Who you are

You're practical, not precious about your own ideas. You'll defend a design decision with data, and drop it just as fast when better data shows up.

You understand that automotive standards aren't a formality. Qualification, reliability, and durability requirements exist because failure in the field is expensive and dangerous, and you treat them as real constraints, not checkboxes to satisfy on the way to the interesting part.

You communicate problems before they become surprises. If a program is off track, you say so immediately with enough details that someone can act on it. Silence is the failure mode here, not an honest "this is behind"

Our Engineering Approach

Solve customer problems, not engineering puzzles. Great technical work becomes exceptional when it creates reliable products, enables meaningful new capability, and solves real customer problems.

Think in systems. Understand how your work affects the complete product and the people who build it. Make tradeoffs that improve the whole, not just your direct area of ownership.

Exercise judgment. Apply the engineering rigor the risk requires. Make timely decisions with the available evidence, communicate uncertainty, and balance technical excellence with program needs.

Raise the standard. Deliver quality work on time, improve how the team works, and leave the products, systems, tools, and people around you better than you found them.

About the role

This role is about taking mechanical designs to automotive-grade production. The bar is qualification: will this pass, will it hold up over the life of the vehicle, will it manufacture repeatably at volume. The schedule is real, and so are the consequences of missing it.

You'll understand the spec, including automotive qualification requirements, deliver against it, and say something the moment it's at risk. If a design won't hold up under vibration testing, or a supplier is slipping, we want to know at week one, not week six.

Good design and fast delivery aren't in tension here. We just don't reward cleverness that doesn't serve the spec. You'll have real input into design decisions and pushback rights when a spec seems wrong; this isn't execution-only. But if you'd rather defend your own solution than hit what the program actually needs, this isn't your seat.

We're open to a range of seniority, including someone who could eventually run the team. Seniority isn't the bar. Competence is: do you consistently deliver what you said you would, communicate clearly the moment you can't, and stay focused on what the program needs over what's interesting to you personally.

Areas of ownership

Mechanical design

• Lead mechanical integration of electric machines and powertrain hardware: rotors, stators, housings, shafts, bearings, cooling systems, structures, enclosures, interfaces
• Weigh in on design decisions and specs, not just execute against them
• Produce clear models, drawings, and specifications that others can build from without guessing

Analysis and validation

• Own DVP/DVP&R that connects requirements, including automotive qualification requirements, to actual evidence
• Run or guide structural, thermal, fatigue, and tolerance analysis at the depth the risk actually requires
• Contribute to DFMEA and design reviews
• Correlate analysis against physical test results

Production scaling

• Take designs from prototype toward automotive-grade production: repeatable, qualifiable, manufacturable at volume
• Apply DFM and DFA throughout, not as a final check
• Produce complete drawings and manufacturing requirements with correct GD&T and tolerancing
• Work with suppliers and manufacturing to resolve quality, cost, and assembly issues at production scale

Cross-functional work

• Work with Electric Machine Design, Power Electronics, Embedded Software, Controls, Test Systems, Manufacturing, and Program Management
• Communicate requirements, risks, and status without being asked
• Make tradeoffs and decisions visible to the people who need to know, and explain prioritization in terms of what the program actually needs

Technical foundation

You'll likely have working knowledge of some mix of the following:

• Mechanical design of complex electromechanical systems
• CAD, engineering drawings, design documentation
• GD&T and tolerance-stack analysis
• First-principles analysis and FEA
• Rotor dynamics, fatigue, or thermal analysis
• DVP/DVP&R and validation
• Automotive qualification standards (AEC-Q, ISO 16750, or similar)
• DFMEA or equivalent risk assessment
• DFM, DFA, and common manufacturing processes at volume
• Root-cause analysis and structured problem solving

Experience

A bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering or a closely related field, or equivalent demonstrated experience. Several years developing complex electromechanical, powertrain, rotating-machinery, or similarly demanding hardware, ideally including exposure to automotive qualification or production scaling.

Electric-machine or powertrain experience is a plus but not required. Strong backgrounds may also come from transmissions, aerospace, industrial machinery, energy systems, robotics, or any product where mechanical decisions carried real performance and reliability consequences.

What success looks like in year one

• You've moved at least one design meaningfully closer to automotive-grade production, on schedule, with limited avoidable rework
• When something was at risk, you flagged it early enough that it wasn't a surprise
• Your team trusts your prioritization because you can explain it in terms of what the program actually needs
• The programs you've touched are measurably better off for it

Compensation and Benefits

US Salary Information

$91,000 - $214,000