I always discount someone in a discussion, as you might w/ that engineering lead, when they point to the worst examples as the norm. Especially when they trivialize real efforts with things like "just tacking on X and using Y". There are arguments for methodical, and there are some methodical approaches happening outside the car industry, but to pretend that methodical is the same as opaque is folly. I think a more appropriate answer by that lead as to why it "seems" that way is due to the guardedness of the industry. Whether that manifests as safety or stagnation is a different discussion compared to what it appears like.
Until it's done correctly by any side, nobody is "right" and the way it seems or not is a PR thing. At the very least, one defending the traditional car manufacturers' approaches would at least concede the impetus might never had arisen, or not for a long time, with their closeted and often-unrealized research methods. Especially if it's counter to the traditional income funnel.
You can bet this is the kind of argument the car industry is making all over though. "They're doing it quick but we're doing it right".
The reality is that Silicon Valley is very very good at moving fast and building very high tech solutions very quickly. The car industry isn't exactly known for being fast movers and they were very slow to get on this bandwagon.
I'm sure Silicon Valley has a few things to learn from the incumbent car industry too but let's face it - the car industry is mostly just desperate not to have their lunch eaten at this point.
Until it's done correctly by any side, nobody is "right" and the way it seems or not is a PR thing. At the very least, one defending the traditional car manufacturers' approaches would at least concede the impetus might never had arisen, or not for a long time, with their closeted and often-unrealized research methods. Especially if it's counter to the traditional income funnel.