As a Rivian owner, I've paid close attention to the improvements they've made to the recently released "Gen 2" vehicles and one of the many improvements included something I think hasn't received enough attention. Gen 1 Rivian's had fuse boxes that were located above the battery pack. This meant whenever it needed to be accessed for any reason, the battery pack needed to be dropped, which of course is quite labor intensive. Rivian moved this fuse box to under the battery pack with Gen 2 vehicles, which allows it to be accessed by service much more quickly and easily. The net gain is a win for everyone: the customer gets their vehicle back quicker, the service department gets better customer satisfaction scores, and the service department can turn vehicles around faster, leading to increased efficiency.
It got me thinking that as a guy that has always worked on my cars, I rarely, if ever, hear about a manufacturer implementing a design change for the sake of serviceability. As a shade tree mechanic, its extremely common for mechanics (from amateurs to professionals alike) to go on rants about engineering choices made by engineers that result in crazy labor-intensive service interventions for things that should be relatively straight-forward fixes. Examples are numerous:
1. Lexus 1UZ-FE V8 Engine Starter Motor - Unlike most starter motors (which are usually easily accessible from under the car and bolt right off/on), this one is uniquely located in the "V" of the engine, requiring one to disassemble and remove the entire intake manifold and associated wiring and harness;
2. VAG Group (VW/Audi/Porsche) 4.2 V8 FSI 32v Timing System - Unlike most engines, the timing system of this engine is located on the back of the engine, against the firewall. Generally, timing chains and gears are "lifetime" parts, but in this case, this engine had plastic timing chain guides that often failed, resulting in catastrophic engine damage. Because of the engineering decision to put the timing system on the back of the engine, to service it requires dropping the whole engine from the car. Because of the shocking failure rate of the timing system, and the exorbitant expense to fix it, cars with these engines have tanked in value.
3. BMW Battery Replacement (Various Models since early 2000s) - Unlike pretty much any other car, a battery replacement in a BMW is a needlessly complex and expensive process that requires a trip to the dealer. This is because changing the battery isn’t just a physical task; it requires registering the new battery with the car’s electronic system using a diagnostic tool, which, as you guessed it, is a proprietary BMW tool. Failing to do so can lead to electrical problems, incorrect charging, and other issues.
4. Pretty much anything built in the last 10 years or so - I'm being a bit facetious, but also kinda serious. More and more, cars are requiring expensive, proprietary hardware and software diagnostic tools to get them to run. Even if you know your way around a Doug Nash "4+3" transmission, it doesn't even matter - if you don't have the diagnostic tools that require a five-figure annual subscription, you're not driving your car, at least by your own hand. You have to go to the dealer and take it in the shorts sideways. Soon, the lube discount offered at the dealership won't even be for motor oil...
Rivian's decision to change their design was purely motivated by serviceability - feedback from the customer, through the service department led Rivian to make it far easier/cheaper/quicker to access the fuse box which of course benefits everyone. It got me thinking about how EV brands that lack the traditional franchise dealership network to sell and service their cars may have a distinct advantage not just from a sales experience perspective for the customer, but also from the service experience of the customer.
With the franchise model, the manufacturer is completely divorced from the servicing of the vehicle, making the franchised dealer network responsible for all repairs and services. One major disadvantage to this is that the manufacturer has very little incentive to make serviceability a primary design factor while creating a vehicle. Sure, there are no doubt some design considerations to this, but ultimately, it falls far below other factors like safety, fuel efficiency, emissions, NVH, etc. in priority. With all the considerations and regulations a manufacturer must navigate, many of them at odds, it's no surprise that serviceability receives almost no design consideration. The proof of this is clear - go work on a car before crash safety and emissions regulations (pre early 1970s give or take), and you'll marvel at space you have in the engine bay to replace spark plugs, pull off cylinder heads, and install exhaust manifolds, even on a massive 500 cubic inch Cadillac V8. Hell, sometimes you can stand inside the engine bay in between the front of the engine and the radiator while you work.
And make no mistake, I'm not advocating for a return to this; the gains we've made in safety, efficiency, and performance speak for themselves. I'm just highlighting the fact that modern manufacturers couldn't care less about making it easy to service a car since they have no financial incentive to do so. That is, unless they do, as in Lucid's case(and Rivian's and Tesla's case).
Can it be that the direct sales and service model gives manufacturers a leg up on serviceability because they're now directly responsible for repairing and servicing the vehicle they build? You would certainly think so. I can only imagine the amount of "constructive criticism" service techs at Rivian sent up the chain that most certainly made it to the top which influenced the fuse box relocation decision. Having worked briefly at a Ford dealership as a salesman and tech writer a lifetime ago (don't judge, I was 22 fercryingoutloud), I can tell you for a fact that Ford Corporate didn't care one iota about what the techs were seeing in the garage bays. They only cared about a design change if they were caught, i.e., were the subject of a recall or an NHTSA safety investigation (Ford "Exploders" rolling over with their Firestone tires).
I'm curious to see if others agree or have other thoughts on this.
It got me thinking that as a guy that has always worked on my cars, I rarely, if ever, hear about a manufacturer implementing a design change for the sake of serviceability. As a shade tree mechanic, its extremely common for mechanics (from amateurs to professionals alike) to go on rants about engineering choices made by engineers that result in crazy labor-intensive service interventions for things that should be relatively straight-forward fixes. Examples are numerous:
1. Lexus 1UZ-FE V8 Engine Starter Motor - Unlike most starter motors (which are usually easily accessible from under the car and bolt right off/on), this one is uniquely located in the "V" of the engine, requiring one to disassemble and remove the entire intake manifold and associated wiring and harness;
2. VAG Group (VW/Audi/Porsche) 4.2 V8 FSI 32v Timing System - Unlike most engines, the timing system of this engine is located on the back of the engine, against the firewall. Generally, timing chains and gears are "lifetime" parts, but in this case, this engine had plastic timing chain guides that often failed, resulting in catastrophic engine damage. Because of the engineering decision to put the timing system on the back of the engine, to service it requires dropping the whole engine from the car. Because of the shocking failure rate of the timing system, and the exorbitant expense to fix it, cars with these engines have tanked in value.
3. BMW Battery Replacement (Various Models since early 2000s) - Unlike pretty much any other car, a battery replacement in a BMW is a needlessly complex and expensive process that requires a trip to the dealer. This is because changing the battery isn’t just a physical task; it requires registering the new battery with the car’s electronic system using a diagnostic tool, which, as you guessed it, is a proprietary BMW tool. Failing to do so can lead to electrical problems, incorrect charging, and other issues.
4. Pretty much anything built in the last 10 years or so - I'm being a bit facetious, but also kinda serious. More and more, cars are requiring expensive, proprietary hardware and software diagnostic tools to get them to run. Even if you know your way around a Doug Nash "4+3" transmission, it doesn't even matter - if you don't have the diagnostic tools that require a five-figure annual subscription, you're not driving your car, at least by your own hand. You have to go to the dealer and take it in the shorts sideways. Soon, the lube discount offered at the dealership won't even be for motor oil...
Rivian's decision to change their design was purely motivated by serviceability - feedback from the customer, through the service department led Rivian to make it far easier/cheaper/quicker to access the fuse box which of course benefits everyone. It got me thinking about how EV brands that lack the traditional franchise dealership network to sell and service their cars may have a distinct advantage not just from a sales experience perspective for the customer, but also from the service experience of the customer.
With the franchise model, the manufacturer is completely divorced from the servicing of the vehicle, making the franchised dealer network responsible for all repairs and services. One major disadvantage to this is that the manufacturer has very little incentive to make serviceability a primary design factor while creating a vehicle. Sure, there are no doubt some design considerations to this, but ultimately, it falls far below other factors like safety, fuel efficiency, emissions, NVH, etc. in priority. With all the considerations and regulations a manufacturer must navigate, many of them at odds, it's no surprise that serviceability receives almost no design consideration. The proof of this is clear - go work on a car before crash safety and emissions regulations (pre early 1970s give or take), and you'll marvel at space you have in the engine bay to replace spark plugs, pull off cylinder heads, and install exhaust manifolds, even on a massive 500 cubic inch Cadillac V8. Hell, sometimes you can stand inside the engine bay in between the front of the engine and the radiator while you work.
And make no mistake, I'm not advocating for a return to this; the gains we've made in safety, efficiency, and performance speak for themselves. I'm just highlighting the fact that modern manufacturers couldn't care less about making it easy to service a car since they have no financial incentive to do so. That is, unless they do, as in Lucid's case(and Rivian's and Tesla's case).
Can it be that the direct sales and service model gives manufacturers a leg up on serviceability because they're now directly responsible for repairing and servicing the vehicle they build? You would certainly think so. I can only imagine the amount of "constructive criticism" service techs at Rivian sent up the chain that most certainly made it to the top which influenced the fuse box relocation decision. Having worked briefly at a Ford dealership as a salesman and tech writer a lifetime ago (don't judge, I was 22 fercryingoutloud), I can tell you for a fact that Ford Corporate didn't care one iota about what the techs were seeing in the garage bays. They only cared about a design change if they were caught, i.e., were the subject of a recall or an NHTSA safety investigation (Ford "Exploders" rolling over with their Firestone tires).
I'm curious to see if others agree or have other thoughts on this.
