The new era in Detroit

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33034, 29 September 1972, Page 13

The new era in Detroit

Only a few years ago, the American motor industry’s annual newmodel showings were the high point of the year in Detroit. But the safety and pollution scares have changed all that.

The 1973 model previews have just been held, and this year the emphasis is on unglamourous safety moves and exhaust emission controls.

With hordes of Government officials constantly at their shoulders, some Detroit executives are grumbling that the American motor industry is now no more independent than public utility companies. According to James C. Jones, the Detroit bureau head for "•Newsweek” magazine and a man who has seen 23 annual "unveilmgs,” the usual feasts have been eaten (and drunk), the moguls have produced their standard superlatives, but from there on there have been major variations on the old pattern.

Fot one thing, “planned obsolescence"' is out. Nobody can afford the old three-yew styling cycle of an all-new car one year, a minor face-lift next year a major face-lift the third year, and then scrap the dies and start again. Most of the industry is going to a six-year cycle, and the result is a good deal less emphasis on cosmetic changes. There are a few tidbits for the diehard styling fans.

Pontiac, for instance, has a spectacular entry in its new Grand Am, a love-it-or-hate-it machine that is being compared to the abortive Tucker Torpedo of 1946. And there are minor frills as options in ludicrous profusion: swivelling bucket seats on Chevrolets, a slinglike spare-tyre extractor in Ford station waggons, a “panic button” alarm system on Chryslers, and an outside thermometer built into the rear-view mirror of Cadillacs. American Motors’ Gremlin comes in a “Levi” series with denim upholstery, complete with orange stitches and copper rivets, Jones writes.

For the most part, however, the significant changes this year are in safety features and intricate engine modifications needed to meet Federal Government rules on what can come out of the tailpipe. The devices may have been made in Detroit, but they were demanded in Washington, and they join a formidable list of items forced on Detroit in the last few years: head restraints, shoulder belts, engine blow-by devices, side marker lights, locking steering columns, fire-resistant fabrics, impact-resistant fuel tanks, and even coat hooks and glove-compart-ment latches designed for safety. Until now, the stress has been mainly on standardising features that were already available as options. But from here on, the safety of emissions standards are going to require

pure invention, which means large amounts of money.

The first such major innovation comes in the lowly bumper. For the 1973 cars. Federal standards require bumpers capable of sustaining without damage a 5 m.p.h. crash from the front and half as much from the rear. To meet the standards, Ford, Chrysler and A.M.C. chose mainly to beef up their old bumpers, reinforcing the metal and improving the mountings. General Motors, however, offers some intricate gadgetry in several basic designs. Some Cadillac and Chevrolet models have a bumpergrille assembly that absorbs shocks by swinging back into the engine compartment on a hinge. Pontiacs come with a hydraulic bumper mount (as in the diagram), and two Pontiac models have no visible front bumpers at all, but instead “soft noses”—front ends made of urethane that deforms on impact and returns to its original shape. The average cost of the new bumpers comes to nearly $lOO per car, and the industry is arguing with the Government Price Commission about price increases. But even if these are allowed, there will be modest compensations: Allstate Insurance has offered to reduce premiums by as

culation when the engine has not warmed up. Hopefully, this will make for smoother running. “What we’re doing now,” says one engineer, “is to do our best to achieve minimum emissions. After that, we’ll save what we can of performance.”

Even stiffer Federal standards loom beyond 1973, and Detroit insiders contend, with every sign of sincerity, that they do not know how to meet them. “How the hell can you legislate invention?” one executive stormed not long ago.

Sweet reason is surprisingly prevalent in Detroit these days. For the most part, the industry is willing to concede that it brought on its own troubles by ignoring what the public wanted, and the objections now being raised to the new rules focus on details of timing and cost rather than issues of principle. The Chrysler chairman, Mr L. Townsend, for instance, complains that this year’s massive investment in bumpers will have to be largely repeated next year to meet a new rule requiring all bumpers to be the same distance from the ground. “We say that that’s wasteful,” he says. “Why couldn’t we do part of them in ’74, part in ’75 and the rest in ’76?”