Carmageddon's Real Victim: Auto R&D Down $12b in 2009

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

The car business has endured a lot of bad news over the last several years, as finance-fueled sales crashed with the credit market, and automakers around the world scrambled for government aid. The so-called “Carmageddon” has touched everyone even remotely involved with the automotive industry, not to mention everyone who pays taxes, but from a strictly consumer perspective, it hasn’t been all bad. Certainly the deals have been good, as programs like Cash For Clunkers and the wind-down of several brands have helped savvy shoppers find some of the best deals in a long time. So here’s the reality check: according to Booz & Co.’s Global Innovation 1000 study, spending on research and development by the auto sector was down $12b last year. That’s $12b that should have been spent making your car faster, smarter, safer, cleaner, better that’s no longer being spent. Still feeling untouched?

And yes, this is a problem that’s unique to the auto industry. As one of the report’s authors tells Wards

If you look at the data, (auto makers) cut R&D to sustain their business models. As a percentage of their total revenue, it’s not just the largest dollar amount cut but also the largest percentage reduction of any industry we followed.

And he’s not kidding. In 2008, Toyota was the top R&D-spending company in the world. After a billion and a half dollars in cuts, they’re number four [memo to Toyota, update the file]. In fact, Volkswagen was the only major automaker to not reduce R&D spending last year, as most of the majors shed at least a billion dollars trying to keep their heads above water. It would be premature to predict the onset of 1970s-style automotive malaise based on one year of cuts alone, but unless all those missing billions were being wasted, their absence will be felt in new cars at some point.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 12 comments
  • Fusion Fusion on Nov 09, 2010

    Anybody know how these numbers are derived / calculated? I only checked for Volkswagen Group, but their annual financial report for 2009 states 5.429 Million € in "Research and Development cost recognized in the income statement" - which would translate to ~7,2 billion dollars (todays exchange rate).

    • Bertel Schmitt Bertel Schmitt on Nov 09, 2010

      On 12/31/09, the EUR bought 1.4333 USD (not too far from what it buys today.) Which translates into exactly 7.78 billion USD. In the words of a - sadly deceased - old school VW board member whom I remember fondly: "Never trust a statistic unless you forged it yourself." Next to saving on advertising, saving on R&D is a great and quick fix to make your books look better. Both will bite you in the butt a few years later. R&D savings have a much bigger bite.

  • John Horner John Horner on Nov 09, 2010

    " ... but unless all those missing billions were being wasted, .... "

    The law of diminishing returns certainly applies to R&D spending by the big companies. There is also the issue of making good use of global resources. Ford, for example, was duplicating efforts across a host of brands, platforms and regional development centers without getting a corresponding product return for all those billions being spent. Even post cuts, Ford spent almost $5B on R&D in 2009. That is a lot of money.

    Sometimes having too much money flowing through the labs and design studios can be just as bad as having too little.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next