understand why the shareholders keep falling for it, why the automakers play the silly game every time. It’s as though everyone involved just goes along with it knowing it won’t work. I really think our entire economy operates off of inertia and stupidity.
Also, editing to say I don’t enjoy baseball and do not watch it. At all. But even I know who Angel Hernandez is and understood the reference. How exactly does that guy keep his job?
Didn’t Ted Lasso make Soccer cool?
Roy Kent, Roy Kent. He’s here. He’s there. He’s every-fucking-where!
I loved driving as a youth. These days it’s a daily monotonous commute with left lane campers and Altima ballistic missiles weaving through traffic. I would love a level 5 ADAS where I could just take a nap and wake up when I arrive where ever I am going. Level 1-3 I couldn’t care less about.
Yeah, I’m at the point where driving is a chore too.
Duesenberg, hands-down. 200 horsepower 100 years ago? Amazing engineering, at a time when the freakin’ Freddy-Flintstone Model T was still being manufactured.
As for automakers trying to be “cool”, there’s one that hasn’t. They keep their heads down, work their asses off, and consistently make the best mainstream-brand cars in the world, and they have been doing it for about 40 years. This has given them a bit of a geriatric, plain-Jane, off-beige vibe in recent years, but the sales numbers don’t lie.
Is it Buick? It’s Buick, right?
I’m assuming it’s actually Porsche, but the mainstream thing throws me off.
No, not anymore. They were that for the forty year period before 40 years ago.
Well you know, I went and got old. I still think of Gone in 60 seconds as a new movie when it’s been 25 years.
We’re all in for one hell of a shock in two years when Star Wars turns 50.
Toyota?
Well yeah, it seems like they’re in a class by themselves, and have been for a while now. They always dial back from the limit, whether on horsepower, complexity, or anything else, incrementally building a bigger margin of quality, reliability, and safety. They don’t swerve off-course, they don’t take wild swings, and they don’t make waves. It’s as if Hank Hill was a car company.
Oh, wait, as if Junichiro (Hank’s half-brother) was a car company.
They are in a class by themselves because to a large extent their sales are based on reputation rather than actual observed quality, and that has been the case for quite a while now. It’s a self-perpetuating loop powered by confirmation bias.
I was thinking Duesenberg myself, thanks for that.
Chrysler in the 60’s. They had a freaking Rocket industry as well as an auto industry back then.
The very first thing my dad taught me about cars (in about 1973)- “Chyslers are engineered better than other cars.”
And then…they combined them to produce the epic Chrysler Turbine Car
Which lead to the M1 Abrahams main battle tank, still the best in the world.
We make the engines for those in Phoenix, AZ!
Turbines, right? Similar to helos?
Yup! Turboshaft engines.
I just found out my great grandpa had one of these for a bit. I had no idea until my grandpa dropped that random lore bomb on me last night.
They also had boats… don’t forget the boats!
https://www.hagerty.com/media/marine/chrysler-marine/
If car companies want to be more the tech companies, they just need to hire the people and tell them to develop thing. But, no rules and no budget limits (within some reason, of course). You don’t innovate within strict boundaries (except the laws of nature) and bean counters hovering over you.
Kelly Johnson and his team at the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works pioneered this way of working. I’ve been very fortunate to have a job where this mentality was permitted. Small team, big and fast results.
That’s pretty much what Tesla did to kickstart their technology. Many here may not like Tesla’s cars, but a lot of their tech and engineering is to be respected, especially their systems integration.
Great mention on Kelly Johnson. His process works wonders.
I feel like GM continues to show glimpses that they’re entirely capable of being that organization, until they inevitably shoot their own foot and devolve into being GM again.
I have to wonder if it’s their internal corporate infighting, need to try to out-stellantis-stellantis, and horrendously toxic work environments that lead to this destructive and erratic behaviour.
So I’ll fall back to say Honda because, at a fraction the size of the large automakers, they can still show us what’s possible (I mean, how many automakers currently have a jet and motorcycles?).
That’s been GM’s problem since the 70’s. Their engineers are effectively working miracles but it ends up all being for naught because Bob Bossman doesn’t like Bill Bossman.
“…but it ends up all being for naught because Bob Bossman doesn’t like Bill Bossman.”
Which has been Ford’s entire corporate structure since slightly after WWII.
True, but I’ll give Ford credit for occasionally recognizing when they have a decent vehicle on their hands and working to make it better. The Mach E and Maverick are recent examples of this. All of the Big 3 are mismanaged to an insane degree but Ford seems to be slightly more functional.
The Dobler steam car company was pretty dang advanced for its day.
Honda has consistantly pushed boundaries. CVCC, the NSX, the original Insight. All well engineered challenges to accepted thought.
Safety Tech? Volvo
Yeah, maybe not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbW2UgmjJUA
From May 27, 2015. I think it’s gotten a bit better since then.
top job at the German
sports-carsporty SUV makerFixed it. If I were the CEO, pretty sure I’d have a 968 Turbo S as my daily. Hell, I’d make them re-introduce it.
Stellantis shelving its autonomous driving program is the greatest unintended humanitarian act of this century.
Tucker was pretty ahead of the curve.
Was just getting ready to type this one, great answer.
Seconded.
That’s where I was going also.
This was my answer as well.
It’s dumb for anyone or anything to want to be like tech bros.
Have you ever gone to a food truck court in San Francisco? If you did, you’d know that the tech industry is not something you want to emulate or be a part of. It’s just a bunch of douches riding motorcycles and wearing leather to cosplay that they are “cool” people.
Agreed. To be fair, it’s not that they wanted to be tech bros. It’s that they saw money and also wanted the money and saw it as the best path to get it.